|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Political Identity Crisis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4248 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i got
Economic Left/Right: -6.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33 Left-Libertarian about halfway into each. no kidding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 199 From: USA Joined: |
The political compass seems to be stuck in the lower left quadrant: -6.38/-6.77 for me.
Cheers.
*stupid statement struck ... sibilantly This message has been edited by Michael, 01-27-2006 10:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
my results are
Economic Left/Right: -8.63Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69 not a big surprise, as I've done this before. some of the questions are real logical howlers: "The freer the market, the freer the people." LOL. and this old chestnut "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Believe it or not, I usually come out very near the center on most of these things, and believe it or not, that is one reason I think they are bogus.
But hey, maybe I am the political center.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Care to prove your assertion?
Oh, I think they'd cost much, much more. In fact, it's proven that they would cost much, much more. Social Security is the most cost-effective way to provide what it provides. Ok, run the numbers on someone donating 12.5% of their income into IRAs starting at the age they begin work, say, 20 years old into they are 65, and use compound interest, say, at 7.5%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Studies prove that the more often people see the doctor early on - something they can only afford to do if they're insulated from the health care costs - the cheaper health care becomes for all the rest of it. Let's see those studies, and to make them relevant to my example, show them for pediatrics. You may save some money by offering free health screenings, but you are off in many other ways.
More people going to the doctor actually drives costs down, not up. It's a lot cheaper to treat a heart attack by preventing it with medication than by a 6-hour laproscopic surgery. So all those millions of Americans that have health insurance take better care of themselves, and so with the increase of health insurance, we should see less obesity, less diabetes, etc,.... Wonder why that isn't happening, crash? But hey, since you rule out increased demand as the reason for the rise in health care costs, and insurance company overhead, please tell us what you think the reasons are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
[qs] Canada has universal health care; as a result they spend one-sixth of what we spend per capita
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
as a result they spend one-sixth of what we spend per capita I am reasonalby sure you are way off here Crash. I'm too lazy to look the numbers up but IIRC we spend about 70 or 80% of the percentage of GNP that you do and cover everyone instead of much fewer than everyone and offer care that is about equivalent in quality. However, the discussion about imposing a user fee here to discourage "careless" use produced a discussion with my bro the doc. He agrees with all the rest of your thesis. It is indeed, he says, better to catch things early. On top of that he says that the amount of "careless" use is not so great as to be a real problem. His judgement is that a fee would cost the system more than it would save.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1788 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So all those millions of Americans that have health insurance take better care of themselves, and so with the increase of health insurance, we should see less obesity, less diabetes, etc,.... Wonder why that isn't happening, crash? Because less and less Americans are being adequately covered by health insurance. More and more Americans are shouldering health care burdens that insurance used to cover, and as a result, they're going to the doctor less. What's happening is exactly what I described, and what you would expect to see happen even more if a system such as Bush's "health care savings accounts" would be put into place. And it's exactly what would decrease under a civilized nation; i.e. one that has universal health care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 6155 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
IMO, the lack of universal health care is the biggest problem in the USA. Thousands die EVERY MONTH because of inadequate or non-existant health care yet all we here about is terrorism, the drug war, etc.
Far more people die EVERY YEAR (and probably every month) than have been killed by terrorism in the entire history of the United States. Yet we waste all our tax money on the military (I do a lot of govt. contracting, so I know exactly how wasteful the govt. (esp. military) is) when our own health care system is a much bigger danger. Personal health care savings accounts are a joke that won't help anyone except those who can already afford health insurance. HEALTH CARE IS ALREADY TAX DEDUCTIBLE!!! and people STILL can't afford it. Ok, I will now step off my soap box. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1788 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Personal health care savings accounts are a joke that won't help anyone except those who can already afford health insurance. And not even them, usually. Half of the people who file bankrupcy were bankrupted by unexpected health-care costs; half of those were people with the same high-deductable insurance Bush describes and personal savings, and they were wiped out anyway. Not to mention, the national savings rate is less than zero. The American people don't make enough to save anything. Kinda off-topic, though. I mean, I guess if you hate sick people, keep voting Republican. That's the take-away message here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Because less and less Americans are being adequately covered by health insurance. More and more Americans are shouldering health care burdens that insurance used to cover, and as a result, they're going to the doctor less.
You really think that's what's causing obesity in America and diabetes? That people don't have health care? Do I even need to argue with such an obvious wrong point? Btw, you gonna back up any of the claims I asked you to back up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Personal health care savings accounts are a joke that won't help anyone except those who can already afford health insurance. It's still an improvement and helps some. One thing you guys keep ignoring is putting the government in charge of something has negative side effects. Moroever, just because you have insurance doesn't mean the doctor you want to use will be on the program. We paid out of pocket for an MD but who also is a homeopathic doctor because we felt her treatments would be better for our daughter's allaergies than shots, and we were correct. Would government-funded insurance cover that? Probably not, but maybe....I don't trust putting the government in charge myself. As far as people dying because they don't have health insurance.....I'd like to see how you prove that. Not saying some don't die, but at the same time, it seems more like something someone just made-up and never verified. Imo, what the government could do is determine which sorts of check-ups and tests work to detect serious illnesses early, and pay for everyone or provide to everyone those check-ups and diagnostic tests for free. Maybe give people a voucher to use every couple of years, or just open public health centers for that. But if it lowers costs, then it makes sense, but I am not sure a single-payer system will work that great in such a large nation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1788 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am reasonalby sure you are way off here Crash. I could be wrong; I could be conflating some numbers, or misremembering the ratio; or I could be conflating the ratio between the Canadian system and American Medicare/Medicaid and the ratio between the Canadian system and the entire American private healthcare system, including all the private hospitals and the insurers and HMO's.
I'm too lazy to look the numbers up but IIRC we spend about 70 or 80% of the percentage of GNP that you do and cover everyone instead of much fewer than everyone and offer care that is about equivalent in quality. What's the comparison, there? Canada vs. Medicaid or Canada vs. everything in the US? If you consider the whole American apparatus, and factor in the massive profit margins for insurers, HMO's, private hospitals, and the like, the idea that we spend 6 times what you do doesn't faze me. Re: quality - I wouldn't consider a program that covers everyone and a program that covers less than everyone - much less - to be the same in quality, regardless of how well-treated wealthy individuals in either system might be. I mean, a rich guy in sub-saharan Africa can get top-quality medicine if he really wants, but nobody would describe the health care in those countries as "quality", or "adequate", or even "above barbaric."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1788 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You really think that's what's causing obesity in America and diabetes? That people don't have health care? Do you think those are the only health problems that Americans have? Obesity and diabetes? Moreover, it's not those diseases, but the complications of them, that are health issues. And those issues can be mitigated by early treatment. So, yeah. That's what's causing Americans to suffer ill effects from those things - a lack of adequate health care. What proves my point is that the poor and lower middle class are astronomically more likely to suffer these things; the exact people who can't afford health care.
Btw, you gonna back up any of the claims I asked you to back up? I'm working on it. Not that you would know, because you never do any, but research takes time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025