Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Political Identity Crisis
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3918 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 31 of 153 (281733)
01-26-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
01-25-2006 10:40 AM


i got
Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33
Left-Libertarian about halfway into each.
no kidding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 01-25-2006 10:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 32 of 153 (281805)
01-26-2006 5:14 PM


The political compass seems to be stuck in the lower left quadrant: -6.38/-6.77 for me.
I'll bet there are plenty of authoritarians in this group, both left and right.*
Cheers.
*stupid statement struck ... sibilantly
This message has been edited by Michael, 01-27-2006 10:22 PM

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 153 (281844)
01-26-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
01-25-2006 10:40 AM


my results are
Economic Left/Right: -8.63
Social 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."

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 01-25-2006 10:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 11:47 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2016 2:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 153 (281874)
01-26-2006 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-26-2006 9:12 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2006 9:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2006 9:41 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 35 of 153 (281877)
01-26-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
01-26-2006 9:04 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
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%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:04 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 153 (281880)
01-26-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
01-26-2006 9:10 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 10:10 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 37 of 153 (281882)
01-26-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
01-26-2006 9:10 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
[qs] Canada has universal health care; as a result they spend one-sixth of what we spend per capita

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 38 of 153 (281897)
01-27-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
01-26-2006 9:10 AM


Canadian costs
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2006 9:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 1:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 153 (281949)
01-27-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
01-26-2006 11:55 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 11:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-27-2006 10:23 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 42 by randman, posted 01-27-2006 12:05 PM crashfrog has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5824 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 40 of 153 (281950)
01-27-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
01-27-2006 10:10 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 10:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 11:49 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied
 Message 43 by randman, posted 01-27-2006 12:11 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 153 (281966)
01-27-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-27-2006 10:23 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-27-2006 10:23 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 42 of 153 (281970)
01-27-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
01-27-2006 10:10 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 10:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2006 1:17 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 153 (281973)
01-27-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-27-2006 10:23 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-27-2006 10:23 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-30-2006 4:12 PM randman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 153 (281987)
01-27-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NosyNed
01-27-2006 12:36 AM


Re: Canadian costs
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 01-27-2006 12:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 153 (281988)
01-27-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
01-27-2006 12:05 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 01-27-2006 12:05 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tal, posted 01-27-2006 1:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024