Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
Did I see an endorsement for 'for-profit healthcare'?

I guess not having your 'health' be a 'product' you pay for must be SOCIALISM, huh whembly?

Socialism isn't really the right word...

More, like "Statism".

The US healthcare system is a hybrid.

I really need to stop un-hiding your posts.

I don't think I can actually interact with you without getting angry.

The health of US citizens continuing to be a for-profit system for insurance and hospitals is a fething travesty, but I'm glad you think its fine. 'Hopefully' you'll never be sick and be without insurance/turned away for insurance, however, I'm sure you will be able to bootstraps it if that is the case.

edit: clarification

 d-usa wrote:

Are condoms covered by insurance or OSHA?

Define covered.

Covered as in "paid for by"? No, that would be the employer. If the actors had to buy them, then they could keep the receipts and claim then on their Taxes as legitimate business expenses.

Covered as in "responsible for the proper use of"? That again would be the employer;however, both the Insurance Company and OSHA would have a say if they weren't being used correctly.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
but with the salary I imagine pornstars do, I doubt they get a large refund.

Apparently male porn stars don't get paid very much, women get much more.

 kronk wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Are condoms covered by insurance or OSHA?

Define covered.

Covered as in "paid for by"? No, that would be the employer. If the actors had to buy them, then they could keep the receipts and claim then on their Taxes as legitimate business expenses.

Covered as in "responsible for the proper use of"? That again would be the employer;however, both the Insurance Company and OSHA would have a say if they weren't being used correctly.

Condoms and covered in the same sentence could set somebody up for all kinds of puns...

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
Did I see an endorsement for 'for-profit healthcare'?

I guess not having your 'health' be a 'product' you pay for must be SOCIALISM, huh whembly?

Socialism isn't really the right word...

More, like "Statism".

The US healthcare system is a hybrid.

I really need to stop un-hiding your posts.

I know... I'm endearing...

I don't think I can actually interact with you without getting angry.

What specifically do I upset you with? Maybe I'm misunderstood...

The health of US citizens continuing to be a for-profit system for insurance and hospitals is a fething travesty, but I'm glad you think its fine. 'Hopefully' you'll never be sick and be without insurance/turned away for insurance, I'm sure you will be able to bootstraps it from there.

Never said it was perfect... just defending it a bit when everyone tries to knock it down to 3rd world status.

It's the nature of the beast... deal.with.it.

Can it be better? Sure...

Did I want Congress/State to do something? Sure...

Do I like the ACA, otherwise known as Obmamcare? Feth no! That was done to be a "one-size-fits-all"... that THATS the travestry.

So, I'll say it here. If we want Universal HealthCare (aka single payor), then we need to go full balls out Canadian style.

If not...

*Trying* to go halfway is making things worse.

@d-usa: I think most private health care plans covers contraceptives/pills/whathaveyou (it's cheaper to NOT pay for babies ya know).

edit: for what its worth... I did get sick w/o insurance (when I was in college) and went to a clinic funded by local charity.

Palindrome wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
but with the salary I imagine pornstars do, I doubt they get a large refund.

Apparently male porn stars don't get paid very much, women get much more.

I guess they can't strike for better conditions either, what with the amount of people willing to scab...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

I guess they can't strike for better conditions either, what with the amount of people willing to scab...

Hopefully not literally

That wasn't a fun mental image, dude, not at all !!

Amaya wrote:I don't know why we spend so much, probably inefficiency or more expensive procedures, but we do not have universal health care coverage now and achieving that would require spending even more.

Because the for-profit system is designed to create a profit. This answer is obvious when you stop thinking of capitalism as a religious doctrine.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
a jackass from Quebec

Aaaawwh cute. Love you too, Azazel.

What can I say? not a lotta love for Quebec over here on the coast.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

They can come to Montreal for treatment

KO I guess you need to see some new faces at the bordello you walk by? A for effort

The girls coming out of that place are perfect 10s, to be honest.
Which means there's even less chance that I could afford their attention

I hate to admit it, but there are exactly two things everyone in Canada agrees on:
1. We like our healthcare
2. Montreal generally has the prettiest girls.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
but with the salary I imagine pornstars do, I doubt they get a large refund.

Apparently male porn stars don't get paid very much, women get much more.

I guess they can't strike for better conditions either, what with the amount of people willing to scab...

Isn't there like a 6month moratorium on the porn industry in LA right now?
Why should dude porn stars get paid at all I say. For the amount I want to see and hear from them they are lucky they get fed at the shoot.

 azazel the cat wrote:

I hate to admit it, but there are exactly two things everyone in Canada agrees on:
1. We like our healthcare
2. Montreal generally has the prettiest girls.

I don't know about that, there's a lot of hotties in BC I find.

 azazel the cat wrote:
What can I say? not a lotta love for Quebec over here on the coast.

NB? Oh feth if I care then. The Anglo Society ruined our opinion of that place. I spent years in Alberta preaching about Quebec sovereignty without meeting the type of hatred (or even the slightest degree of animosity) that those morons display.

Also, we're going toward a new referendum, apparently.

I hate to admit it, but there are exactly two things everyone in Canada agrees on:
1. We like our healthcare
2. Montreal generally has the prettiest girls.

Like I've said before, I live right next to Mont-Royal. On a weekend night, I feel I should pay every girl I walk by.

 Cheesecat wrote:


I don't know about that, there's a lot of hotties in BC I find.

Surrey girls are easy, but not as hot.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


Surrey girls are easy, but not as hot.

I think I know where I'm moving to then.

You canadians love our Costco to in Washington

Also Hollywood do film a lot up there to I believe.

 Amaya wrote:
I don't know why we spend so much, probably inefficiency or more expensive procedures, but we do not have universal health care coverage now and achieving that would require spending even more.

You don't know anything about the topic, so holding a firm opinion and expounding as if you do know something is silly.

Amaya wrote:I like how in America's case whites get lumped into one big group while in the case of European nations, Irish, Welsh, Polish, and so on all get to be defined as their own ethnic groups.

I was explaining you why a Frenchman in Sweden, despite being white, is actually from a real, materially different cultural group. He generally came from a different country, where they speak another language, have a different system of government, a totally different history, often different religious traditions, and largely unrelated popular culture. As opposed to a Franco-American in NH, who grew up here, speaks the language, has never known any other system of government, etc. Your misconceptions about American societal heterogeneity by comparison to Europe are substantial. You are a young guy who's probably never traveled and only read minimally, online, about the subject. You haven't studied it and have no personal experience of it from which to draw an informed comparison. Please stop repeating secondhand falsehoods.

 Amaya wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's still going to be a lot easier for me to adapt culturally to life in Florida, Ohio, or Utah than it is for a Greek to live in Sweden, or vice versa. Realistically speaking, if we're talking about ethnic/cultural sub-groups within European countries, they're much more likely to have significant differences from the larger population than they do in the US. Because a person of Irish or German or Kenyan ethnic identity living in France or Greece or Italy is much more likely to have actually come from another country and grown up with a different language and system of laws and government. In the US, being Japanese or Irish or French or Swedish or Mexican in background usually means your grandparents or further back immigrated. You're more likely to have grown up in the American culture.

Europe as a whole is more heterogeneous than the US. The US is more heterogenous than individual European nations.

No large nation has universal health care coverage. Claiming that policies that work in a nation with 50 million people would work in a nation six times that size and spread across a land mass the size of a continent is asinine.

No, what's asinine is repeating that excuse as if it meant anything. Healthcare doesn't give a damn how big the US is. You need to find an actual reason why size or heterogeneity (about which you are mistaken) would be an obstacle to implementing a Canada-style healthcare system. Since you don't have one, your argument isn't even an argument. It's just an unsupported false assertion.

Amaya wrote:The US right now is spending more on health care in all regards than any other nation. There isn't enough revenue to justify spending more.

You have that backwards, friend. Every other civilized Western nation spends less per capita, and almost all of them have a better overall standard of care. Our system is fundamentally broken, and is one of the biggest drags on our economy.

Whembly wrote:Do I like the ACA, otherwise known as Obmamcare? Feth no! That was done to be a "one-size-fits-all"... that THATS the travestry.

Can you explain any parts of Obamacare that you personally disagree with or oppose, or how they don't make things better?

 mattyrm wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.

I have to disagree there mate.

I mean, I know the Welsh live in caves and don't have running water.., but your doing them a disservice there.

From the first instance when I landed in the US, and started having a craic with all my American cousins, I have never felt it to have been significantly different to require any "adaptation" and I have lived and worked all over,...

Matty, please read up above where you quoted me. I said FRANCE. A Welshman moving to France would have more trouble adapting (unless maybe he spoke fluent French and had spent a lot of time there already) would have more adapting to do than I would in Chicago or Texas.

Calm down Manny...It Matty...a Welshman...some leeway has to be giving to him......

edit
Here's a beer

1. Why is forcing people to have health insurance legal?
2. Where is the money supposed to come from to support government funded healthcare?

Your first question indicates that you have not read anything about the debate, and literally know nothing about the ACA. it's disrepectful and insulting of you to expect us to tell you basic things, like what the Supreme Court ruled just recently about the ACA, and why it is Constitutional.

I mean, I don't expect you to read the actual ruling, but maybe one article summarizing it? Even just one?

Social Security for the funding I think.

 Amaya wrote:
1. Why is forcing people to have health insurance legal?
2. Where is the money supposed to come from to support government funded healthcare?

1. According to the supreme court, it falls under the federal gov right to tax. (otherwise toss it in with the elastic clause
2.current tax rates are enough to cover it

 Jihadin wrote:
Calm down Manny...It Matty...a Welshman...some leeway has to be giving to him......

Here's a beer

Thanks man! i'm having a great one right now- Smuttynose brewery's Star Island Single. Delicious.

Should I take your post as a "no" answer, to the question I asked you?

 Amaya wrote:
1. Why is forcing people to have health insurance legal?

Cause the supreme court said so.

 Amaya wrote:
2. Where is the money supposed to come from to support government funded healthcare?

I don't know, maybe we should ask all the other countries that spend less than us and get better results.

deleted

Hold one Manny I need to find the question you ask me lol

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that it is right or justifiable. Public support for ACA has never been over 50%. This is a case of legislation being passed that the majority of America does not want.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the question of "why is it legal".

deleted

Hey manny...i'll drop my take later on the ACA (on my phone).

deleted

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that it is right or justifiable. Public support for ACA has never been over 50%. This is a case of legislation being passed that the majority of America does not want.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the question of "why is it legal".

It is legal only because it was shoved down our throats. I do not consider that to be legal. I consider that to be an abuse of power.

It is legal because it was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, then it was signed by the President of the United States. It was then challenged in court and declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here is a video to help explain it:




Or we can go with the Republican version: I don't like the law, therefore it is illegal.