Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Split - Politics of space exploration
- Thread starter MacRumorSkeptic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally posted by mactastic
So what are we arguing over then?
because, i do not want my HC quality reduced. call me an ass, call me what you will, but i want the best care i can afford. plain and simple. yes, others should get healthcare, but if this means i will be waiting for a week to get my broken leg set, a few months for my "non-immediately life threatening problem" test to be administered, this is not acceptable.
i do not plan on being a billionaire, but my middle to upper middle class income will provide me with better HC than a nationalized system could ever.
(just look at what canadians are forced to do. people pay out of pocket for procedures b/c it will be months of waiting in a queue to receive the procedure for free. people even die in these queues.)
So would a reasonable solution be to have the gov't provide the most basic level of care universally, with 'cadillac coverage' available to those who have the money?
These were my characterizations of some candidly admitted points of view, that people without health care somehow haven't earned it and therefore don't deserve it. But apparently, there's no small amount of cognitive dissonance going on here -- where some would like to disown the idea that health care should be a privilege reserved for the well off and healthy, but they can't quite get to the point where they're ready to admit that the current system will never deliver on any other basis.
Once again, I haven't proposed or even implied a solution, because as I've said so many times before, it makes no sense to talk about solutions when we haven't agreed on a definition of the problem. So all of your implication, inference and innuendo is based on nothing more then your own unwillingness to accept that a health care problem even exists.
I touched your question. In fact, I answered it.
Yes. If you cannot afford health care, then you do not deserve health care, and if it just so happens that you die because of the lack of it, yes, you deserve to die.
Same as when you cannot afford food, and you think its right to steal food from others, then you deserve to die as well.
You can shame me into contributing to you. You can put a convincing ad campaign for me to help you. But don't steal from my pocket and tell me that you are stealing for my own good (and back up that stealing with the threat of jailtime and death at the hands of government).
close to what i am saying, although your spin sounds a bit more harsh than mine.
but- i think people should still be RESPONSIBLE for their own healthcare. the government should only step in when it is not financially possible for this to happen. i hate the government telling me to do things. the government is here to make things run smoothly and protect our country. it is NOT here to dictate how we live our lives. it already has too much control over what we put in our bodies, now you want it to control how we keep our bodies healthy.
tell me, with a nat'l HC system, what is going to stop the government from prohibiting tobacco and alcohol since they are detrimental to our health and raise the amount it has to pay to keep citizens healthy? what else would get prohibited? would all cars be governed at 55mph since speeding can cause injury? will skydiving be outlawed?
Have you heard of medicaid? we are paying for that now for the poor. the problem is all this insurance money going into corporations pockets and millionaire CEO's while they are figuring out news ways to screw the patient in the name of the dollar. we would be better served in a national healthcare package where this excess money would be in the fund to help all. Everyone who is making profit off of sick and ill people dont want this. My wife and i pay a lot of money right now for healthcare we never use. where is this money going? into some fat corporation that is building its new factories over seas so they dont have to pay anyone anything and that CEO is still making his millions. Try taking some of these insurances we are paying for across the country and more then likely they will look at you like you are nuts with the answer of we dont accept that insurance company. so again why pay this money to a worthless insurance company who is telling Dr's how to practice? Mactastic you might as well give up as you probably are talking with a insurance saleman who is making a living off of other peoples sickness.
Well, apparently, you like giving your money to the aforementioned fat cat millionaire, otherwise, you would not be paying your money for something you are not using.
But, when you gave your money, you did so V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-I-L-L-Y.
There is the rub. Sure, make a National Health Care systemm, but make it voluntary. Just like the US Postal Service is paid for by people that send and receive packages. It can be done too.
I am sorry that you can not see this.
Quotes from me:
Humm, seems like I have said there is a problem, not once, but at least 4 different times. Once again, please think before typing.
How would this change with a national hc system?
Also-
Should the US be a country where the government controls all lucrative industry? Or, should we allow private citizens to run businesses?
Remember, you do not have to pay your money to the CEO who is, in your mind, taking all your money. Do some research, find out what HC provider is spending most of the money it brings in on its subscribers. YOU have the power to change this practice. Get more people to do the same, and the rich CEO will have to change his/hers way to keep their job.
Health care, for most, is still done through employers. You do not directly buy your healthcare even if you pay some or all of the costs.
There is essentially no free market going on in the healthcare industry. If I want a different healthcare provider, all I can do is ask nicely and hope the company cares enough about me as one person to change everyone over to a plan that fits my needs.
Look i worked in the health care industry and my wife still does, the insurance companies play every game in the book and i have seen it first hand. I would rather this extra money instead of building HMO'S, building those retirement homes for those CEO's,building those insurance companies go to help the patient and doctor. Its that simple. instead of the paperwork games they play and let me tell you they do play have that money go into a simpler National Healthcare system where you can go see any doctor not just the one the HMO is sending you to. That HMO is also telling that Dr how to practice his medicine and they are telling him to do this and do that. HMO's are not helping the patient nor the Doctor. They are helping themself first, the doctor second the patient third. this is wrong it should be the patient first.
This is ass backwards. Im not a Dean supporter( yet) but he was a physician and i do like what he is saying about lets get everyone in and then adjust it. If you are over 65 you are in (medicare), if you are poor you are in ( medicaid) now lets get those folks excluded in. A Lot of savings when you eliminate the middleman. HMO's & Insurance companies are the middlemen. their first priority is the Dollar not Healthcare.
This is ass backwards. Im not a Dean supporter( yet) but he was a physician and i do like what he is saying about lets get everyone in and then adjust it. If you are over 65 you are in (medicare), if you are poor you are in ( medicaid) now lets get those folks excluded in. A Lot of savings when you eliminate the middleman. HMO's & Insurance companies are the middlemen. their first priority is the Dollar not Healthcare.
I'm with you on HMO's. They should be taken out into a street and beaten. They definitely make it harder for doctors to treat patients correctly and efficiently.
No, nor should it be a country where business controls government. Nor one where your freedom to choose a doctor is governed by what health care plan you have and what they feel is best for you.
This has been touched on already, but individuals don't often get the choice of HMO. If you are working for someone, you have to go with the decision they make. And in many cases the best plans are available from large organizations that can get good group rates. Small businesses are the ones that find it hardest to provide decent HC at a reasonable cost. Individuals have it even worse. That's not freedom in my book.
we have really gotten off space have we not? im pretty surprised even at myself because space is the future but as i get older i have started to see more of the problems we have. If Bush had not been such a fiscal liberal i would have gone for this 100%. Big business is running Govt and im seeing this more and more ( thank you George) Govt has to be brought back to the American worker not the corporation who is donating to your next election. Its obvious in so many ways, sugar industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the military complex, etc etc. Space has to be explored and understood but George's timing is very poor after he has spent so much. I still think the most important thing we can do concerning Space is to find the best way to get there. Scramjets, Nuclear power, Ion drives Elevators whatever but until we can break Gravity we will be pissing a lot of money away that can change lives. A better goal would to be develope antigravity. once this is done we can do anything go anywhere.
"A" problem, but what problem? Do you regard the 42.5 million working Americans without access to health care to be a "problem" that needs to be "solved?" This is precisely the question (and the only question) I've been asking quite clearly all along -- not whether we need "tort reform," because that's not going to get us anywhere near providing universal access to health care. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Oh great, and how are you going to accomplish this public flogging? For those who can still afford medical coverage, HMOs are about all we can afford.
you called it a problem, then you blast me for saying there are problems? do you even read what you and others post? do you think it is as simple as one problem? what else would one do with a problem? usually the answer is to solve it. something this big is not the result of one factor.
i'm done speaking with you, as you have no constructive thoughts. you continually turn criticism upon others, instead of adding to the conversation with a well thought out argument.
Of course we have, people don't know how to deal with this situation.
Liberals know that they should support the pursit of science but automatically detest anything Bush says or does regardless of content.
Conservatives know that they should automatically agree with Bush but be opposed to increases in Government spending.
As soon as the party leaders fire off some snappy partisan one-liners we'll have a great discussion of people firing off the same one-liners over and over again. At the moment however we have a complex issue with complex repurcussions and it is so much easier to just bicker about another topic altogether, especially in light of the rather miniscule amount of funding NASA will recieve over the next few years and the futility of socialized medicine in a Republican house.
I see the biggest problem right now is breaking gravity, once that is done the next one will be breaking the speed of light or warping space if you will if its even possible.
we have extremist on both side as you stated and neither are much help with public policy. I thought we would have gone further then we have in space travel by now. its a lot harder then us monday morning quarterbacks can imagine. its also costing a lot more. what Bush is proposing is great but we have to be able to get there in a better way. our focus should be on breaking the Earths Gravity in a better way then chemical propulsion.
I hate to bring this up but i think its being done now and not by us or anyone on this planet. we have to discover antigravity and once we do it will be what the computer was to industry.
We have pilots, former astronauts and even presidents that know something or someone else is up there and they are bending gravity. manipulate this and we have solved so many things. space travel,exploration,pollution,energy dependency on oil etc.
we have extremist on both side as you stated and neither are much help with public policy. I thought we would have gone further then we have in space travel by now. its a lot harder then us monday morning quarterbacks can imagine. its also costing a lot more. what Bush is proposing is great but we have to be able to get there in a better way. our focus should be on breaking the Earths Gravity in a better way then chemical propulsion.
I hate to bring this up but i think its being done now and not by us or anyone on this planet. we have to discover antigravity and once we do it will be what the computer was to industry.
We have pilots, former astronauts and even presidents that know something or someone else is up there and they are bending gravity. manipulate this and we have solved so many things. space travel,exploration,pollution,energy dependency on oil etc.
while i do agree with you on this, it may take us 1 year, 100 years or 1000 years to figure this out. i do not think that just b/c we don't have the most efficient means of reaching escape velocity, we should put any space travel on hold. we should fund both system, and learn as much as possible while doing space travel, so we may add that knowledge to the new mode of transportation.
i agree i dont want us to put it on hold but on the other hand are the rewards worth the billions that we have allready paid to the shuttle program and the billions to follow in chemical explosions to space. we need a array of telescopes to watch space for science and incoming asteroids. we should have a plan to divert anything heading our way. do we need a base on the moon? do we need to go to mars right now? I would rather we work on getting to space and building on the ISS rather then political dreams and trying to shift attention due to politics. Dont forget that Jupiter just got slammed by asteroids a few years ago. what could we do now if we had a incoming? not a darn thing. but instead we are dreaming of grand political dreams instead of taking care of what matters most our loved ones and the human race.
You never know, there may be more to Bush's plan than meets the eye.
The Chinese are making inroads into space.
Heinlein has already speculated about the possibility of "weaponizing" the moon (in a manner, anyway).
Of course, no country would dare attempt such a thing.
Just like they wouldn't risk developing their nuclear capabilities without clearing it with everyone else first.
Rrrright.
Oh well, just a thought to cheer everyone up... Have a nice day!
The Chinese are making inroads into space.
Heinlein has already speculated about the possibility of "weaponizing" the moon (in a manner, anyway).
Of course, no country would dare attempt such a thing.
Just like they wouldn't risk developing their nuclear capabilities without clearing it with everyone else first.
Rrrright.
Oh well, just a thought to cheer everyone up... Have a nice day!