is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?

[JuanBolio]

It's not a matter of convenience. It's maturity and understanding how the world actually works. Comes with experience.

Nonsense. I understand the way the world works just fine without liking it or accepting it, much less going along with it. The world works the way WE make it work. Its human behavior, not physics.

The fact that you don't realize giving less ambitious people free health care while others pay for it is a power grab proves my point perfectly. Q: Who do you think the freeloaders are going to vote for? A: The party that gives them a free ride from cradle to grave.

Ensuring that everyone can afford medical care if and when they need it is not a "free ride", its human decency. People will still have to work for a living, same as now. Allowing people to suffer and die because they lack insurance and/or hundreds of thousands of dollars is callous barbarism, plain and simple. If it is a power grab, I'd much rather the power be on the side of those who care more about people's well being than a corporation's bottom line.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

It's not a matter of convenience. It's maturity and understanding how the world actually works. Comes with experience.

Nonsense. I understand the way the world works just fine without liking it or accepting it, much less going along with it. The world works the way WE make it work. Its human behavior, not physics.

The fact that you don't realize giving less ambitious people free health care while others pay for it is a power grab proves my point perfectly. Q: Who do you think the freeloaders are going to vote for? A: The party that gives them a free ride from cradle to grave.

Ensuring that everyone can afford medical care if and when they need it is not a "free ride", its human decency. People will still have to work for a living, same as now. Allowing people to suffer and die because they lack insurance and/or hundreds of thousands of dollars is callous barbarism, plain and simple. If it is a power grab, I'd much rather the power be on the side of those who care more about people's well being than a corporation's bottom line.

The bottom line is, if someone chooses not to work and still has all the benefits as those that do in terms of insurance, it's not fair to those that have to pay for him or her to be covered. Insurance should be made affordable, but you should HAVE to pay for it yourself if you are able-bodied. Do you agree with that or no?

 

[T'Girl]

JuanBolio Allowing people to suffer and die because they lack insurance

--- Emergency rooms in America provide emergency and non-emergency treatment to anyone, if you prove you incapabily of paying it is Mister JuanBolio free of charge. Not free, the taxpayers actual pay.

Pingfah Firsty that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment on his opinion of those who want UHC

--- I used cancer as one example of the fact that medical treatment in America without UHC is superior to countries with UHC. And again emergency rooms provide ALL type and levels of care for free if you can show you can not pay, to EVERYONE.

Pingfah Pen pushers don't decide who gets what treatment here.

--- One of the many problems with the plan proposed here is there would be a "Government Pen Pusher", unlike with your system.

Pingfah The power grab was the 2008 election

--- We are in complete agreement.

JuanBolio And many are dirt poor and would never be able to afford expensive treatments, operations, or medications

... Emergency rooms. Free. If you are poor. It's a federal law here.

Pingfah Also contrary to what you seem to understand the UK has a thriving private healthcare business that runs in conjunction with the NHS.

-- During the debate on natioal health in America you will offen hear the term "single payer plan". The single payer in this plan is the government only, under this plan private insurance will be phased out of exsistance in America. The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a big proponent of a government only health plan.

JuanBolio Ensuring that everyone can afford medical care if and when they need it is not a "free ride", its human decency.

--- Then let us procede down the simple route of making slight, but important changes to the exsisting working system. These changes will lower costs and increase availability. Did you know JuanBolio that there are well over one thousand medical plans in America? And that the people of the state of California can only choose from six of them? That would come under a change in regulation. There are many tiny changes that can be made with out exchanging the current workable system, for an entirely new system that may not work.

Pingfah and JuanBolio from what you have told me in these posts, what is being propose here, is different than you have there, with the exception of being called UHC.


T'Girl

 

[Leroy]

The bottom line is, if someone chooses not to work and still has all the benefits as those that do in terms of insurance, it's not fair to those that have to pay for him or her to be covered. Insurance should be made affordable, but you should HAVE to pay for it yourself if you are able-bodied. Do you agree with that or no?

Where are all these people that choose not to work? As far as I can tell a lot of people would kill for a job any job. Most of the lay offs seem to be involuntary. How are these people supposed to get health care in this shitacular economy? People who have insurance and tax payers are fitting the bills for those without insurance and it's one of the reasons costs are going up. Provide illegal immigrants and the jobless with some kind of health care plan and this problem is alleviated to some extent.

--- I used cancer as one example of the fact that medical treatment in America without UHC is superior to countries with UHC.

Why is this? Is the technology in the US that much better? how much of a disparity is there between the US and other countries in terms of cancer survival rates?

And again emergency rooms provide ALL type and levels of care for free if you can show you can not pay, to EVERYONE.

Isn't that just emergency stabilizing care? I highly doubt they would treat your cancer, or provide something like reconstructive surgery or prosthetic limbs for free.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

--- Are you aware that America currently enjoys the single highest cancer survival rate of ANY country on earth, and without universal health care? European countries, all of whom possess national health or socialized medical care, have a lower cancer survival rate than America? And hasn't the British government begun debating the idea of stepping back from it current level of governmentt provided medical services, in favor of a more, American style, private health care system?

Firsty that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment on his opinion of those who want UHC, Secondly the debate over UHC spreads far far beyond what you are saying and trying to boil it down to a single issue like that is ludicrous. Curing cancer is hardly the only function of the NHS.The NHS provides a superb level of support to us and I believe functions for the greater proportion of the population in a far more effective manner than your broken system of profiteering companies. It's cheaper per head, more efficient and still manages to provide a very high level of care. Pen pushers don't decide who gets what treatment here, doctors do. And you can't have your insurance revoked or be refused to be covered or end up in a lifetimes worth of debt because of a simple health issue. Nobody claims it is perfect, it has numeorus problems as all healthcare systems do, but you can't bat the whole system aside with talk of cancer survival rates. Go to TNZ, get involved in a proper UHC debate and learn something about the NHS.

Also contrary to what you seem to understand the UK has a thriving private healthcare business that runs in conjunction with the NHS.

And no, the NHS is untouchable in the eyes of the British public, if you believe that UHC doesn't have almost the complete support of the British public then you really don't know much about us at all. Even the Conservatives would never dream of trying to get rid of it, that is a massive vote loser. It has almost universal support amongst the British, is the biggest single employer in Europe and is an entrenched and immovable part of British culture.

Yeah, it's a vote loser because when you give someone something for nothing they'll vote for you, lol... why do you think liberals here want amnesty for criminal aliens?

I just returned from the UK a few months ago and had the opportunity to speak to many people there that told me one thing. If you need serious medical attention, you had better get a private doctor.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

The bottom line is, if someone chooses not to work and still has all the benefits as those that do in terms of insurance, it's not fair to those that have to pay for him or her to be covered. Insurance should be made affordable, but you should HAVE to pay for it yourself if you are able-bodied. Do you agree with that or no?

Where are all these people that choose not to work? As far as I can tell a lot of people would kill for a job any job. Most of the lay offs seem to be involuntary. How are these people supposed to get health care in this shitacular economy? People who have insurance and tax payers are fitting the bills for those without insurance and it's one of the reasons costs are going up. Provide illegal immigrants and the jobless with some kind of health care plan and this problem is alleviated to some extent.

--- I used cancer as one example of the fact that medical treatment in America without UHC is superior to countries with UHC.

Why is this? Is the technology in the US that much better? how much of a disparity is there between the US and other countries in terms of cancer survival rates?

And again emergency rooms provide ALL type and levels of care for free if you can show you can not pay, to EVERYONE.

Isn't that just emergency stabilizing care? I highly doubt they would treat your cancer, or provide something like reconstructive surgery or prosthetic limbs for free.

Leroy, I am a full supporter of social safety nets and the need to reform health care and drive costs down. I'm all for a hand up.

As far as criminal aliens, they should be imprisoned and deported. They should not be given anything other than what's necessary to send them back to wherever it is they came from. I've had hundreds of them deported myself. I only wish it could have been more.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Did you know JuanBolio that there are well over one thousand medical plans in America? And that the people of the state of California can only choose from six of them?

Why should he know something that isn't true?

The California Office of the Patient Advocate rates the nine most popular HMOs in the state. These are not however, the only nine HMOs in the state, nor are HMOs the only form of health provider in the state. There are also many PPOs and POSs, as well as Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, Medicare, and CalPERS to choose from. These are the 31 top-rated HMOs, PPOs, and POSs in California as rated by the non-profit National Comittee for Quality Assurance, and again, these are only the most popular NCQA accredited ones, not all of them.

If you want to argue against UHC that's fine, but you've been spreading a lot of misinformation in the process to support your point, which seems to be a common tactic of most of those who argue against it.

 

[Rii]

It's the logical consequence of your argument.

No, it has nothing to do with my position by any stretch of the imagination.

That you don't wish to acknowledge that by placing the survival of the state ahead of the life and freedom of the individual that you've laid the groundwork for slavery, genocide, and indeed any other injustice - of course, it apparently can't be considered such if not labelled so by the state - within the imagination of the majority is hardly surprising, but nonetheless true.

That's ridiculous. Society is made up of people; the survival of the society means the survival of the people.

The state is an abstraction, society is nothing more than an aggregate of individuals, it has no collective right to survive. A society in which certain individuals are willing to sacrifice the lives of other individuals for any reason is not a society but a tyrannical mob. Individuals (and the institutions they serve) who would seek such dominion over others should be opposed, with words if possible, with force if necessary.

Self defense does not justify any random injustice that you throw at it.

Of course it does. All you need is for "society" to come to view a particular minority - Muslims, say - as a threat. If they're not citizens you don't even need that much. Inconvenience is justification enough for their slaughter.

I suppose you'll tell me that the United States was engaged in "self defence" in Vietnam?

 

[Rii]

... ---There's no reason to acknowledge the path you're suggesting. Service in the military is not a form of slavery, whether a nation employs a draft or not has no connection to incidents of genocide, the gestopo was volunteer not draft, Pol Pot's forces was a mixure, the WWII allies soldiers who ended the holocaust were a mixure. The American and British forces that ended the cold wars were both volunteer. Far from enslaving one nation after another American soldiers free people.

I wasn't suggesting a causal relationship, I'm suggesting that the same logic used by RJ to justify the draft - that the state's right to defend itself trumps the rights of its individual constituent citizens - can be used to justify any conceivable crime against minority subsets of its citizenry in service of its interests as defined by the majority.

And indeed is and has been. "State security" has been the justification for countless atrocities directed against vulnerable social groups in many nations.

Also, to anyone familiar with the treatment of adolescent and young adult males in many of these countries and regions historically, the draft and associated young man= soldier attitude is in fact no different. The mass imprisonment, torture and "liquidation" of adolescent boys and young men due to their status as "threats" and "enemy operatives" has always been endemic in many regions. Ethnic cleansing due to their men and boys being "threats to state security" is directly attributable to the idea that young men and boys in a community have an obligation to fight. Place the state above the individual and sooner or later anything becomes "justified".

One thing that's become clear is that the greatest threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism isn't a direct one, but the indirect threat that through their actions they might transform an already disturbingly nationalistic United States into a state that would - through virtue of its unparalleled material strength and possession of weapons able to threaten the survival of the species itself - make Nazi Germany look like fun for the whole family.

 

[T'Girl]

Leroy Why is this? Is the technology in the US that much better? how much of a disparity is there between the US and other countries in terms of cancer survival rates?

--- Part is technology yes, a big part is early detection, when Americans get any blood work done the labs run a bunch of "unnecessary tests" and we are screened for cancer and lots of other things too. These extra tests are expensive, a government system might not want to pay for extras.

Cancer suvival rates US vs Europe
breast ...82.8....80.6
colon ....61.7....52.3
lung......12.0....11.5
prostate.81.2....71.4
tyroid....95.9....83.7

The figures I used are two years old, and indicate the western european country with the highest survival rate in europe. The figure for lung cancer is France, all other are Switzerland. The figures for Britain were the bottom or second to the bottom of the list across the board.

Leroy Isn't that just emergency stabilizing care? I highly doubt they would treat your cancer, or provide something like reconstructive surgery or prosthetic limbs for free.

--- No sir , they do non-emergency total care, emergency rooms are where illegal aliens get most of their medical care. They will do all three of the things you listed. The prosthetic limbs are "basic, not realistic" and I believe they don't do pure cosmetic surgery, but they will put you back together.

TheLonelySquire I just returned from the UK a few months ago and had the opportunity to speak to many people there that told me one thing. If you need serious medical attention, you had better get a private doctor.

--- The city of Seattle has some of the best cancer and burn hospitals in the world, nurses have told me thet get a lot of "medical tourists".

 

[Pingfah]

Yeah, it's a vote loser because when you give someone something for nothing they'll vote for you, lol... why do you think liberals here want amnesty for criminal aliens?

Yeah whatever. That isn't any funnier, more intelligent or true than the last 50 times you said it. You can stop parroting your conservative talk show idols now.

I just returned from the UK a few months ago and had the opportunity to speak to many people there that told me one thing. If you need serious medical attention, you had better get a private doctor.

Of course you did, how very convenient.

And last time I went to the states, I just happened to get into a conversation with everyone I met who all told me that the American system has screwed them over and they are now in masses of debt or just never got the care they needed.

See, I can make shit up too, look how clever I am.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Yeah, it's a vote loser because when you give someone something for nothing they'll vote for you, lol... why do you think liberals here want amnesty for criminal aliens?

Yeah whatever. That isn't any funnier, more intelligent or true than the last 50 times you said it. You can stop parroting your conservative talk show idols now.

I just returned from the UK a few months ago and had the opportunity to speak to many people there that told me one thing. If you need serious medical attention, you had better get a private doctor.

Of course you did, how very convenient.

And last time I went to the states, I just happened to get into a conversation with everyone I met who all told me that the American system has screwed them over and they are now in masses of debt or just never got the care they needed.

See, I can make shit up too, look how clever I am.

See, now the difference between us here is that you get agitated and upset and post snide remarks.

I fail to see how you don't see the logic in that when a political group gives something to someone who doesn't deserve it and didn't earn it, they will more than likely get their vote? In an attempt to be fair and balanced I certainly admit that it works on both sides of the political spectrum in the same fashion.

Based on your last statement I assume you've never made it to the USA. Hopefully someday you will.

Bottom line? As an able-bodied adult you shouldn't be entitled to jack except for an opportunity. Affordable health care that the individual pays for falls under "opportunity".


**ETA...are you disbelieving that I have been in the UK recently or that I spoke to people about health care? Just wondering.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The state is an abstraction, society is nothing more than an aggregate of individuals, it has no collective right to survive.

The second part of your sentence contradicts the first.

A society in which certain individuals are willing to sacrifice the lives of other individuals for any reason is not a society but a tyrannical mob. Individuals (and the institutions they serve) who would seek such dominion over others should be opposed, with words if possible, with force if necessary.

Of course, if you tried to get any of your like-minded friends to help you use force to prevent your country from using force to defend itself from a hostile power using force, they'd just stand by and watch you lose.

Of course it does. All you need is for "society" to come to view a particular minority - Muslims, say - as a threat. If they're not citizens you don't even need that much. Inconvenience is justification enough for their slaughter.

Anything is justification enough for anything in the minds of some; that's why we still need the Armed Forces and sometimes a Draft.

I suppose you'll tell me that the United States was engaged in "self defence" in Vietnam?

So sorry to disappoint you, but you'll still have to argue against what I actually say.

Ah, but then I see you've Posted this:

an already disturbingly nationalistic United States into a state that would - through virtue of its unparalleled material strength and possession of weapons able to threaten the survival of the species itself - make Nazi Germany look like fun for the whole family.

So I see there's no point in bothering with you at all.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Bottom line? As an able-bodied adult you shouldn't be entitled to jack except for an opportunity. Affordable health care that the individual pays for falls under "opportunity".

And if you can't pay? Due to being unable to find a well paid job, or indeed any job at all due to the competition- which is often intense. In debt after, say, university, truing to find a job to no avail, then you fall ill or require treatment for injury? Do you really believe you should turn to such a person and say "You missed an opportunity. Your problem, not mine. I'm not paying for your operation."

Believe me, most people face intense financial difficulty at some point in their life. I do not understand why people like you are so reluctant to actually give a damn about other people. "If you can't compete, you don't deserve care?" Oh, that's real civilized...

Stop seeing the world as some sort of "every man for himself" battle and start demonstrating the co-operation, compassion and mutual care we depend upon.

 

[Pingfah]

Yeah, it's a vote loser because when you give someone something for nothing they'll vote for you, lol... why do you think liberals here want amnesty for criminal aliens?

Yeah whatever. That isn't any funnier, more intelligent or true than the last 50 times you said it. You can stop parroting your conservative talk show idols now.

I just returned from the UK a few months ago and had the opportunity to speak to many people there that told me one thing. If you need serious medical attention, you had better get a private doctor.

Of course you did, how very convenient.

And last time I went to the states, I just happened to get into a conversation with everyone I met who all told me that the American system has screwed them over and they are now in masses of debt or just never got the care they needed.

See, I can make shit up too, look how clever I am.

See, now the difference between us here is that you get agitated and upset and post snide remarks.

I fail to see how you don't see the logic in that when a political group gives something to someone who doesn't deserve it and didn't earn it, they will more than likely get their vote? In an attempt to be fair and balanced I certainly admit that it works on both sides of the political spectrum in the same fashion.

Based on your last statement I assume you've never made it to the USA. Hopefully someday you will.

Bottom line? As an able-bodied adult you shouldn't be entitled to jack except for an opportunity. Affordable health care that the individual pays for falls under "opportunity".


**ETA...are you disbelieving that I have been in the UK recently or that I spoke to people about health care? Just wondering.

Stop making stuff up and I won't need to post snide remarks

What I fail to see is that the NHS is something that people here don't deserve or didn't earn. Most of us pay our taxes, and we deserve what we elected our politicians to do for us. The British public want the NHS, none of your obfuscation changes that fact.

And actually, i've been to the USA 6 times in the last 2 years and plenty more besides that.

ETA, i'm disbelieving that most people you talked to said what you claim they did, my lifetimes worth of experience of people in the UK entirely contradicts that. I believe you are lying.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

A society in which certain individuals are willing to sacrifice the lives of other individuals for any reason is ...a tyrannical mob.

Exactly. Certain people use other people as human shields and justify it in terms of "the needs of society". Funny how those needs don't extend to everyone in that society though, certainly not to those being used as the shields....

Young males have always been seen as expendable from society, at least in certain numbers. Official international forced labour laws support this, officially classifying a certain percentage of a community's young adult males as "dispensable". This is unacceptable in a civilized world.

Self defense does not justify any random injustice that you throw at it.

We're not talking about SELF defense, we're talking about a state using individual people for ITS defense. And in that context, "self" defense has been used to justify pretty much anything. "State security" is the excuse used to justify the imprisonment, torture, persecution and slaughter of vulnerable social groups and any and all young males from communities or ethnic groupings you want out of the way. This is simple fact. It happens, and has happened and continues to happen all the time. Civil liberties are curtailed for "state security" all the time. Communities are ripped apart due to military drafts- if you read the accounts of history in Europe, Russia, Africa, etc, the misery resulting from the state viewing its own sons as nothing but a resource for war is incalculable. Place security above liberty and freedom and sooner or later anything becomes "justified" to maintain that security. Because the threat is always there. As long as there are people, there will be a threat to each of our security, and if that "security" becomes your purpose in life, anyone who isn't you becomes the enemy. This is why people try to insist a state's draft is "SELF defense"; it's an attempt to cram all your people into one unified "self", against an "other". True strength and security comes not from denying individuality and diversity but through celebrating it.

Of course it does. All you need is for "society" to come to view a particular minority - Muslims, say - as a threat. If they're not citizens you don't even need that much. Inconvenience is justification enough for their slaughter.

Exactly. Which the history of pretty much every nation, including my own, bears out. Plus, young adult men and adolesecent boys are ALWAYS seen as a threat by the state, and indeed are often pre-emptively slaughtered in their thousands.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Bottom line? As an able-bodied adult you shouldn't be entitled to jack except for an opportunity. Affordable health care that the individual pays for falls under "opportunity".

And if you can't pay? Due to being unable to find a well paid job, or indeed any job at all due to the competition- which is often intense. In debt after, say, university, truing to find a job to no avail, then you fall ill or require treatment for injury? Do you really believe you should turn to such a person and say "You missed an opportunity. Your problem, not mine. I'm not paying for your operation."

Believe me, most people face intense financial difficulty at some point in their life. I do not understand why people like you are so reluctant to actually give a damn about other people. "If you can't compete, you don't deserve care?" Oh, that's real civilized...

Stop seeing the world as some sort of "every man for himself" battle and start demonstrating the co-operation, compassion and mutual care we depend upon.

Well, if you've read what I said over and over and OVER, you would have noticed I believe in social safety nets and in a hand up. For the umpteenth time, quality health care needs to be made affordable and available.

Then again, if a person chooses to go to college and rack up debt without having an understanding about how difficult it will or will not be to pay it off, I have little sympathy for them. It's their CHOICE.

I am well aware that ALL people face financial difficulties in life, myself included. I grew up in a housing project. But at some point we all must be responsible for our own destiny. Whether we succeed or fail is up to the individual. A person does not have the RIGHT to succeed, nor should it be government's role to grant such a right.

Finally, you don't know if I give a damn about other people or not? All I ask is that each person be responsible for their own destiny and don't ask for a free ride. I'd detail my charitable contributions and the work that I've done with the disadvantaged, but it's doubtful you'd believe me.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

For the umpteenth time, quality health care needs to be made affordable and available.

"Affordable" and "available" depends on the individual and their unique circumstances. It is relative. So where you say it should be "affordable" and "available", by whose measure? Surely, to be affordable and available to all, there is only one price we can have for it: Free.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

[All I ask is that each person be responsible for their own destiny.

So no draft, then.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

For the umpteenth time, quality health care needs to be made affordable and available.

"Affordable" and "available" depends on the individual and their unique circumstances. It is relative. So where you say it should be "affordable" and "available", by whose measure? Surely, to be affordable and available to all, there is only one price we can have for it: Free.

No, if you are able to work then you must pay for it. If you are disabled then that's where the social safety net comes in. Want permanent health care? Work for it.