U.S. Politics

Page 299 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Hopefully you will never need any major medical procedure in your lifetime. But if you ever do the last thing on your mind will be taking the low bid.
Hell no, I won't have it in the US. I'll go to Canada, where my wife is from and where they have a health care system that puts the best interests of the patient ahead of the best interests of the profit margin. Imagine that.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Nothing to do with my sensitivities, you can use Barry all you want. I was just wondering if you were aware of the fact that Barry is used by the racist right as a derogatory term based on his "Kenyan" name. (If you don't believe me, read the comments on The Hill or Free Republic sometime.) I don't think you knew that, which is fine, and I don't think you were using it in that sense. "Boy" was a hint, it wasn't directed at you per se.

But in that vein:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/12/what-president-obama-should-and-shouldnt-say-in-the-state-of-the-union/

Not surprising - Rs are all for it until it's linked to Obama, then they're against it. In other words, they hate Obama, and just Obama, not his policy. And there's no doubt in my mind that much of that has to do with racism - even today, a majority of Republicans refuse to believe that he is American.
Much of Obama's problems with the other side are of his own making. Maybe it's rooted in racism for some and if that's true then that's horrible. But I don't think that has much to do with it. Had Hillary won and crammed Hillarycare down the R's throats and gone on to be as divisive as Obama the R's would be fighting her every move. Then, of course, it would be because she's a woman... it can't possible be that there's honest disagreement.

Obama's opposition doesn't trust a thing he says and why should they? He's actively trying to destroy the opposing party. It's not real hard to understand the sentiment.

A good analogy is the drone situation. Your side is apoplectic over water-boarding, but killing people (including Americans) with drone strikes is A-OK... unless it's Bush (or anyone else with a R after their name) in which case you'd probably be calling for impeachment or worse.

Democrat=Good
Republican=Bad
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
Chill, I'm just asking a question: if it's not guns, what's driving it? Why do we have - by far - the highest rate of gun-related homicides? My theory is that we have a much higher rate of gun-related homicides because we have a ****load more guns than everyone else. What's yours?
Pull your head out of your ass and stop looking at the world through your lib colored glasses. Take away all the murders using guns in the U.S. and the U.S. still has a higher murder rate than pretty much all other developed countries. Think about that for a second. Then add in a goodly percentage of murders that were done with guns but would have taken place by other means if a gun could not be obtained.

The U.S. is a violent country. The vast majority of the murders are criminals killing other criminals. They cannot exactly make contracts and go to the People's Court and have Judge Wopner solve their disputes, so they use the only means they have of solving disagreements: They kill each other.

If you want to do something about the murder rate in the U.S. then put a big dent in the crime problem. That pretty much means do something about the illegal drug market. But, noooo, you are too wrapped up in trying to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to even acknowldge the obvious cause of what you are whinging about.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Hell no, I won't have it in the US. I'll go to Canada, where my wife is from and where they have a health care system that puts the best interests of the patient ahead of the best interests of the profit margin. Imagine that.
So that's how our healthcare system works?? Really?

I was commenting somewhat in jest before... but you really do want doctors, anesthetists, nurses, hospitals to operate for free.

I guess if they did that then healthcare costs would go down some. Maybe we can get big pharma to produce drugs and give them away to everyone in need.

Is that how they do it in Canada?:rolleyes:

BTW, do you pay taxes in Canada? If not, why would you expect the Canadian taxpayer to pay for your needs?

I hope you pay Canadian taxes otherwise you help confirm what most think of Liberals.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
BroDeal said:
Pull your head out of your ass and stop looking at the world through your lib colored glasses. Take away all the murders using guns in the U.S. and the U.S. still has a higher murder rate than pretty much all other developed countries. Think about that for a second. Then add in a goodly percentage of murders that were done with guns but would have taken place by other means if a gun could not be obtained.

The U.S. is a violent country. The vast majority of the murders are criminals killing other criminals. They cannot exactly make contracts and go to the People's Court and have Judge Wopner solve their disputes, so they use the only means they have of solving disagreements: They kill each other.

If you want to do something about the murder rate in the U.S. then put a big dent in the crime problem. That pretty much means do something about the illegal drug market. But, noooo, you are too wrapped up in trying to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to even acknowldge the obvious cause of what you are whinging about.
It really has nothing to do with solving problems. Anti-gun crowds are fine with a high murder rate as long as it's not "guns" that "do" the killing.

Velo already has stated that people can't be controlled vis-à-vis committing crime (or identifying mentally ill), but somehow they can be controlled with respect to using a gun.

I don't think he actually can see the juxtaposition.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I was commenting somewhat in jest before... but you really do want doctors, anesthetists, nurses, hospitals to operate for free.
Is that how you think it works? You've got some research to do.

BTW, do you pay taxes in Canada? If not, why would you expect the Canadian taxpayer to pay for your needs?

I hope you pay Canadian taxes otherwise you help confirm what most think of Liberals.
Oh I don't actually qualify. But having lived under both systems, I'd take the Canadian version over the US any day.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It really has nothing to do with solving problems.
Yeah, actually, it does. You just don't like the necessary solutions.

Anti-gun crowds are fine with a high murder rate as long as it's not "guns" that "do" the killing.
And you're fine with a much higher murder rate, period, especially if it's by guns.

Velo already has stated that people can't be controlled vis-à-vis committing crime (or identifying mentally ill), but somehow they can be controlled with respect to using a gun.
er, no, I said that there is one factor in the chain of violence that we can exert some control over, and those are the inanimate objects. Guns. Ammo. We control explosives and gases and everything else that poses a public hazard, with the exception of guns. Well past time that we start viewing guns in the same way.

I don't think he actually can see the juxtaposition.
I don't think you can see through those ideological filters. 2nd Amendment!
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BroDeal said:
Pull your head out of your ass and stop looking at the world through your lib colored glasses. Take away all the murders using guns in the U.S. and the U.S. still has a higher murder rate than pretty much all other developed countries. Think about that for a second. Then add in a goodly percentage of murders that were done with guns but would have taken place by other means if a gun could not be obtained.
You remind me of these two dudes I read about in an article in the Post the other day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/this-gun-rights-backer-armed-with-his-glock-and-his-blog-is-always-on-alert/2013/02/02/2467d81e-6c87-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_story_1.html

A couple of hours later, the two men dig into dinner at a fancy Italian restaurant, both of them choosing chairs that let them face the entrance.

“Look at the way Robert and I are facing,” Kenik says. “Crime happens everywhere. There’s no place to feel safe.”

“That’s your opinion,” Farago says, distancing himself a bit.

“It’s in the back of my mind,” Kenik says.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I hope you pay Canadian taxes otherwise you help confirm what most think of Liberals.
What most think of Liberals? Really? You must just mean most of your friends, since according to the most recent election Liberals are the majority.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Is that how you think it works? You've got some research to do.

Oh I don't actually qualify. But having lived under both systems, I'd take the Canadian version over the US any day.
Is that how you think it works? You've got some research to do.
Actually no, that's not how it works... in the real world. But that's your goal. And it's not directed at doctors except how "profit" effects cost of care. It's directed at Bankers except they "make" too much money. It's not directed at business owners except they "gouge" their customers.

You have trouble with profit. I get it.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
What most think of Liberals? Really? You must just mean most of your friends, since according to the most recent election Liberals are the majority.
I'm guessing "most' people that voted D last time don't identify themselves as being Liberal. Perhaps I'm wrong.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Actually no, that's not how it works... in the real world. But that's your goal. And it's not directed at doctors except how "profit" effects cost of care. It's directed at Bankers except they "make" too much money. It's not directed at business owners except they "gouge" their customers.

You have trouble with profit. I get it.
So are you comfortable arguing that in particular, in the years just leading up to the financial crisis of 2008 (such as it was) that profit became and end in and of itself? There's no issue there from your point of view?

To what degree are businesses required to provide useful--often even competent, let alone humane--services at the same that they receive profit? This is setting aside the issues that you associate with the Warren quote and talking strictly at the level of what a business receives relative to what it provides.

You're totalizing one position out of many separate issues.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Actually no, that's not how it works... in the real world. But that's your goal.
er, no, how it works in the the real world is that the health care systems like that in Canada and France and Germany are much, much more effective than ours, and none of them are free. You really need to take off the ideological glasses and see the world for what it is.

You have trouble with profit. I get it.
What I have trouble understanding is insisting that we stick with a system that doesn't work and never will for purely ideological reasons when there are far more practical, effective, and efficient systems available.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
aphronesis said:
So are you comfortable arguing that in particular, in the years just leading up to the financial crisis of 2008 (such as it was) that profit became and end in and of itself?

To what degree are businesses required to provide useful--often even competent, let alone humane--services at the same that they receive profit? This is setting aside the issues that you associate with the Warren quote and talking strictly at the level of what a business receives relative to what it provides.

You're totalizing one position out of many separate issues.
So are you comfortable arguing that in particular, in the years just leading up to the financial crisis of 2008 (such as it was) that profit became and end in and of itself?
I see. The profit motive caused the 2008 meltdown. Okay.

To what degree are businesses required to provide useful--often even competent, let alone humane--services at the same that they receive profit?
The market usually sorts this out. Take the porn industry for example. If there's a demand it will get met. Your definition of useful, competent and humane will be different than mine.

You're totalizing one position out of many separate issues
And you are looking at this clinically when capitalism is often anything but.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I see. The profit motive caused the 2008 meltdown. Okay.



The market usually sorts this out. Take the porn industry for example. If there's a demand it will get met. Your definition of useful, competent and humane will be different than mine.



And you are looking at this clinically when capitalism is often anything but.
So, it's impossible to open up a separate or alternate line of possibility without it being shut down. No wonder this thread is so long with so many redundancies of the same. Didn't say it "caused" it, asked the degree to which you wanted to entertain the possibility it was a factor.

If and when that might be the case why should profit be held up as a good rather than a negative.

No, Scott. The market doesn't sort these things out. The market doesn't exist autonomously, one. Two, following from that, most limits placed on the porn industry do not come from within the market.

That aside, the porn and the medical industries are just that then? Relative examples, each should just be sorted on the market?

As you last point, obviously, but there is capital and there are capitalisms, and the two need not be made equivalent. And there's no reason not to be clinical and critical; especially not when so many just celebrate human nature as the bedrock for capital formations.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
er, no, how it works in the the real world is that the health care systems like that in Canada and France and Germany are much, much more effective than ours, and none of them are free. You really need to take off the ideological glasses and see the world for what it is.

What I have trouble understanding is insisting that we stick with a system that doesn't work and never will for purely ideological reasons when there are far more practical, effective, and efficient systems available.
Problems were identified with our system. Solutions to those problems were almost never discussed, much less implemented. All in favor of a government dependency system. Why? Is the idea of the individual being in control of their own healthcare choices really that threatening to you?

How do you know our system never would have worked? You don't, but you don't trust most things where there is little bureaucratic apparatus acting as controller. You just can't wait to be told what you can and can't do. Personally, I don't get it.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
aphronesis said:
So, it's impossible to open up a separate or alternate line of possibility without it being shut down. No wonder this thread is so long with so many redundancies of the same. Didn't say it "caused" it, asked the degree to which you wanted to entertain the possibility it was a factor.

If and when that might be the case why should profit be held up as a good rather than a negative.

No, Scott. The market doesn't sort these things out. The market doesn't exist autonomously, one. Two, following from that, most limits placed on the porn industry do not come from within the market.

That aside, the porn and the medical industries are just that then? Relative examples, each should just be sorted on the market?

As you last point, obviously, but there is capital and there are capitalisms, and the two need not be made equivalent. And there's no reason not to be clinical and critical; especially not when so many just celebrate human nature as the bedrock for capital formations.
Hey, nothing's perfect, not even profit.

If you think market forces and the profit motive have not been a huge boon to the medical field over the centuries then you are just wrong.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Hey, nothing's perfect, not even profit.

If you think market forces and the profit motive have not been a huge boon to the medical field over the centuries then you are just wrong.
Well, if that's the case, why waste months complaining about unemployment, etc. Plenty of people are still making profit. You are aware of those figures?

So no problem. Profit's not an independent entity. It's a construct that's agreed upon. Seems there are slightly fewer people in agreeing on it these days in the conventional terms.

I think until the last couple of centuries that power (understood here as separate from monetary wealth) was equally at work in driving the medical "field," which, by the way, wasn't really a field in your sense until the last couple of centuries, as were other socio-cultural factors that didn't--or don't--always fall under the rubric of "profit."

But again, and here's the question, a boon to the field or to the field and its objects of treatment. What's the valid distribution there? Would you say it's still the same now under current market conditions?

Saying any of this is not to defend Obamacare (or Hillarycare had it been), as that's obviously not the type of reform needed.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I'm guessing "most' people that voted D last time don't identify themselves as being Liberal. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Part of that would have to do with the attempts leading up to the 2004 election (if not somewhat earlier) by the Republican party to make the term into a caricature, a slur and a politically feckless position. Of course there was truth in that and some who felt themselves targeted by that didn't help matters with the inconsistencies of their positioning.
 
Sep 30, 2010
202
0
9,030
Had out-patient surgery a few years ago and this is how the bill was broken down:

Anesthesiologist $ 250.00
Surgeon $ 750.00
Hospital $5500.00

I arrived at the hospital at 6:30 am and was out by 11:30am.


What is wrong with this picture?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
aphronesis said:
Well, if that's the case, why waste months complaining about unemployment, etc. Plenty of people are still making profit. You are aware of those figures?

So no problem. Profit's not an independent entity. It's a construct that's agreed upon. Seems there are slightly fewer people in agreeing on it these days in the conventional terms.

I think until the last couple of centuries that power (understood here as separate from monetary wealth) was equally at work in driving the medical "field," which, by the way, wasn't really a field in your sense until the last couple of centuries, as were other socio-cultural factors that didn't--or don't--always fall under the rubric of "profit."

But again, and here's the question, a boon to the field or to the field and its objects of treatment. What's the valid distribution there? Would you say it's still the same now under current market conditions?

Saying any of this is not to defend Obamacare (or Hillarycare had it been), as that's obviously not the type of reform needed.
Well, if that's the case, why waste months complaining about unemployment, etc. Plenty of people are still making profit. You are aware of those figures?
Yep. I don't know what your point is here.

So no problem. Profit's not an independent entity. It's a construct that's agreed upon. Seems there are slightly fewer people in agreeing on it these days in the conventional terms.
Sure. Until those that don't agree on "it" are effected. Take Velo for example. I'm guessing he does not look at his income as "profit" to him personally.

But again, and here's the question, a boon to the field or to the field and its objects of treatment. What's the valid distribution there? Would you say it's still the same now under current market conditions?
I'm not real sure the field and its objects of treatment have to be divorced from one another. GE didn't develop the Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine solely for profit, but it never would have seen the light of day without it (or the potential for it). How many lives worldwide do you think that machine has saved? GE is routinely trashed on this very board for no other reason than the are a big corporation.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
gobuck said:
Had out-patient surgery a few years ago and this is how the bill was broken down:

Anesthesiologist $ 250.00
Surgeon $ 750.00
Hospital $5500.00

I arrived at the hospital at 6:30 am and was out by 11:30am.


What is wrong with this picture?
You have the ability to pay.

What did I win?
 
Scott SoCal said:
Yep. I don't know what your point is here.



Sure. Until those that don't agree on "it" are effected. Take Velo for example. I'm guessing he does not look at his income as "profit" to him personally.



I'm not real sure the field and its objects of treatment have to be divorced from one another. GE didn't develop the Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine solely for profit, but it never would have seen the light of day without it (or the potential for it). How many lives worldwide do you think that machine has saved? GE is routinely trashed on this very board for no other reason than the are a big corporation.
You said profit's imperfect. One of its imperfection means that profit can continue without "economic growth" that translates into employment.

If that's how you let things go.

I don't look at my income as profit either. It's something I have to deal with in order to keep living and to be able to do the work that I want.

The flip side to that are that the machine would eventually have been invented one way or another. A history of devices would indicate that much.

Alternatively, how many people's lives have been imisserated because hospital or medical policies and procedures demand that they have MRI's even when they have no immediate means of covering the procedure.

Worse still, those who do need the procedure and can't pay.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
VeloCity said:
Hell no, I won't have it in the US. I'll go to Canada, where my wife is from and where they have a health care system that puts the best interests of the patient ahead of the best interests of the profit margin. Imagine that.
That is a little bit of crazy talk. I have lived both systems and there are some advantages of the Canada system but most of what I have found is this.

It depends on where you are for what type of doctors care you can get. For example in Newfoundland there are not many experts that want to be on this island. So it is impossible to get good care for something like a SHATTERED FINGER. I know because it happened to me.

I went to my General Prac. doctor who sent me to the Hospital for X-ray's. They say it is broken / compound fracture basically shattered and you need to see a surgeon. Guess what.... surgeon decides that I can wait for a week. Makes an appointment that I had to wait 3 hours past the actual time and when I do see him ...HE says...long story short...It is already healing up the way it is ...no need for surgery.

I went on vacation to Japan. I bump it in the airport handling my luggage. Decide that the pain is too much so see a doctor on the next day. No appointment just walk into a orthopedics's office and 45 minutes later. I get x-rays and told that I have to have surgery immediately or else my finger is as good as nothing.

So what type of care you looking to get Velo??? I hope you don't wind up in some place within Canada where all the doctors decided to go into America to make money!
I would put the x-ray up but I don't know how to upload a pdf to my photobucket account. I will photo it tomorrow maybe and put it up.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY