cuckaroucha

[quote who="Moosetek13" reply="453" id="2353169"] Let's see... 3% of 6.6 billion is around 198 million. Covering 50,000-60,000 people would be spending around $4,000-$3,300 each? Hasn't the White House come up with figures closer to $6,000 per person per year? Seems like SF is doing something right if they can do it that cheaply. But they are only average numbers, after all. Personally, I don't go to doctors or seek medical

well the big thing is really nuclear weapons. We probably have a nuclear sub wandering around near korea, so if they start shelling Seoul, they could recieve substantial enough damage from the nukes to bust them into submission. Just because a country CAN do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yeah, Kim Jong Il is pretty crazy, but he's not crazy enough to do something that will cause the country he's giving to the sun to get destroyed.

The Utility of Force is a good book. It basically argues that all war now is "amongst the people" where many conventional weapons are useless. For example, the author, Gen. Rupert Smith didn't use artillery when fighting in Northern Ireland. Why? The purpose was to win the support of the people, not flatten their cities. Why would China want to go to war with us? They already have so much of our debt that they can destroy our currency practically overnight, so us declaring wa

[quote who="psychoak" reply="408" id="2351684"]More like Bankrupt San Francisco. You guys were half a billion in the hole last year, nearly half of your total discretionary spending. Your two year old program is sitting on a shrinking tax base with expanding costs. Those aren't the right directions to be going. You'd be in the same condition the federal budget is in if it weren't for that pesky requirement that they balance it.[/quote] You didn't read my post.

[quote who="Melchiz" reply="402" id="2351528"] Also, here's something we should consider: If this year's attempt at reform fails, what happens? What would a reform bill need to contain in order to pass? Keep in mind that the Democrats could easily pass reform themselves. This isn't a "Republicans aren't cooperating *grumble*" issue.[/quote] Then I think I'll just stay in San Francisco where I can get universal health care (provided my income is less than 52k if I'

[quote who="psychoak" reply="368" id="2350468"] In addition, you suggest that those who don't make a lot don't deserve the same high quality treatment that the rich can get. I'm suggesting you do some very simple math, along the lines of two plus two equals four. My grandfather consumed far more resources than he created in his life, period. Bill Gates has done much for society with the products he's brought about, and been rewarded in kind. Bill

[quote who="the_Monk" reply="360" id="2350399"]In the words of my husband the_Monk....."He's a dick", meaning you....I concur. [/quote]This will degrade my posts, but this is really true.

[quote who="Moosetek13" reply="364" id="2350456"]I hope you realize that some (many) believe that 'what's best for all' only means 'what they believe in their own belief system', and that some of those will use any means necessary to force their belief on you - even to the point of beheading you while you are still alive with a very dull knife, if you don't subscribe to their belief system.[/quote] Um, she said "respecting individual liberties. I don't believe what you say about

[quote who="psychoak" reply="357" id="2350377"] Second, you're assuming that it's a good idea government pays for all those costs. Medicare is what created the rapidly increasing cost, the time line is quite obvious. Each expansion, including the one Bush made, has increased the rate at which new treatments are created, due to the increase in viability through government funding. There would be no aids coctail without medicaid for instance. No one with aids, aside from

I'm seeing multiple people post various reiterations of the statistic, "2/3 of all health care costs in a person's life are spent during the last 6 months." Average life expectancy in the US is 77.9 according to the latest statistics, and medicare kicks in after living for 65 years, (among other qualifications) so we can safetly assume that a vast majority of these cases are paid by medicare. I've also seen the argument about not paying for another person's surgery a lot, because of A

I'm curious as to how many of you have heard of Wendell Potter. He formerly had the top PR job at CIGNA until he retired recently. He testified before the senate about the motives of the for-profit insurers: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/Potter%20Commerce%20Committee%20written%20testimony%20-%2020090624-%20FINAL.pdf I would strongly encourage anyone who is interested in the health care debate to read his testimony. Comments o

[quote who="Leauki" reply="245" id="2347424"] 1. I have seen pictures and talked (in person, on location) to Kurdish victims of Iraqi gas attacks. 2. We used 13 years of diplomacy. 3. The US remained in Germany for over 50 years. 4. The Iraqi civil war was already ongoing before in the invasion. The media just didn't report about it. I have heard, again, in person, on location) reports from Kurds who had to flee to the mountains every few years in the 198

Yeah, I realize that we have higher survival rates for cancer (out of those diagnosed for cancer) and have a higher standardized life expectancy. But in Britain, for example, doctors get a raise if they have their patients practice a healthier lifestyle. So how would you get the american people to practice a healthier lifestyle? Personally, if a public option had over 50% of the public on it, I would give tax rebates based on how much a person excercised, and deny said tax reb

[quote who="Aroddo" reply="241" id="2346881"]How did this discussion drift to Iraq? I lost the thread somewhere ...[/quote]well, to help us get back on track, here's a couple talking points for you anti reformists: Posts #124 #126 #136 #218 You're avoiding the point. My point was that if, as you say, the government pursues its goals in p

um...what? you want me to go through every single war in the history of the US and claim that it's not a "just war"? edit: nevermind. I was wrong. The only war I can think of that would be a just war (that was declared by congress) would be world war two. see? it's not hard to say you're wrong. But it is pretty easy to attack someone for a specific wording choice in a sentence instead of debating the gist of the post. Oh well.

Because wikipedia is suddenly a viable source, let's look at the conditions for a "just war" the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of mo

You know, I think that if we truly were a "judeo-christian" nation, we wouldn't go into any war. Why? One of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not kill." You can't get any clearer than that. Anyways, Rep. James Forbes (the guy who gave the speech talking about Obama saying America wasn't judeo-christian) actually supports the Iraq War. I would think that a deeply religious person who really believed in "though shalt not kill" would be against any form of war a

[quote who="Melchiz" reply="226" id="2346309"] Quoting cuckaroucha, reply 225 As for number two, opinions and interpretations change over time. The jucial branch essentially exists to interpret the constitution, and obviously interpretations are going to change just as guns transform from muzzle loaded muskets to something you can conceal in your pocket. This point is a major issue of contention amongst Constitutional scholars. You should be wary of stating it as fa

[quote who="Melchiz" reply="220" id="2346218"]Someone is seriously quoting JAMA in a political discussion? It's not like the AMA has a political agenda, right? And it has nothing to do with the majority of physicians in the US, either, or the AMA would be pushing harder for tort reform. If you want less BS, consult the American College of Surgeons or other specialist-based agencies.[/quote] My god, stop being a douche with thoughtful discussions. The AMA opposed government run healthc

There's multiple differences between the United States Constitution and a Health Care bill. The health care bill is longer. The constitution was written over 200 years before the health care bill. let's look at number one. The constitution covers more topics with less page space. Of course it's not going to include every single detail about how the government is supposed to be run, that's why it delegates the powers out to the legislative, executive, a

[quote who="Melchiz" reply="217" id="2346102"]I wasn't aware that the American workforce was stricken by some sort of plague as of late.[/quote] You're avoiding the point. My point was that if, as you say, the government pursues its goals in pursuit of self interest, why isn't it actively pushing for a healthier public? And by the way, we have more of most diseases than other Western countries. I don't have the statistics right next to me, I think it was from the BBC though.</

[quote who="Melchiz" reply="213" id="2346069"] To assume that foreign aid is selfless charity is to be ignorant of the persuit of international self-interest. See: The Marshall Plan.[/quote] so having a healthy workforce isn't in pursuit of domestic self-interest?

[quote who="Primal Zed" reply="205" id="2345977"]@ Aroddo If a person felt the moral obligation to provide goods and services to the less fortunate, there are plenty of avenues available for this that are not controlled by the government. People being morally obliged to aid others has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not such aid is a 'right' to those who cannot provide it for themselves. In short, it should not be up to the government to force the peop

The August 20th Daily Show Interview covers cost on a limited scale, but mostly covers the "death panel" debate. Clips are a little broken up, so to watch the entire interview, scroll down to the part 1 interview and then do the part 1 and 2 at the top. http://www.thedailyshow.com/ At the beginning of the Part 1 at the top, Stewart reads the controversial passage, lets McCaughey respond, and then says she has it completely misinterpreted. After relistening to th

[quote who="Melchiz" reply="144" id="2343902"] Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 143 Nice cop out. Anything you don't feel like answering, or simply can't answer, is just not important enough for your limited time, right? Considering that I have to stand up against a tag team of ideological allies, it is quite time-consuming. It is difficult to debate an opponent who is outnumbered and afforded no courtesy, yes? Also, you call me a troll and then hop threads to co