Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:Are you retarded?

I mean, seriously, are you? Because if you are I apoligise.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Some people tend to focus in solely on President Obama as opposed to focusing on the real problem, which is the increasingly popular idea that the government can do a better job taking care of you than you can. I think luns put it well, if sarcastically.

I don't believe the government does a better job than I, I DO believe the government does a better job that insurance company executives.

And, in a case like this, you act as if this independent panel were "the government", which is pretty silly. Science operates by research from groups of scientists. MANY of those are, yes, funded by the government. However, to be credible, they must do real science.

In this case, it is the science, not some "big brother" government that changed. In fact, the government representative has said people should "keep doing what they are doing".

First of all, I don't agree that the government will do a better job than insurance executives. History does not bear this out.

Second, you're thinking of the lesser of two evils, instead of thinking outside the box and wondering if there other ways to fix healthcare in the United States. I've put forward numerous other ideas in other threads that might be helpful and do not involve vast government power over yet another industry. That's the problem in the United States right now: when we identify a problem, we no longer look to ourselves to fix the problem, we look to the government to fix the problem. And before you say, "We are the government," I urge you to think about the effect you have on your legislatures and president.

Lolz really? You really believe that? I mean really? I had you down for an intelligent guy... I mean further down the same post you talk about fixing the system - why fix it if the insurance executives are doing their job? A quick quiz:

1 What is the insurance executives job? Is it:
a) to protect sick people
b) to make a profit

2 Who are they responsible to?
a) their customers
b) their shareholders

3 Is it in their personal interest to:
a) pay out so people get treated
b) find a way not to pay out

4 Is it in their companies interest to:
a) pay out so people get treated
b) find a way not to pay out

If you answered mostly "a"s you are living in Holland - this quiz is not for you.
If you answered mostly "b"s you have just realised the error in your previous thinking. You should now go and cancel the expensive policy you have that won't pay out anyway, and don't forget to vote for the big O in the next election!

The government is you. That's the point of government. A quick quiz:

1 The government is there to
a) represent the people
b) repress the people

2 By doing things together we
a) get more done as our collective is stronger than it's individual components
b) get orf my land!!

3 Anyways, talking about the government:
a) I trust my government and the systems my forefathers put in place
b) don't use the "g" word again or I'll use my gun (which I have a right to, the forefathers said)

If you answered mostly "a"s you are living in Holland - this quiz is not for you.
If you answered mostly "b"s please move to the Mid West, where we shall shortly be extending that Mexican fence thingy to include most of Wyoming and South Dakota. Everybody wins, we'll not disturb you there I promise.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Some people tend to focus in solely on President Obama as opposed to focusing on the real problem, which is the increasingly popular idea that the government can do a better job taking care of you than you can. I think luns put it well, if sarcastically.

I don't believe the government does a better job than I, I DO believe the government does a better job that insurance company executives.

And, in a case like this, you act as if this independent panel were "the government", which is pretty silly. Science operates by research from groups of scientists. MANY of those are, yes, funded by the government. However, to be credible, they must do real science.

In this case, it is the science, not some "big brother" government that changed. In fact, the government representative has said people should "keep doing what they are doing".

First of all, I don't agree that the government will do a better job than insurance executives. History does not bear this out.

Second, you're thinking of the lesser of two evils, instead of thinking outside the box and wondering if there other ways to fix healthcare in the United States. I've put forward numerous other ideas in other threads that might be helpful and do not involve vast government power over yet another industry. That's the problem in the United States right now: when we identify a problem, we no longer look to ourselves to fix the problem, we look to the government to fix the problem. And before you say, "We are the government," I urge you to think about the effect you have on your legislatures and president.

The answer is to listen to science regarding science decisions. And, whether you or I like the decision just released, that is the key it was based on science, not politics. Ironically, most of those coming out most against this reccomendation DO have political motives. That, frankly, includes you. You are not attacking the science. I wonder if you have even studied the reasoning much. Your whole argument is "oh no, goverment is TAKING OVER".

And, while scientists are not immune to politics, they are historically very independent. They were, at least up until Bush decided he needed to review and approve almost any decision put forward -- and you saw the hoopla over that.

Here, xela, let's have a little lesson in the real world.

In real life, the government is not out to protect it's citizens, it's out to protect itself. The federal government is a collection of individuals who want to make as much money as possible and have as much power as possible; sounds a lot like a company doesn't it?

"But Greek, we get to vote for people in the federal government," you may whine.

Yes, this is true. But you generally have a choice between bad and worse; people you vote for take little or no constructive criticism, don't listen to their constituents, and generally do what the leader of their party tells them to do. These people are interested in maintaining their lavish lifestyle, no matter the cost.

There is no transparency in government, there is no accountability in government... so, it's just like a company.

"But Greek, what makes a government worse than an insurance company," you may whine.

The government runs at a deficit and has major problems running minor programs much less major programs. It wastes money hand over fist and f*cks sh!t up all the time. And, again, there's no accountability.

In sum, if you think the government is better than an insurance company, you don't really live in the real world, but in a idealized place where politicians are your buddies who care about you, and wouldn't do anything to harm you for their own benefit.

thegreekdog wrote:Some people tend to focus in solely on President Obama as opposed to focusing on the real problem, which is the increasingly popular idea that the government can do a better job taking care of you than you can. I think luns put it well, if sarcastically.

Correct, and thanks for expanding on the point. I am partially responsible for drumming up the anti-Obama fervor on this. We need to be equally critical of Presidents like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush when they expand government's control over areas of our lives.

It's not a matter of making the government out to be evil in and of itself. It's a matter of disagreeing with the idea that government should provide for us instead of upholding its primary duty of protecting us. Let's give President Obama credit when he uses his office to promote breast cancer and colonoscopy screenings. Let's also give him credit for properly using the power of the executive branch to kill Somali pirates or bust up Mexican drug cartels. However, I'm not going to support his attempt to phase-in a nationalized health care program. It's my belief that the private, free market does a better (not perfect) job in providing this service. Other government agencies have shown, and are currently showing their inefficiency in other areas. The link I provided showing they could not properly count the number of jobs created from the stimulus is just one example. Those congressional districts don't even exist.

I don't want a government panel, or government health czar (or director) being created to start issuing standards that will most likely resemble a one-size-fits-all approach. And yes, I do realize that the U.S.P.S.T.F. is not a govt. panel in the sense that a cabinet position is. They do have a history of having other medical professionals disagree with their recommendations though. Many times they make very good recommendations and we cannot just simply ignore them. I didn't make that clear - my bad.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The answer is to listen to science regarding science decisions. And, whether you or I like the decision just released, that is the key it was based on science, not politics.

Correct, and for my part, I should have made that distinction more clear when posting the link about ABC news discovering that the federal government was reporting jobs created in non-existent congressional districts.

The U.S.P.S.T.F. does good work for the most part. They've made some excellent recommendations about screening adolescents for depression and not screening infants for jaundice. They are adamently opposed by a host of medical professionals when it comes to screening for prostate cancer and thyroid disease. This mammogram recommendation is another area where they're being called to task.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ironically, most of those coming out most against this reccomendation DO have political motives.

I don't think that's the case. They've been long opposed in some areas because of the lack of expertise in some areas by members of the panel. If you're talking about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity & Co. I can see your point. What might help the panel out is to have more members with more experience in areas where their findings are producing such opposition from other medical professional organizations.

PLAYER57832 wrote:That, frankly, includes you. You are not attacking the science. I wonder if you have even studied the reasoning much. Your whole argument is "oh no, goverment is TAKING OVER".

Don't leave me out, Player! Right, I do need to be more specific sometimes. My big beef is not that government is inherently evil, but that its role is now being redefined as a provider/caregiver instead of protector. Our govt. has helped (and continues to) fund a lot of medical research. I do fear a government-run health care system...especially every time I make a visit to the local post office and see how people are treated for something as simple as sending out a package.

I understand your frustration with private insurers, especially given the circumstances you've outline from your own personal experience. However, I just think your frustration is partially misdirected since they are largely forced to raise premiums and cut services due to excessive government mandates. My friend, Mark, has been through hell with some of these conditions...but overall, private insurers have been kinder, more responsive, and professional than the government programs he qualifies for. So should we neglect his experience as well? I'm not negating your story...believe it or not, sometimes when you post stuff, it makes me want to wring the necks of people that treated you so coldly.
**************************************************************************************************************
See everybody the day after Thanksgiving - I've got another satirical conspiracy treat ready for the Christmas holiday!!

thegreekdog wrote:Here, xela, let's have a little lesson in the real world.

In real life, the government is not out to protect it's citizens, it's out to protect itself. The federal government is a collection of individuals who want to make as much money as possible and have as much power as possible; sounds a lot like a company doesn't it?

"But Greek, we get to vote for people in the federal government," you may whine.

Yes, this is true. But you generally have a choice between bad and worse; people you vote for take little or no constructive criticism, don't listen to their constituents, and generally do what the leader of their party tells them to do. These people are interested in maintaining their lavish lifestyle, no matter the cost.

There is no transparency in government, there is no accountability in government... so, it's just like a company.

"But Greek, what makes a government worse than an insurance company," you may whine.

The government runs at a deficit and has major problems running minor programs much less major programs. It wastes money hand over fist and f*cks sh!t up all the time. And, again, there's no accountability.

In sum, if you think the government is better than an insurance company, you don't really live in the real world, but in a idealized place where politicians are your buddies who care about you, and wouldn't do anything to harm you for their own benefit.

I live in Europe.

Maybe you guys should stop congratulating yourselves on your constitution and accept that it's not perfect. See it's not perfect in Europe either but we don't go waving our flags all over the place and whining when someone wants to change something. We don't need to carry guns. We can go to hospital when we get sick. If we don't like our politicians you know what happens? They're toast. There's no military-industry complex doing the decision-making for us. Oh there's lots of problems but we know there are.

And you know what? That's why the rest of the world gets pissed off with America sometimes. Yes you're great, yes you've got a lot of good things going on. Yes, you're good people, diverse, don't all fit into one category, blah blah. But don't come to other places waving your silly little flags preaching to others about how they should run their countries when this is how you run yours.

If you honestly are that disenfranchised with your government then I really feel sorry for you. You live in a real world, not the real world and it doesn't have to be that way.

The government never makes anything better, it makes everything worse. The government doesn't produce anything, it can't by design. It instead just moved wealth around, oppressing certain people to help others. What needs to happen is this: Make insurance companies employee and customer owned. Thus, an insurance company is owned by the people that pay for coverage. Now when they are responsible to the shareholders, they are also being responsible to the people who depend upon their services.

xelabale wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here, xela, let's have a little lesson in the real world.

In real life, the government is not out to protect it's citizens, it's out to protect itself. The federal government is a collection of individuals who want to make as much money as possible and have as much power as possible; sounds a lot like a company doesn't it?

"But Greek, we get to vote for people in the federal government," you may whine.

Yes, this is true. But you generally have a choice between bad and worse; people you vote for take little or no constructive criticism, don't listen to their constituents, and generally do what the leader of their party tells them to do. These people are interested in maintaining their lavish lifestyle, no matter the cost.

There is no transparency in government, there is no accountability in government... so, it's just like a company.

"But Greek, what makes a government worse than an insurance company," you may whine.

The government runs at a deficit and has major problems running minor programs much less major programs. It wastes money hand over fist and f*cks sh!t up all the time. And, again, there's no accountability.

In sum, if you think the government is better than an insurance company, you don't really live in the real world, but in a idealized place where politicians are your buddies who care about you, and wouldn't do anything to harm you for their own benefit.

I live in Europe.

Maybe you guys should stop congratulating yourselves on your constitution and accept that it's not perfect. See it's not perfect in Europe either but we don't go waving our flags all over the place and whining when someone wants to change something. We don't need to carry guns. We can go to hospital when we get sick. If we don't like our politicians you know what happens? They're toast. There's no military-industry complex doing the decision-making for us. Oh there's lots of problems but we know there are.

And you know what? That's why the rest of the world gets pissed off with America sometimes. Yes you're great, yes you've got a lot of good things going on. Yes, you're good people, diverse, don't all fit into one category, blah blah. But don't come to other places waving your silly little flags preaching to others about how they should run their countries when this is how you run yours.

If you honestly are that disenfranchised with your government then I really feel sorry for you. You live in a real world, not the real world and it doesn't have to be that way.

I agree with absolutely everything you've just typed, although it has little to do with the issue of whether a private company or group or individual would do a better job than the government.

I live in the United State.

We can go to hospital when we get sick. We like to carry guns so we can defend against criminals that don't follow laws and try to kill us.

If you hate us because we go around telling other countries how to run theirs, maybe you shouldn't tell us how to run ours?

Okay Greek

It has great relevance because you see in every - yes every - industrialised country that has socialised healthcare the results are better than in the USA yet you are determined to ignore that.

If the government runs health it's priority is to make people healthy so they get back to paying taxes. If a private company runs health it's priority is to make itself and it's shareholders rich. Ipso facto it's better to have the government running health. The government may well be more inefficient but at least it's aiming in the right direction - the private company will turn out to be marvelously efficient at making money for itself. It's no more complicated than that.



Okay bedub

Good one. Yee ha. Damn those criminals trying to kill us, I can't believe they haven't got me yet. I must live a charmed life, just like all the other 6.5 billion people who don't carry guns.

You can go to hospital when you get sick. Then you pay for it the rest of your life. Or get the taxpayers to pay for it anyway which makes you a selfish fuckhead.

I'm not telling you how to run your country, I'm just telling you you're wrong. Go throw some tea in the sea if you don't want to hear it.

xelabale wrote:Okay Greek

It has great relevance because you see in every - yes every - industrialised country that has socialised healthcare the results are better than in the USA yet you are determined to ignore that.

If the government runs health it's priority is to make people healthy so they get back to paying taxes. If a private company runs health it's priority is to make itself and it's shareholders rich. Ipso facto it's better to have the government running health. The government may well be more inefficient but at least it's aiming in the right direction - the private company will turn out to be marvelously efficient at making money for itself. It's no more complicated than that.

You're assuming the answer is either the status quo or government-run. I do not think that either are the answer. I think there are better answers. Further, you're assuming that the government's priority is to make people healthy so they can go back to paying taxes. I disagree. I think the government's priority is to make people reliant on the government, thereby giving the government more power, more responsibility, and more money. If the government says to 40 million people, "We'll give you healthcare for free," those 40 million people are going to vote for whomever gives them that healthcare. If the government says to three companies, "We're going to bail you out so that you can stay in business," those three companies are going to financially support those in government. If the government says to homeowners who are in default, "Don't worry, we'll pay for your mortgages," those people are going to vote as well. It's a very cynical view of the members of our government, but I believe it's true. Instead of looking at options other than government healthcare, government bailouts, or government debt relief, we've been conditioned to look for the governnment to take care of it.

No cos the government serves the people. If they don't I suggest you move to Sweden.

xelabale wrote:No cos the government serves the people. If they don't I suggest you move to Sweden.

I may move to Sweden (my firm has a few offices there) because the US government serves itself.

ITT: spoiled Americans think their she-cow mothers have a right to get tested any random desease they please.

Cry some more.

wtf not get tested for the love god. You guys act like preeventaitve medicitne donest invoelve test. Just terrible rubbisho.

TeletubbyPrince wrote:ITT: spoiled Americans think their she-cow mothers have a right to get tested any random desease they please.

Cry some more.

Hey, you're back! Where have you been tubster?

thegreekdog wrote:Here, xela, let's have a little lesson in the real world.

In real life, the government is not out to protect it's citizens, it's out to protect itself. The federal government is a collection of individuals who want to make as much money as possible and have as much power as possible; sounds a lot like a company doesn't it?

"But Greek, we get to vote for people in the federal government," you may whine.

Yes, this is true. But you generally have a choice between bad and worse; people you vote for take little or no constructive criticism, don't listen to their constituents, and generally do what the leader of their party tells them to do. These people are interested in maintaining their lavish lifestyle, no matter the cost.

There is no transparency in government, there is no accountability in government... so, it's just like a company.

"But Greek, what makes a government worse than an insurance company," you may whine.

The government runs at a deficit and has major problems running minor programs much less major programs. It wastes money hand over fist and f*cks sh!t up all the time. And, again, there's no accountability.

In sum, if you think the government is better than an insurance company, you don't really live in the real world, but in a idealized place where politicians are your buddies who care about you, and wouldn't do anything to harm you for their own benefit.

Way to type yet another illegible rant. I took the liberty of bolding everything that was unsupported opinion, induced by the fevered fits of rage that seem to plague you daily.

By fevered fits of rage, do you mean like that time I asked "How would you like it if Hitler killed you?"

Oh wait, that was you. Welcome back buddy. I, for one, missed you.

thegreekdog wrote:By fevered fits of rage, do you mean like that time I asked "How would you like it if Hitler killed you?"

Oh wait, that was you. Welcome back buddy. I, for one, missed you.

The problem with your posts is that you assume I know who you are.

TeletubbyPrince wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:By fevered fits of rage, do you mean like that time I asked "How would you like it if Hitler killed you?"

Oh wait, that was you. Welcome back buddy. I, for one, missed you.

The problem with your posts is that you assume I know who you are.

aside from the cfact that ists teh internet and you ahve lno lice by poistgn here thats a pretty good repsonse to beghon stbh.

TeletubbyPrince wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:By fevered fits of rage, do you mean like that time I asked "How would you like it if Hitler killed you?"

Oh wait, that was you. Welcome back buddy. I, for one, missed you.

The problem with your posts is that you assume I know who you are.

I don't assume that I know who you are. In fact, I'm fairly sure I do not know who you are. I've never been to England. I don't know what a teletubby prince is. I've never played you in a game.

In any event, when one assumes, one makes an ass out of you and me. Get it?

bedub1 wrote:The government never makes anything better, it makes everything worse.

I ,too, love pointless statements which are not just blatantly untrue but fundamentally absurd. It's really one of life's pleasures.


Anyway bebubu, don't you agree everything was better when we still had child-labour and no sewage?

I wanna spend time...write out an intellectual argument defending national healthcare and all.

Unfortunately Ive realized its pointless to argue at all with virtually any of those who are against it. And I will admit, the converse is true. You will not convince me that national healtcare is not a good thing.

But still, I cant help but look at this thread... and it just kills me to see people arguing against this...its demoralizing really...maybe there is no hope for the world after all, or at least America...

Argue what you want...it is still very difficult to change the opinion of any politically devout individual, and I have realized this.

That said, I still feel the need to express where I am coming from. As someone who has firsthand seen the desperate and day-to-day living situations of many Americans (which goes virtually unnoticed by the general public), I dont see how anyone could argue against it. I simply know there is no arguing against those who are. Again, I must admit that those against national healthcare must feel the same way about me.

Many people have misconceptions about the plan...and many have misconceptions on the views of those against the plan (blame the media). I also see very little point in going through all of these misconceptions. Let's be honest...its not going to convince anyone who hasn't already made up their mind. But the bottom line, to me at least, is the we need this...America needs this. It is an optional plan, and yes it raises our taxes...which is now apparently unspeakable. The benefits of the plan outweigh the cons however.

Of course, kinks still need to be worked out, problems with the plan still need to be fixed. This will not...no, it cannot happen without seeing this plan in action. It is simply too complicated. the government healthcare plan may cost more than some corporate healthcare plans as of now...but the fact remains that it is only a matter of time before these types of problems are worked out. Once they are, national healthcare will be an extremely beneficial and crucial asset to the welfare of Americans...poor and wealthy alike.

In conclusion, go America!

So your vote is already in the government's bag. Who's next?

BigBallinStalin wrote:So your vote is already in the government's bag. Who's next?

Parochialism. Partisanship. Idiocracy. Go Amerika...