How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Rhinox]

Swamp, just stop right there. I've tried to explain this to them for the past 4 pages, and it's not going through. Somewhere in their universe doctors are volunteers for the betterment of society and people who work for money and make decisions for money are automatically corrupt.

Oh I'm sorry. I must've missed the part where Doctors stop getting payed in these bills or taking pay cuts.

Fact is Guartz by law these companies need to make a profit first and foremost. everything else comes second.

[guartz]

And why do you think that is swampy? You like using the post office example a lot. Obviously there is a niche there the Post office isn't there to make a profit and is relatively cheap yet people still choose Private over public. and what exactly are these Insane things you speak off.

choice isn't the right word. Certain things have to be mailed via u.s.p.s. "HAVE TO".

Although if the private market this take over us postal, then they'd probably fire all the overpaid employees and actually turn a profit. Huge baaw from the union might ensue.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Scroll up and you'll see the answers to your middle paragraph. And I doubt we would be paying exorbitant fees if all government interference was eliminated.

You're right, if the government doesn't step in to protect the consumer yet can be lobbied to pass legislation strictly for the market forces, who by no fault of their own have millions upon millions of dollars of influence, everything will be just fine and dandy.


You call progressives idealists for thinking that we can heal the world, you're certainly an idealist if you think a free-wheeling, non-regulation, let's roll the dice mentality will make things better.

And I scrolled up, to your little remark about the military having to deal with the free market in way.... public healthcare wouldn't. It's a system of providing, there is equipment and consumables it needs to provide that service.

Also, if the constitution said we have the authority to "have it" in respect to public healthcare you wouldn't have this opinion? You wouldn't dissent you would accept it? You would vociferously defend it if our founding fathers put that in the constitution?

[guartz]

Oh I'm sorry. I must've missed the part where Doctors stop getting payed in these bills or taking pay cuts.

Fact is Guartz by law these companies need to make a profit first and foremost. everything else comes second.

and who made that law? See where I'm getting at here?

[Rhinox]

I didn't realize I had any on this board, I'll look them up and edit this post. And it would seem by now the post office would have found a way to try and break even, not get worse. I mean wtf.

believe it or not I have respect for what you have to say. that being said I still think you're bat shit crazy for your economic views and views on healthcare.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

and who made that law? See where I'm getting at here?

The questions is who influenced that law. People with lots and lots of money who owned businesses that made millions of dollars and influenced politicians.

It's not the governments fault, it was the representatives fault. And now we're trying to represent the people, you know as in "We the people".

The problem here is you people tend to point at the government like it's the big pink elephant in the room, when it's the banks and corporations. The government is peanuts.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Also, if the constitution said we have the authority to "have it" in respect to public healthcare you wouldn't have this opinion? You wouldn't dissent you would accept it? You would vociferously defend it if our founding fathers put that in the constitution?

I wouldn't call it un-constitutional, but for economic reasons I would still oppose it.

And here's a link to the insane stuff since it's a new page now. The Health Care Bill

Edit: I missed your first paragraph, it's the politicians job to not give into "wig makers" so that insurance companies MUST cover wigs. The people would just have to vote in people who would reverse those laws.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I wouldn't call it un-constitutional, but for economic reasons I would still oppose it.

And here's a link to the insane stuff since it's a new page now. The Health Care Bill

So if I said for economic reasons I oppose having a military, we can be a neutral economic marketplace like Switzerland and put that money elsewhere you would respect that stance?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So if I said for economic reasons I oppose having a military, we can be a neutral economic marketplace like Switzerland and put that money elsewhere you would respect that stance?

I respect all stances, but I don't know that I would agree with it.

[Rhinox]

and who made that law? See where I'm getting at here?

activist judges the Supreme court is filled with them. unfortunately most tend to lean heavily to the right.

[guartz]

The questions is who influenced that law. People with lots and lots of money who owned businesses that made millions of dollars and influenced politicians.

It's not the governments fault, it was the representatives fault. And now we're trying to represent the people, you know as in "We the people".

The problem here is you people tend to point at the government like it's the big pink elephant in the room, when it's the banks and corporations. The government is peanuts.

ah right, the government is actually a flawless idea, it's just we need to elect good representatives. Nevermind the whole notion on limiting the government, hell, let's get a huge government and everything will be okay if only noble hearts are allowed in.

[Rhinox]

ah right, the government is actually a flawless idea, it's just we need to elect good representatives. Nevermind the whole notion on limiting the government, hell, let's get a huge government and everything will be okay if only noble hearts are allowed in.

we get it you're an anarchist. Government bad

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

ah right, the government is actually a flawless idea, it's just we need to elect good representatives. Nevermind the whole notion on limiting the government, hell, let's get a huge government and everything will be okay if only noble hearts are allowed in.

Government is the description of a system in place that is meant to care for a nation or union. Yelling government like "fire" is not helping anything, it's not adding anything constructive to the argument.

Personally I think we'd have a better shot gambling with enlightened monarch - Google Search than we do with democracy. And let's be fair, democracy is a gamble.

If you lower the walls the barbarians come storming in, the problem we have with our system is the barbarians have been let in the back door and are running the castle so your point is a moot one at best.

Proponents of limited government have far more of an agenda in mind than proponents of social systems. This is true purely by definition.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm glad were a republic and not a Democracy, yet. Democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I respect all stances, but I don't know that I would agree with it.

You see, it's a sick duplicity our country is infected with. In my mind a wise investment in protection of our citizens resides in healing, whereas in your it resides in killing.

That's a very bold statement and could be interpreted as insulting, but where my constituency wants money in science, education, and healthcare yours wants money in guns, religion, and guns.

The funny part about that is the root is both of our sides have a deep seeded distrust of humanity in general. Your team is most resistant against the physical aspects of human nature, where ours is against the intellectual.

I'm not saying right is dumb left is smart, but if you look closely we want protection against the craftier people that would take advantage, where you want protection against the stronger people that would take advantage.

Respectable stances both, but I would rather help my brother than shoot my neighbor.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I'm glad were a republic and not a Democracy, yet. Democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority.

Which one is a semantic footnote of the other. At least in a full-fledged democracy it's harder to corrupt, while it is much easier to manipulate.

[guartz]

Personally I think we'd have a better shot gambling with enlightened monarch - Google Search than we do with democracy. And let's be fair, democracy is a gamble.

It's a old concept, people are self-interested foremost, then comes compassion. 2000 years of dogma couldn't erase this instinct, what makes you think anything can? Enlightened monarchs would work, if such people existed. They don't.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

It's a old concept, people are self-interested foremost, then comes compassion. 2000 years of dogma couldn't erase this instinct, what makes you think anything can? Enlightened monarchs would work, if such people existed. They don't.

You got me, I'm only for public healthcare for free abortions cause I slay too many ho's at da club.

[Sirrus_Asura]

You're a bit emotional on the topic because you have no hard evidence to refute what he says, only your blind belief in what you're told to think on the issue. Sup fucking idiot.

Cause your belief in our federal government is so clear sighted and level headed, god knows they get the job done now.

I'm beginning to wonder what you people want. Would you feel better if insurance companies operated at a loss?

Which brings this into question: If insurance companies are so profitable why don't we see more of them?

[Rhinox]

lol so now its boo hoo for the insurance companies is it?