1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

State of The Union

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Fenian_Bastard, Aug 17, 2006.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Nope. I didn't recommend anything about the allocation of health care. You should reread what I posted, if that is what you're attributing to me.

    I will say, though, that in the aggregate Americans are unhealthier than ever. Type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in this country because of an out-of-control obesity problem. Heart disease has risen dramatically. Yet, in the aggregate, people feel a sense of entitlement when it comes to health care. The two don't jibe with each other.

    You can obscure those facts by making me out to be the bastard who called out the fat people and smokers. I honestly don't give a shit if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle. That's their choice. But I do give a shit when those same people bitch about the cost of health care and advocate things that pin that cost on everyone.
     
  2. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Instead of blaming fatties and smokers, what really needs to happen is to get a national health care plan, administered by regional bureaus, into place as soon as possible.

    The current system fails in many ways and simply won't be functional in 15 to 20 years.

    And yes, this means everyone pays. For those who whine, tough shit. Some of us have been paying for health insurance since we got out of school simply because we had no choice.

    You have to insure your car. You have to insure your home if you want a loan. Being required to insure your health so that every other taxpayer doesn't have to pay for your emergency care is simply basic.
     
  3. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Ragu
    I don't think that most citizens in western democracies consider programs like universal health care and social security as "an entitlement." That's kinda Dickensian and quasi-Calvinistic.

    The problems associated with unhealthy living can be addressed by education.   Smoking is considered socially unacceptable----as opposed to 20 years ago--through education, social policies and legislation.
     
  4. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Not everyone owns cars or homes nor can they afford to. It's not relevant to the health care argument.

    No one should be denied basic health care because they can't afford it. That's "simply basic".
     
  5. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    At some point, for the sake of argument, you have to turn your assertions into public policy. How would you do that?
     
  6. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    So are you saying the government should pay for it? How, pray tell, is this going to happen?
     
  7. Nobody in the U.S. is denied basic health care.

    Having insurance cover everything medical is the equivalent of having your car insurance cover the cost of an oil change.
     
  8. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    There would still be deductibles, etc. No one is saying the insurance should cover everything, except for the people who want to cling to the same failing system until it dies.
     
  9. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    While it may seem at first that you are actually trying to advocate personal responsibility, you missed a few things.

    Yes, but there are more people entering the workforce and while quite a few are retiring, there is significantly more replacing them. The whoe idea that Social Security is a drain is only brought about through repeated raping of the program.


    While there are always people that look for handouts, you should recognize that an increasing amount of companies neglect to pay for healthcare. More and more are going the Wal-Mart route of paying low wages and then asking their employees to chip in more than they can afford for healthcare while simultaniously donating money to Republicans that look to limit the public access to health care.

    Sorry, but adding the two doesn't computer.

    I do agree with this to a point. But at the same time, this drop the Twinkie strategy and pick up a dumb bell requires the time for such things.

    Yes, and at the same time, we are not allowing people to die in the streets from diseases that we have a cure of already.

    Technology often reduces costs. No longer do doctors need to guess and hand out medicine after medicine only to discover the cause after the person is dead. Now, run a few tests and, presto, the cause is there. Give the person Pill X and send them on their way.

    And don't give me this "people run to doctors for every little thing." That's crap. I don't know a single person and don't know of any statistic that backs up the claim about people that go running to the doctor when they get a sniffle. Sure, women run to the doctor's office when the feel a lump in their breast, but is that really something sinister?

    The president isn't fucking people over. The president is choosing to ignore what people are entitled to: a healthy life. You can argue that it costs money, but if you, in the general conservative Republican sense, cry to the heavens about the life of the fetus and how abortion is murder, how can you not provide healthcare to someone that is walking down the street with poisons in their body?
     
  10. westcoastvol

    westcoastvol Active Member

    He clutched the commander-in-chief's podium with a kung-fu grip normally reserved for when you're getting fucked in the ass for the first time. He stared at the teleprompter, then glanced down at the notes on the paper on the dais. "Dayum, them's some two an' three-dollar words they wrote for me," he exhaled. "Okay, might as well get this over with."
     
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    They are entitlement programs, particularly in the case of social security, which redistributes wealth and is structured like a ponzi scheme. Very soon, we are not going to have people paying in enough to meet its obligations. I'll refer you back to the CBO report I posted from earlier. In the case of health care, a universal program inevitably means choices that many people don't want to face.

    They are entitlement programs in that they are not things that government was every expected to provide for, until relatively recently and they are things that government by its very nature, can't provide efficiently. Still, if a majority of people really want those things to fall under the scope of government, I can live with it. Where I get aggravated is when people refuse to approach them in realistic terms. If you want social security to stay as it is, are you willing to get reamed in taxes in the coming years to support the baby boomers--even without the guarantee that the generation after us will do the same? If you want a comprehensive government-run health care plan that covers everyone, are you willing to fork over the majority of your paycheck to cover it? If not, can you live with it being less than comprehensive? Are you willing to wait months, even years, for simple procedures, as your government program makes the choices for you?
     
  12. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    I think the scariest thing might be that El Busho is down to 37 percent in SOUTH DAKOTA.

    Blanket abortion ban, South Dakota.

    Haven't voted for a Democrat since FDR, South Dakota.

    Yipes.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page