tkhayes

EXCEPT for that 'Christian preacher' who is also apparently grounded in Scripture.....and probably some or many of his followers. Even preachers get people to hate other people for their own 'valid reasons' http://www.godhatesfags.com/ I have no time for it. And you are right - you should be apologizing for your religion. It discredits the entire Christian philosophy - as it should. Now go away and keep your friggin' religion out of my society - at the very least, out of my government, my schools, my military......

Nice try Ron - below are all my posts, and I count 28 points that I made that I would call data. not 'One'. I highlighted the 'data' and 'valid concern' areas with *DATA* so it would be easier for you to read...... what of all the questions I asked you - where is your 'data' ------------ *DATA* not at al. Borrowing to start up a new health care system is what would need to happen. People in the end would pay for it, instead of payments to private health insurance companies, the net would be made in tax payments. *DATA* his argument is that it can be done for everyone at a lower price than it is today. since all government costs are eventually borne by the taxpayer, the cost to the taxpayer eventually will go down. Including you. you are just paying a different 'insurance company' for a different 'insurance policy' nothing nuts about it. dozens of other 'civilized countries are already doing it, and we are the ones with the problem. the problems will be: 1. getting approval in the USA for such a plan when there are so many right wing nut-jobs that think this country SHOULD be every man for himself..... how to actually transition, effectively putting insurance companies out of business. ---------------- dropzones are different. I am not for the government running business. I am for the government running HEALTH CARE, as well as education, the military, social services, and a few other things. So no, I am not for the government running drop zones, car companies, gun manufacturing, widgets or whatever else private business should be involved in. SO we disagree on where the line is drawn on what is a right and what is a privilege or 'business' ----------------- nothing wrong with leaving many services privatized as well. If you can afford the MRI, go to the clinic and pay for it. I have in the past, because I was denied by the large corporation that supposedly provides me with HEALTH COVERAGE, but does everything they can to NOT pay for it every time I need something. ------------------ *DATA* And that is a valid ideology. I have no disagreements with it at all. The problem is that it does not work for everyone (48 million people right now). If we all had the ability to take care of ones self and family, then OBVIOUSLY, there would be no issue with Health care. But the fact is that people do not. I have a job, I make a decent wage. I can BARELY afford health insurance. *DATA* It is not good enough to say "Get off your ass and go get a job". right now, hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs through no fault of their own - they are not lazy, they are not useless nor incompetent. They are simply in an unfortunate situation. And that affects all of society and eventually will affect you and me, I believe that health care (at some level) is a fundamental human right. And we will see it happen in this country in my lifetime, whether you agree with me or not. -------------------- *DATA* Is social security working 'perfectly' no. of course not. Is it working? Yes. Is the military working perfectly? absolutely not. Is it working? yes it is. I would take cancer treatment in Canada as it would not cost me anything at all. Here in the USA, it might very well bankrupt me, even though I have insurance. I would have deductibles, and co-pays and an eventual 'cap' on the amount I would have to spend on my treatment. While I am sick, I would probably not work, so I would have no money to pay for the deductibles and other fees not covered. I would be deluged in paperwork by the insurance company, mostly denials to the claims that i am making and I would probably be too sick to manage all that properly, causing me not only damage to my credit report for unpaid bills, but costing me lots of money because i do not understand everything that the insurance company is sending me. When I broke my neck in 2001, it only took one month to build a paper file more than 2 inches thick with denials, letters and insurance gibberish that all had to be handled. the overhead was immense. My credit report was trashed and up to 3 years ago, I was still finding things that fell through the cracks that I had to end up paying for. I cannot afford a 'manager' to handle all that - most people cannot. Most people cannot afford the type of private insurance that would allow you to get ANY TREATMENT AT ANY COST with NO PAPERWORK to worry about. Insurance companies are not actually about delivering health care - they are about making money. A government run plan would not be about making money - wit would be about delivering health care. -------------------- try not to twist what I said - the original question was about WAITING 6 months for an MRI, not being DENIED for one. So yes, if the INSURANCE COMPANY denies the MRI, (happened to me), *OR* the government makes you WAIT 6 months to get one (the current case in Canada), then the option to go pay for it yourself should be allowed. *DATA* This is one of the problems with the Canadian system. The government does not allow private companies to do that sort of thing, but I also think that will change in Canada as well, people are willing to pay for Xrays, bloodwork, MRI's etc. - at least some of them, but under the current system, they cannot and do not have that option. THe Canadian system is far from perfect - but it is better than the system that we have here. *DATA* Trillions in National Debt? How so? Canada spends less per capita on health care than the USA. So do all the other 'civilized nationalized health providing countries' out there. *DATA* You cannot accumulate more debt by spending less money than you were before. Not sure where you got your math degree - but it seems pretty freaking simple to me. -------------------- If some idiot goes out and jumps out of an airplane and gets hurt - do they get health care? *DATA* Your insurance company is already ON A DAILY BASIS, trying to figure out ways to not pay for the insurance that you need or thought you had been paying for. At least a nationalized system does not really care. Maybe they would have mental health services to figure out why that guy stuck wine bottle up his ass in the first place. Instead of perhaps sending him to prison as a felon, where he will get lots of other things stuck up his ass on the taxpayers dime...... does the guy with the wine bottle up his ass get social security when he turns 65? --------------------- if that were the case then we would never have used the military to invade Iraq while 'trying to protect the American people from terrorism' *DATA* If one wing of the government (the military) is so concerned for our safety, then how is it so hard to believe that another wing of our government would actually care about health care? millions of Americans disagree with you. And to say that a nationalized health care system would be only about buying votes is simply naive and oversimplification. Lots of different governments have come and gone since the signing of the bill of rights and the New Deal. Few say that these were bad ideas. Since the governments have changed so many times, it was obviously not about 'buying votes' ----------------------- *DATA* It is not an 'experiment' there are dozens of working models around the world to go by. ----------------------- I never said anything was 'perfect' in Canada, the Uk or anywhere else. I am advocating that the status quo is broken. I am not advocating the universal healthcare will be 'perfect' either. I am advocating that it needs to change. You, I do believe, are advocating NO CHANGE. unacceptable. A fairly well working universal healthcare system is better than the current US private system. *DATA* read your homework. the system in Canada is not too expensive, - nor is it anywhere else where universal healthcare exists. And it is not 'fucked up'. It has issues. sour grapes all you want, my last paragraph stands. It will happen. be part of it if you want, or get run over by it. ---------------------- wow, someone SUED someone over health care? If that was a reason to shut down the system in Canada, then..........? besides all that, in earlier posts, I already acknowledged that a mixed system of private and public care would probably work - and that many services in Canada probably SHOULD be privatized. Finland has a system like that. *DATA* We already have a 'dual system' in Canada. Those that can afford it already go to the USA, write a check and pay for it. Kind of like here in the USA. Those that can afford it - get it. Those that can't, don't (quite often) *DATA* You remember Phantom - he died. He had chronic issues and with no health insurance, he did not get the treatment he needed. He DIED - in the USA, because he had no insurance and therefore no specialist was ever going to see him. All he could get was ER treatment, which was no good for his condition. ----------------------- You are forgetting the most basic premise - EVERYONE in Canada gets decent healthcare. NO ONE in Canada is willing to give that up and go to a private system. *DATA* A lot of people complain about health care in Canada. A lot of people complain about health care in the USA. *DATA* People die in Canada waiting for treatment. People die in the USA waiting for treatment. *DATA* Canada treats cancer and has a good survivor rate. The USA treats cancer and has a good survivor rate. *DATA* Canada spends LESS on healthcare than in the USA. You and I are already paying for those that do not have insurance through higher premiums. If everyone paid through income taxes, then most of us would pay LESS than we are paying now. *DATA* No one in Canada is ever bankrupted because they could not afford to pay their medical bills. *DATA* that does not happen in the USA. I have already stated my case in previous posts, you should read them so I do not have to repeat myself. A program that provides DECENT healthcare for all is better than a program that provides NO healthcare for many, or a system that causes you to lose your life's savings just because you fell down the stairs. Or got hit by a car, or just plain got sick. *DATA* Yes, ER room care in the USA is available for everyone - that care only helps SOME of those people that go there. It provides little help to those with chronic conditions. (Phantom only got symptomatic treatment and got sent home) *DATA* In Canada, Phantom would have seen a specialist, he would have seen a regular doctor. He would have received treatment because his condition was worsening and was chronic. And yes, the guy who was not 'chronic' might have had to wait behind him. It cracks me up how when I post a list of reasons supporting it, that Ron and you and Neal all take ONE LINE, one SNIPPET, then dismiss the validity of an ENTIRE MEDICAL SYSTEM based on that one snippet. narrow minded thinking. -------------------- *DATA* and that is an overstatement. the super rich - when they want to fly to Europe- charter a private jet and go when they want to, rather than wait for first class on a regular flight. That does not mean that the airline transportation system is flawed in any way. It just means they have the money to do it on their own terms. *DATA* My mother got 2 knee replacements in the past year. She had to wait 6-8 months to get it done. For the first one, she actually got moved UP the list when some scheduling changes happened at the hospital. They called her and said "Hey can you do this on this coming Monday?" And she could and they did. Does that sound like 'poor healthcare' to you? If she was a millionaire, yes, she could have taken the choice and flew to NY and paid $100K to get it done. She still got 'decent' healthcare. If she has a heart attack someday - she will get GREAT healthcare in Canada. Again, the Canadian system has issues and improvements could be made. The US system has far more issues and needs to be fixed, first and foremost by offering some level of universal healthcare to all. ---------------------- you are absolutely right - only blunt objective logic should be allowed into the argument How dare I care about my friends when it comes to health care...... *DATA* Data: 62% of all bankruptcies in the USA are related to medical bills http://www.google.com/...e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 *DATA* it was 50% in 2005 and now is over 60%. you asked for data, you got it. Got some data on how many people in Canada want to scrap the entire system and go to a completely private system? It is pretty small. *DATA* How many Canadians want more access to MORE privatized healthcare? A majority I am sure, and that will happen too. As I already pointed out earlier, several times, but you continue to ignore - is that the Cdn system does have issues and may as well have more services privatized AS AN OPTION. Not as a 'removal' of the current system. But they will never completely scrap the universal healthcare available to all. Just like here in the USA, scrapping the private system and going completely to a government run system will probably not work either, but a mix of both can and probably will work. So when you need your $200,000 heart transplant - you can just write that check and feel good about it. *DATA*( Obviously we do not do heart transplants in Canada - since the system is so flawed......http://www.google.com/...e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 ----------------------

you are absolutely right - only blunt objective logic should be allowed into the argument How dare I care about my friends when it comes to health care...... Data: 62% of all bankruptcies in the USA are related to medical bills http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=bankruptcy+in+the+usa+due+to+medical&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 it was 50% in 2005 and now is over 60%. you asked for data, you got it. Got some data on how many people in Canada want to scrap the entire system and go to a completely private system? It is pretty small. How many Canadians want more access to MORE privatized healthcare? A majority I am sure, and that will happen too. As I already pointed out earlier, several times, but you continue to ignore - is that the Cdn system does have issues and may as well have more services privatized AS AN OPTION. Not as a 'removal' of the current system. But they will never completely scrap the universal healthcare available to all. Just like here in the USA, scrapping the private system and going completely to a government run system will probably not work either, but a mix of both can and probably will work. So when you need your $200,000 heart transplant - you can just write that check and feel good about it. Obviously we do not do heart transplants in Canada - since the system is so flawed......http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=heart+transplants+in+CANADA&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

then demonstrate it, please. and that is an overstatement. the super rich - when they want to fly to Europe- charter a private jet and go when they want to, rather than wait for first class on a regular flight. That does not mean that the airline transportation system is flawed in any way. It just means they have the money to do it on their own terms. My mother got 2 knee replacements in the past year. She had to wait 6-8 months to get it done. For the first one, she actually got moved UP the list when some scheduling changes happened at the hospital. They called her and said "Hey can you do this on this coming Monday?" And she could and they did. Does that sound like 'poor healthcare' to you? If she was a millionaire, yes, she could have taken the choice and flew to NY and paid $100K to get it done. She still got 'decent' healthcare. If she has a heart attack someday - she will get GREAT healthcare in Canada. Again, the Canadian system has issues and improvements could be made. The US system has far more issues and needs to be fixed, first and foremost by offering some level of universal healthcare to all.

You are forgetting the most basic premise - EVERYONE in Canada gets decent healthcare. NO ONE in Canada is willing to give that up and go to a private system. A lot of people complain about health care in Canada. A lot of people complain about health care in the USA. People die in Canada waiting for treatment. People die in the USA waiting for treatment. Canada treats cancer and has a good survivor rate. The USA treats cancer and has a good survivor rate. Canada spends LESS on healthcare than in the USA. You and I are already paying for those that do not have insurance through higher premiums. If everyone paid through income taxes, then most of us would pay LESS than we are paying now. No one in Canada is ever bankrupted because they could not afford to pay their medical bills. that does not happen in the USA. I have already stated my case in previous posts, you should read them so I do not have to repeat myself. A program that provides DECENT healthcare for all is better than a program that provides NO healthcare for many, or a system that causes you to lose your life's savings just because you fell down the stairs. Or got hit by a car, or just plain got sick. Yes, ER room care in the USA is available for everyone - that care only helps SOME of those people that go there. It provides little help to those with chronic conditions. (Phantom only got symptomatic treatment and got sent home) In Canada, Phantom would have seen a specialist, he would have seen a regular doctor. He would have received treatment because his condition was worsening and was chronic. And yes, the guy who was not 'chronic' might have had to wait behind him. It cracks me up how when I post a list of reasons supporting it, that Ron and you and Neal all take ONE LINE, one SNIPPET, then dismiss the validity of an ENTIRE MEDICAL SYSTEM based on that one snippet. narrow minded thinking.

wow, someone SUED someone over health care? If that was a reason to shut down the system in Canada, then..........? besides all that, in earlier posts, I already acknowledged that a mixed system of private and public care would probably work - and that many services in Canada probably SHOULD be privatized. Finland has a system like that. We already have a 'dual system' in Canada. Those that can afford it already go to the USA, write a check and pay for it. Kind of like here in the USA. Those that can afford it - get it. Those that can't, don't (quite often) You remember Phantom - he died. He had chronic issues and with no health insurance, he did not get the treatment he needed. He DIED - in the USA, because he had no insurance and therefore no specialist was ever going to see him. All he could get was ER treatment, which was no good for his condition.

list them.....

borrow my tools and break it? Fix it. borrow my car and break it? fix it. borrow my parachute and break it? fix it.

I never said anything was 'perfect' in Canada, the Uk or anywhere else. I am advocating that the status quo is broken. I am not advocating the universal healthcare will be 'perfect' either. I am advocating that it needs to change. You, I do believe, are advocating NO CHANGE. unacceptable. A fairly well working universal healthcare system is better than the current US private system. read your homework. the system in Canada is not too expensive, - nor is it anywhere else where universal healthcare exists. And it is not 'fucked up'. It has issues. sour grapes all you want, my last paragraph stands. It will happen. be part of it if you want, or get run over by it.

Bart: "Hey do toilets really flush the other way?" Secret Service Guy: "Yes, but we had our toilet modified to flush the proper 'American' way" Doing it different for the sake of doing it different is no argument. We spy on the Soviets back when because they might have a good idea (and for other reasons) and they spy on us because we might have a good idea. To poo-poo some working idea just because it happens to be in Finland, Sweden, Canada or France is plain ignorance. It holds back 'free thinking' and goes against everything that the Constitution of this country stands for. But it does demonstrate many to be very narrow minded. But the Constitution also says you are welcome to your wrong opinion in the first amendment. And note that free speech was granted in an AMENDMENT. It was not granted in the first Constitution. So much for this place being so goddamn perfect..... back to health care - this place is NOT SO GODDAMN PERFECT. It is broken - and needs to be fixed. the status quo will not do. we are going to see change, you have the opportunity to participate in that change or get run over by it. just like back in October, there was nothing anyone could do about Obama getting elected - it was going to happen. your complaining about it did not and would not change anything. Health care in this country is going to change to universal in my lifetime, mark my words. You can participate in it, or get run over by it. your choice. I choose to participate in it. You can choose to complain about it but it will do no good.

probably more like "USPA's INSURANCE company has settled with the plantiffs."

It is not an 'experiment' there are dozens of working models around the world to go by.

if that were the case then we would never have used the military to invade Iraq while 'trying to protect the American people from terrorism' If one wing of the government (the military) is so concerned for our safety, then how is it so hard to believe that another wing of our government would actually care about health care? millions of Americans disagree with you. And to say that a nationalized health care system would be only about buying votes is simply naive and oversimplification. Lots of different governments have come and gone since the signing of the bill of rights and the New Deal. Few say that these were bad ideas. Since the governments have changed so many times, it was obviously not about 'buying votes'

If some idiot goes out and jumps out of an airplane and gets hurt - do they get health care? Your insurance company is already ON A DAILY BASIS, trying to figure out ways to not pay for the insurance that you need or thought you had been paying for. At least a nationalized system does not really care. Maybe they would have mental health services to figure out why that guy stuck wine bottle up his ass in the first place. Instead of perhaps sending him to prison as a felon, where he will get lots of other things stuck up his ass on the taxpayers dime...... does the guy with the wine bottle up his ass get social security when he turns 65?

try not to twist what I said - the original question was about WAITING 6 months for an MRI, not being DENIED for one. So yes, if the INSURANCE COMPANY denies the MRI, (happened to me), *OR* the government makes you WAIT 6 months to get one (the current case in Canada), then the option to go pay for it yourself should be allowed. This is one of the problems with the Canadian system. The government does not allow private companies to do that sort of thing, but I also think that will change in Canada as well, people are willing to pay for Xrays, bloodwork, MRI's etc. - at least some of them, but under the current system, they cannot and do not have that option. THe Canadian system is far from perfect - but it is better than the system that we have here. Trillions in National Debt? How so? Canada spends less per capita on health care than the USA. So do all the other 'civilized nationalized health providing countries' out there. You cannot accumulate more debt by spending less money than you were before. Not sure where you got your math degree - but it seems pretty freaking simple to me.

Is social security working 'perfectly' no. of course not. Is it working? Yes. Is the military working perfectly? absolutely not. Is it working? yes it is. I would take cancer treatment in Canada as it would not cost me anything at all. Here in the USA, it might very well bankrupt me, even though I have insurance. I would have deductibles, and co-pays and an eventual 'cap' on the amount I would have to spend on my treatment. While I am sick, I would probably not work, so I would have no money to pay for the deductibles and other fees not covered. I would be deluged in paperwork by the insurance company, mostly denials to the claims that i am making and I would probably be too sick to manage all that properly, causing me not only damage to my credit report for unpaid bills, but costing me lots of money because i do not understand everything that the insurance company is sending me. When I broke my neck in 2001, it only took one month to build a paper file more than 2 inches thick with denials, letters and insurance gibberish that all had to be handled. the overhead was immense. My credit report was trashed and up to 3 years ago, I was still finding things that fell through the cracks that I had to end up paying for. I cannot afford a 'manager' to handle all that - most people cannot. Most people cannot afford the type of private insurance that would allow you to get ANY TREATMENT AT ANY COST with NO PAPERWORK to worry about. Insurance companies are not actually about delivering health care - they are about making money. A government run plan would not be about making money - wit would be about delivering health care.

And that is a valid ideology. I have no disagreements with it at all. The problem is that it does not work for everyone (48 million people right now). If we all had the ability to take care of ones self and family, then OBVIOUSLY, there would be no issue with Health care. But the fact is that people do not. I have a job, I make a decent wage. I can BARELY afford health insurance. It is not good enough to say "Get off your ass and go get a job". right now, hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs through no fault of their own - they are not lazy, they are not useless nor incompetent. They are simply in an unfortunate situation. And that affects all of society and eventually will affect you and me, I believe that health care (at some level) is a fundamental human right. And we will see it happen in this country in my lifetime, whether you agree with me or not.

nothing wrong with leaving many services privatized as well. If you can afford the MRI, go to the clinic and pay for it. I have in the past, because I was denied by the large corporation that supposedly provides me with HEALTH COVERAGE, but does everything they can to NOT pay for it every time I need something.

dropzones are different. I am not for the government running business. I am for the government running HEALTH CARE, as well as education, the military, social services, and a few other things. So no, I am not for the government running drop zones, car companies, gun manufacturing, widgets or whatever else private business shoudl be involved in. SO we disagree on where the line is drawn on what is a right and what is a privilege or 'business'

don't get me wrong - I am/was not a fan of the stimulus package. I am a fan of government run, single payer, nationalized health care.

not at al. Borrowing to start up a new health care system is what would need to happen. People in the end would pay for it, instead of payments to private health insurance companies, the net would be made in tax payments. his argument is that it can be done for everyone at a lower price than it is today. since all government costs are eventually borne by the taxpayer, the cost to the taxpayer eventually will go down. Including you. you are just paying a different 'insurance company' for a different 'insurance policy' nothing nuts about it. dozens of other 'civilized countries are already doing it, and we are the ones with the problem. the problems will be: 1. getting approval in the USA for such a plan when there are so many right wing nut-jobs that think this country SHOULD be every man for himself..... 2. how to actually transition, effectively putting insurance companies out of business.

well given the support for the stimulus package from both business and Congress itself - with all the doom and gloom predictions that were in place months ago if we did NOT support the stimulus package (including from the opposition parties) - then I guess it is Ok to claim that it appears to be working. At least to some degree. The writer did not say the numbers were false, they just said no one has 'called him on it' so the numbers are not necessarily false. But I also see his point. Actuarial types do these sorts of predictions all the time. If there are other actuarial types out there that can provide some different numbers, then i am sure they would have by now. so if I say i am right and what I did was right, and no one can prove that I am wrong, I may not be 'right', but at the very least, I am 'not wrong'. does not sound so bad to me.

And this is why every day, I move farther and farther away from the right-wing Christian nut-jobs..... Conservatives in this country need to chill and get a life. Lots of 'free countries' show titties on TV, sell various materials in all kinds of stores, and very limited censorship rules (compared to ours), and I really doubt that their numbers of nigger-hating, man-boy-lovin', perverted serial murderin', flyin' airplanes into buildings numbers are any different than ours. Apply the censorship and nothing will actually change.....

I posted this in another thread recently,

you are/will be likely outside the TSO'd weight limits of the gear. if you get hurt, the dropzone could and probably will be liable for that simple fact. Hence why most places will not take you. Just because you find a place willing to train you does not actually make it safe to do so. 100lb people do not play pro football and 300lb people do not skydive.