Home Non Cigar Related

Puro's Rants

1356751

Comments

  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Yeah.. I wonder, too. So I look at it this way. Some patient has to pay money to some third party so that the third party can pay some doctor to administer care. The patient and the doctor are known entities in this equation. The third party can be a for-profit entity (one that expects to be paid more than it pays the doctor) or a not-for-profit entity (one that does not expect to be paid more than it pays the doctor). In this instance, I'd rather not line the pockets of the third party.

    And how is the poor kid getting cancer care? I didn't see that solution in your response? Donations and charity? This kid doesn't really get the publicity for that.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    Yeah.. I wonder, too. So I look at it this way. Some patient has to pay money to some third party so that the third party can pay some doctor to administer care. The patient and the doctor are known entities in this equation. The third party can be a for-profit entity (one that expects to be paid more than it pays the doctor) or a not-for-profit entity (one that does not expect to be paid more than it pays the doctor). In this instance, I'd rather not line the pockets of the third party.

    i can understand that. I also dont want to be paying into a failing social system that wont give me choices. when the system fails (and it will) what will we go to next? how will that help the poor kid with cancer?
    dutyje:
    And how is the poor kid getting cancer care? I didn't see that solution in your response? Donations and charity? This kid doesn't really get the publicity for that.
    many charities already have money saved up, or are able to take out loans to cover the cost and will let the person they are helping pay a smaller rate and many times not even pay back all of the loan. how does the kid get the care? walk into a hospital and get billed for it. in an emergency situation there are charities out there that will help. my wife does a bunch of work for St. Judes cancer research and care for children. every year she and her company bring in millions for this charity for just what you are talking about. none of the money is being stolen. It is all being donated by the free will of people.
    my problem is not giving money to help others, its being FORCED to do anything by the government.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    on a slightly related note: i dont know how you hit both of the charities that my family work for on the head. All you have to do is mention "Make a Wish Foundation" and "Big Brothers and Big Sisters" and you have the other charity that i raise a bunch of money for as well.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    dutyje:
    Bad Andy:
    ok, works for me. the market, consumers, supply, demand would allow for the prices to come down. the kid with cancer would not go without, people would not allow that to happen. there would be donations and charity groups to help, they help already, why would they stop.
    Donations and charity? What are you some kinda Commie? Capitalists unite! If that kid can't afford a half dozen aggressive rounds of chemo and a year and a half in the hospital in addition to a number of surgeries, they're just dragging down the economy.

    I wonder how many of Joe the Plumber's buddies would have to pitch in a hundred bucks to help out of one of his kids gets cancer? I hope he's got some rich friends. I'm sure a lot of people working minimum wage jobs are swimming in rich friends that can help them pull through a costly accident or illness.
    Since when did charity become a communist issue. They are already forking 'forced charity' by way of taxes. Atleast with donations you can donate the amount you want and to what cause you want. Taxes are taken by gun point and used in ways that we do not approve of already. How many kids are you supporting that you have not fathered...a lot.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    I don't agree that the system would fail. The only thing that is certain is that a large number of people will see it as a failure, and a large number of people would see it as a success.

    In my opinion, the difference comes down to the way people perceive and measure "success." Many people perceive any maintenance to the system as evidence of a failure. I disagree with this point of view. Just because I need to get new tires on my car after 40,000 miles, or new spark plugs after 100,000 miles, doesn't mean that the original equipment was a failure. If I continue to drive my car without ever changing the oil, I would expect it to break down. If I consider changing the oil a symptom that the car isn't working or that it has failed, I would be incorrect. The key to successfully managing the system is to monitor it for points of weakness, and address those, acknowledging that such points of weakness are inevitable. This is regular maintenance, not failure.

    Oh, I guess on that same note, then, I can forecast two more things: the system will not succeed as gloriously as its proponents would have you believe. Nor would it fail as catastrophically as its opponents would have you believe. The viewpoints and projections put forth by either party tend to be utopian (or dystopian), depending on their intended influence.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Bad Andy:
    dutyje:
    Bad Andy:
    ok, works for me. the market, consumers, supply, demand would allow for the prices to come down. the kid with cancer would not go without, people would not allow that to happen. there would be donations and charity groups to help, they help already, why would they stop.
    Donations and charity? What are you some kinda Commie? Capitalists unite! If that kid can't afford a half dozen aggressive rounds of chemo and a year and a half in the hospital in addition to a number of surgeries, they're just dragging down the economy.

    I wonder how many of Joe the Plumber's buddies would have to pitch in a hundred bucks to help out of one of his kids gets cancer? I hope he's got some rich friends. I'm sure a lot of people working minimum wage jobs are swimming in rich friends that can help them pull through a costly accident or illness.
    Since when did charity become a communist issue. They are already forking 'forced charity' by way of taxes. Atleast with donations you can donate the amount you want and to what cause you want. Taxes are taken by gun point and used in ways that we do not approve of already. How many kids are you supporting that you have not fathered...a lot.
    Yeah... I'd prefer to direct my charity donations as specifically as possible... that kid's ugly, he should die.. that kid's annoying, no money for him... That kid's mom is smoking hot and single, that's where I want my charity donation to go.
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,003 ✭✭
    dutyje:
    This "Joe the Plumber" has really caught on as a focal point in the campaigns.

    You can see his real story here. To summarize:

    1. The guy makes nowhere near $250K
    2. He would also make nowhere near $250K if he were to buy the business which isn't really even being sold to him.
    3. Even if he did manage to make $250-$280K, you'd still have to look deeper at the numbers to see if he would pay any more money in taxes.
    4. In all likelihood, if the business were pulling $280K, its additional tax outlay ($900) would be more than offset by other credits in Obama's plan, and he would still pay less annually in taxes than under current tax laws.

    So, in other words, no matter how you look at it, Joe the Plumber will be better off, financially, under Obama.

    I am so friggin tired of "Joe the Plumber." But I did read in the NY Times today that while his taxes would go down under both McCain and Barry Obama, they would go down more under McCain. Just saying.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    Here in Canada our Health Care system works just fine thank you very much. We do have problems with things like waiting times for CERTAIN tests and such but nobody is dying waiting or anything like that. If you are SICK you get treated NOW, if you are uncomfortable or not deathly sick you are treated as such. I am not going to claim that our system is better then anyone else's. I can tell you that we had no problems with the delivery of our health care system UNTIL after we signed the Free Trade agreement with the US. Suddenly there were "Dr.s" wanting to set up Private for profit Health Care Centers. There are some of these working right now and they have them integrated with the public system. What this all means is that within 10 -20 years our system will likely be overtaken by these for profit clinics. Do they provide better services? NO, all they do is provide a service in a manner which MAY be faster then the public system depending on the proceedure.

    Kuzi you mention..." not to mention that i dont want Uncle Sam to tell me who what when how or where i can/cannot see a doctor. if you think that wont happen, look at both Canada and England, where the system worked for a moment... then when it started to fail, as all socialized systems do, they tried to cut corners by denying health care to people that are a drain on the system due to their own behaivior. ...i.e. smokers in the later years of their life, alcaholics, people with terminal disease... this effects us". This is NOT the situation in Canada. We choose our own Doctors, and do NOT withold services from people with let's say non conforming lifestyles. Up here the way we see it is that when someone saw an opportuntiy to turn our healthcare system into a for profit healthcare system like in the States, that is when our troubles started. Now it seems like the politicians have bought into the idea as a good one. Well no surprise there... ever see a politician who wouldn't take advantage of a situation where they would not have to spend tax payers money on something which makes up a large portion of your budget year in and year out. While it may create an oportunity for wealth creation for the owners of these clinincs it does nothing to improve the health care in this country. If you can afford to pay you can get FASTER medical attention in some areas. Not better just faster for a profit medical services. If you can't pay you will still be looked after in the same fashion jusy not as quickly unless it is an emergency, then you are taken care of in order of priority. It was the government who set this system up and it has ran for decades in that fashion. It is only recently that medical services became a business for profit here and along with it came our present problems. Can't blame the government for that.
  • madurofanmadurofan Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    Yeah... I'd prefer to direct my charity donations as specifically as possible... that kid's ugly, he should die.. that kid's annoying, no money for him... That kid's mom is smoking hot and single, that's where I want my charity donation to go.
    So instead you'd rather the government decide?
    Well if you want to give money to ugly kids, then my town needs a six lane bridge across a mud puddle.
  • madurofanmadurofan Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭
    Thanks for the info Lake.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    Wow. You guys talk a lot. ;)
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    BTW, is there somebody who thinks either major party doesn't want to redistribute wealth?
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Laker, you're wrong.. you're unhealthy and you're dying, because you live in Canadialand... freezing to death in your igloo just like everybody else up there. Everybody from here to East Bumfuckistan knows it. That's not going to change until you start lining the pockets of the filthy rich and giving huge patents to drug manufacturers. Why can't you learn from the huge successes of our capitalist healthcare system? I hear they've all even got koodies up there, which we eradicated in the U.S. nearly a century ago through private practice.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    dutyje:
    Laker, you're wrong.. you're unhealthy and you're dying, because you live in Canadialand... freezing to death in your igloo just like everybody else up there. Everybody from here to East Bumfuckistan knows it. That's not going to change until you start lining the pockets of the filthy rich and giving huge patents to drug manufacturers. Why can't you learn from the huge successes of our capitalist healthcare system? I hear they've all even got koodies up there, which we eradicated in the U.S. nearly a century ago through private practice.


    Naaa ahhh ! :} LMFAO

    Why do you think we are so pissed. First what you said and now global warming is making our igloos all soft and messy. Koodies freeze you know...
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,003 ✭✭
    But cooties live forever...
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,003 ✭✭
    dutyje:
    Laker, you're wrong.. you're unhealthy and you're dying, because you live in Canadialand... freezing to death in your igloo just like everybody else up there. Everybody from here to East Bumfuckistan knows it. That's not going to change until you start lining the pockets of the filthy rich and giving huge patents to drug manufacturers. Why can't you learn from the huge successes of our capitalist healthcare system? I hear they've all even got koodies up there, which we eradicated in the U.S. nearly a century ago through private practice.

    Yeah, plus Canadian medicine sucks hards cause of the docs. They're always saying stuff like, "Looks like you broke you arm, eh?"
    "Let's get a scan, hoser."
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Luko:
    dutyje:
    Laker, you're wrong.. you're unhealthy and you're dying, because you live in Canadialand... freezing to death in your igloo just like everybody else up there. Everybody from here to East Bumfuckistan knows it. That's not going to change until you start lining the pockets of the filthy rich and giving huge patents to drug manufacturers. Why can't you learn from the huge successes of our capitalist healthcare system? I hear they've all even got koodies up there, which we eradicated in the U.S. nearly a century ago through private practice.

    Yeah, plus Canadian medicine sucks hards cause of the docs. They're always saying stuff like, "Looks like you broke you arm, eh?"
    "Let's get a scan, hoser."
    LMAO!! I need to use "hozer" more.... our friends across the street moved here from Calgary a year and a half ago. I tried to recruit him for the hockey team, but it's not going so well... apparently he's an excellent competitive curler, and is certified in laying/texturing curling ice. He'll be one of my future business partners when I open the first ever Charlotte Curling Club. I say "eh" all the time, and people make fun of me... not sure how I picked that up. Must be all these freaking Canucks down here.
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,003 ✭✭
    urbino:
    BTW, is there somebody who thinks either major party doesn't want to redistribute wealth?

    Well I did...but your question is rhetorical, ain't it? Now I just feel stupid. My folks always said I was naive. Look, the rich are already rich, so what's wrong with making them a little richer? On the other hand, you can't make the poor rich, too. Cause then everybody's rich and then we just have no context. It can't work.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    Only a Commie needs context, Comrade Luko.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    If you can afford to pay you can get FASTER medical attention in some areas. Not better just faster for a profit medical services.
    in medicine, isnt faster many times better?

    I have heard stories of boarder states in the US being overrun at times by canadians that want health care because of government issues and being denied treatment up there. iduno... if you have the money, you should be able to get it.

    i cant speak for your personal experience, i can only go off of the info that i have been given.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    urbino:
    BTW, is there somebody who thinks either major party doesn't want to redistribute wealth?
    that too is a valid point.

    i think that the party i want in the white house has a snowballs chance in hell of getting there.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    Luko:
    urbino:
    BTW, is there somebody who thinks either major party doesn't want to redistribute wealth?

    Well I did...but your question is rhetorical, ain't it? Now I just feel stupid. My folks always said I was naive. Look, the rich are already rich, so what's wrong with making them a little richer? On the other hand, you can't make the poor rich, too. Cause then everybody's rich and then we just have no context. It can't work.
    to things come to mind:
    1) there always have been and always will be poor people no matter what you do.

    B) can someone explain to me how you make the poor rich by making the rich poorer? i dont get it.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    All issues aside, it is nice to see a group of people has a serious conversation about things that matter. If we agree or not doesn't really matter. It's just nice to see people that are passionate and care. A toast to all of you guys. We have restored a little bit of my faith in the people of our country!
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    kuzi16:


    B) can someone explain to me how you make the poor rich by making the rich poorer? i dont get it.
    Why do people always talk in such extremes when trying to make a point? Kuzi I haven't heard hear or anywhere else, someone say that they want to make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Why did you go there? The fact remains that the poor could get richer without any impact on the rich. Let's try to keep things in perspective.

    As for you mentioning about Canadians along the border using hospital facilities in the Border States...can't say it doesn't / hasn't happened. People get medical attention in other countries for many reasons and expediency is likely one of them. Again because we are talking about individuals, don't make the arguement so universal. A few people using alternative medical services does not a new service make.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    laker1963:
    kuzi16:


    B) can someone explain to me how you make the poor rich by making the rich poorer? i dont get it.
    Why do people always talk in such extremes when trying to make a point? Kuzi I haven't heard hear or anywhere else, someone say that they want to make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Why did you go there? The fact remains that the poor could get richer without any impact on the rich. Let's try to keep things in perspective.

    As for you mentioning about Canadians along the border using hospital facilities in the Border States...can't say it doesn't / hasn't happened. People get medical attention in other countries for many reasons and expediency is likely one of them. Again because we are talking about individuals, don't make the arguement so universal. A few people using alternative medical services does not a new service make.
    i brought it up because lukos comment and a bit of stream of consciousness thing goin on. i wasnt suggesting that anyone here brought that up as a solution but as a general inquiry. I know there are people out there (in the world) that do think of that as a solution and i was genuinely looking for some insight to that thought pattern. Im not sure that i iterated that in a manner that was clear enough.

    people tend to speak in extreams when making a point to try and make it abundantly clear what the point is.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    kuzi16:
    laker1963:
    kuzi16:


    B) can someone explain to me how you make the poor rich by making the rich poorer? i dont get it.
    Why do people always talk in such extremes when trying to make a point? Kuzi I haven't heard hear or anywhere else, someone say that they want to make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Why did you go there? The fact remains that the poor could get richer without any impact on the rich. Let's try to keep things in perspective.

    As for you mentioning about Canadians along the border using hospital facilities in the Border States...can't say it doesn't / hasn't happened. People get medical attention in other countries for many reasons and expediency is likely one of them. Again because we are talking about individuals, don't make the arguement so universal. A few people using alternative medical services does not a new service make.
    i brought it up because lukos comment and a bit of stream of consciousness thing goin on. i wasnt suggesting that anyone here brought that up as a solution but as a general inquiry. I know there are people out there (in the world) that do think of that as a solution and i was genuinely looking for some insight to that thought pattern. Im not sure that i iterated that in a manner that was clear enough.

    people tend to speak in extreams when making a point to try and make it abundantly clear what the point is.
    I agree with that. I may have taken your meaning out of context. It is a real peeve of mine when people are discussing something contentious they always seem to talk in extremes. I agree with you that they are trying to make a clear point. However what usually happens is that the whole context of the conversation morphs into something different then they were originally talking about.

    Politicians do this all the time in order to inject some fuzziness, or blurr the lines of a particular subject so that they cannot be tied down to any singular arguement, therefore they can look to be never wrong.

    I apologize Kuzi... I didn't mean to jump on you, as you are as entitled to an opinion as anyone else of course. Just had a button pushed there...and reacted before the failsafe kicked in ;)
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    its all good. the debate on this forum is all in good fun. we arent out for blood. i take things with a grain of salt.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    sane:
    kuzi16:
    a police state? how so?
    I feel that McCain will continue down the same path that Bush has lead us down for the past 8 years. Bush has moved us closer to being a police state then any other president over the last 50 or more years.

    What makes me think we are moving towards a police state? well lets take the patriot act that was a big jump, and then we can look at Guantanamo, or the blatant push to allow spying and detaining of US citizens. You can also look at what the police are getting away with, look at the WTO protests in Seattle. There is also the problem with private military gaining power and influence in the US.

    Those are just some reasons why I think we are moving towards being a police state.

    I'm sorry but I've got to go back to this one. I work in law enforcement and the fact that you think the police "get away with" so much bothers me. Do you know how many good cops lose their jobs or get sued everyday just for doing their jobs and saving someone elses ass? Some ass hole steals a car and wrecks out and kills an 80 year old woman and the police department gets sued for not stopping the car before it happened! And yes, that is a true story.
    McCain doesn't wish to turn us into a police state. He wants to take the precautions that are neccessary to keep our country safe and to make sure we can all live without fear everyday that the person sitting next to you in the bus doesn't have a bomb under their coat! I don't want to live like the people in Isreal do! Never knowing if you are going to be blown up by some nut job while you eat out with your family. And most of all I don't want my son growing up having to deal with those fears.
    Yes I'm speaking in extremes but I mean every word of it because these are extremem times. If you think thats "too far out there" well let me ask you this. On Sept. 10th 2001 would you have believed that a group of 19 men would have hijacked planes and completely taken down BOTH World Trade Center towers and hit the Pentegon and killed thousands of Americans in one attack? Imagine what other "extremes" they would be willing to go to just for the sake of killing Americans...
  • j0z3rj0z3r Posts: 9,403 ✭✭
    PuroFreak:
    If you think thats "too far out there" well let me ask you this. On Sept. 10th 2001 would you have believed that a group of 19 men would have hijacked planes and completely taken down BOTH World Trade Center towers and hit the Pentegon and killed thousands of Americans in one attack? Imagine what other "extremes" they would be willing to go to just for the sake of killing Americans...
    Just to play devil's advocate for one second... Do you really think that Sept. 11 happened "just for the sake of killing Americans"? That screams of ignorance to me, no offense.

    Let me explain my point of view by turning the tables on the point. If you were a resident of a small country and your country was invaded, bombarded and literally torn asunder by a much larger, richer country with far, far greater military superiority, how would you deal with it? You can't fight them in the trenches because they deal with your rpgs and assault rifles with .50 caliber humvee mounted machine guns and remote launched patriot missiles. So how do you, a poor countryman, stand up to that?

    Terrorism does not just go one way, and the attacks against our towers pale in comparison to what has been done in the past to some of these countries. Our continued support of Israel in itself could be deemed an act of State-sponsored terrorism. And how about those missiles we launch from many miles away that they can neither see coming nor know when they are coming until they are there? I'd say that counts as "instilling terror". Oh but wait, it's not terrorism unless a Muslim does it, right?

    This argument I keep hearing that says followers of Islam hate us for being us is ridiculous. The truth is that some people in some countries, who happen to subscribe to the Islamic faith, hate us for what we do to them, not simply for who we are. And that includes our overt military actions as well as the vast amount of military support we give to countries like Israel so they can deal out an ass-whooping or two.

    If all you do is think in extremes, then we are getting nowhere fast. And it is thoughts like these that will eventually lead us into a police state.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    j0z3r:
    PuroFreak:
    If you think thats "too far out there" well let me ask you this. On Sept. 10th 2001 would you have believed that a group of 19 men would have hijacked planes and completely taken down BOTH World Trade Center towers and hit the Pentegon and killed thousands of Americans in one attack? Imagine what other "extremes" they would be willing to go to just for the sake of killing Americans...
    Just to play devil's advocate for one second... Do you really think that Sept. 11 happened "just for the sake of killing Americans"? That screams of ignorance to me, no offense.

    Let me explain my point of view by turning the tables on the point. If you were a resident of a small country and your country was invaded, bombarded and literally torn asunder by a much larger, richer country with far, far greater military superiority, how would you deal with it? You can't fight them in the trenches because they deal with your rpgs and assault rifles with .50 caliber humvee mounted machine guns and remote launched patriot missiles. So how do you, a poor countryman, stand up to that?

    Terrorism does not just go one way, and the attacks against our towers pale in comparison to what has been done in the past to some of these countries. Our continued support of Israel in itself could be deemed an act of State-sponsored terrorism. And how about those missiles we launch from many miles away that they can neither see coming nor know when they are coming until they are there? I'd say that counts as "instilling terror". Oh but wait, it's not terrorism unless a Muslim does it, right?

    This argument I keep hearing that says followers of Islam hate us for being us is ridiculous. The truth is that some people in some countries, who happen to subscribe to the Islamic faith, hate us for what we do to them, not simply for who we are. And that includes our overt military actions as well as the vast amount of military support we give to countries like Israel so they can deal out an ass-whooping or two.

    If all you do is think in extremes, then we are getting nowhere fast. And it is thoughts like these that will eventually lead us into a police state.

    Ok, I understand you were trying to play devils advocate but if you REALLY examine all the facts you did a rather poor job. All but a couple of the Sept 11th Hi-jackers were from where? Saudi Arabia... How many bombs have we EVER droppped on that little *** hole of a country? How many times has Isreal attacked the Saudis??? Hmmm... The excuse of us attacking them is old and played out and doesn't even hold up 99% of the time. If the terrorists from Sept 11th were from Iraq then ok, you might have a point. Or even if they were from some other country we have bombed. Ok, say they were from Afghanistan, we never attacked their pissy little country until after Sept. 11th.... WE HELPED THEM BEAT THE RUSSIANS!!! How the hell is that considered an act of terror on the Muslims???

    Also I don't believe that only Muslims are terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist without a doubt! The scientist who they believe mailed off the Anthrax letters was a terrorist. Bill Ayers is a terrorist... Or an activist if you ask his buddy Barry Obama. The fact is plain and simple that Islamic extremists do want to do us harm and kill Americans. There is no way to spin that without just straight out lying. But on the other hand, no, not all Muslims want to harm us, but we have to take action and make sure we are safe here at home. It is a real theat to us and to our children and no amount of appeasment or sympathy will change that.
Sign In or Register to comment.