09-24-2011, 11:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2011, 02:58 AM by FireIceTalon.)
Google the term. I thought it was common knowledge by now that the term tea-bagger was used to refer commonly to the Tea Party in political conversations. But either way, it's a rather trivial issue.
The nurses and healthcare providers/hospitals are scared of government because they are all private companies making a profit off the misery of others, along with all the drug companies. If healthcare became socialized, their pay would be much lower than the obscene profits they receive now. Nor would they be able to use methods they do now like adding things such as pre-existing conditions as a right to deny or remove coverage to any citizen, or receive bonus checks at the end of the year as a reward for denying citizens proper coverage or preventing a treatment that would cost the company thousands or more dollars. Because after all, profits are more important than saving lives or helping citizens have a better life instead of facing either serious illness/death or financial ruin (sarcasm, in case you didnt detect it).
The tax structure in a place like Denmark is indeed less progressive than here. But that is compensated by the fact far more citizens have equal access to many services, including this most important sector of healthcare. That is after all, the whole point of having a social democracy. Those who earn more can afford more luxuries, but at least almost all citizens get a roughly equal right to basic things such as healthcare, education and so forth. Here, those who can pay get treated. Those who cannot, either go without or do so but face or at least run the risk of financial ruin and/or hardship. Not so in Denmark. And thats because, once again, profits are out of the picture, as they should be in the healthcare sector. A waitress gets the same access and quality healthcare that a lawyer does, and why shouldn't she? Notice their poverty level is a lot lower than ours too
(they have the 5th lowest poverty rate in the world, we rank a dismal 17th in comparison, according to the HPI report, last conducted in 2008). Furthermore, over 17% of our population earns below the median income here, only 5% of theirs does there.
Man, you are only assisting me in proving my points right, come on! I know you can do better than this
I haven't watched all of Moore's documentaries so I wont sit here and spit the gospel that he is the know all be all of every critical issue we face today. But Sicko is pretty spot on, and EASILY shuts down any argument that you or anyone else on this site could attempt to provide which supports a "for-profits" healthcare system. No contest there, mark my words.
Agreed on the last two points regarding the two political parties and Obama.
The nurses and healthcare providers/hospitals are scared of government because they are all private companies making a profit off the misery of others, along with all the drug companies. If healthcare became socialized, their pay would be much lower than the obscene profits they receive now. Nor would they be able to use methods they do now like adding things such as pre-existing conditions as a right to deny or remove coverage to any citizen, or receive bonus checks at the end of the year as a reward for denying citizens proper coverage or preventing a treatment that would cost the company thousands or more dollars. Because after all, profits are more important than saving lives or helping citizens have a better life instead of facing either serious illness/death or financial ruin (sarcasm, in case you didnt detect it).
The tax structure in a place like Denmark is indeed less progressive than here. But that is compensated by the fact far more citizens have equal access to many services, including this most important sector of healthcare. That is after all, the whole point of having a social democracy. Those who earn more can afford more luxuries, but at least almost all citizens get a roughly equal right to basic things such as healthcare, education and so forth. Here, those who can pay get treated. Those who cannot, either go without or do so but face or at least run the risk of financial ruin and/or hardship. Not so in Denmark. And thats because, once again, profits are out of the picture, as they should be in the healthcare sector. A waitress gets the same access and quality healthcare that a lawyer does, and why shouldn't she? Notice their poverty level is a lot lower than ours too
(they have the 5th lowest poverty rate in the world, we rank a dismal 17th in comparison, according to the HPI report, last conducted in 2008). Furthermore, over 17% of our population earns below the median income here, only 5% of theirs does there. Man, you are only assisting me in proving my points right, come on! I know you can do better than this
I haven't watched all of Moore's documentaries so I wont sit here and spit the gospel that he is the know all be all of every critical issue we face today. But Sicko is pretty spot on, and EASILY shuts down any argument that you or anyone else on this site could attempt to provide which supports a "for-profits" healthcare system. No contest there, mark my words.
Agreed on the last two points regarding the two political parties and Obama.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)