So, How About that Debate?
 

well, this thread will no doubt go down along the usual lines....but i think Kerry held his own pretty well. he seemed to have the Prez on the defensive pretty often - the best line of the night was the one about "outsourcing the hunt for Bin Laden to Afghanistan war lords".

i think Kerry'll pick up a bounce for this....Bush wanted to put hm away tonight, but it didn't happen :N:

i mean, Kerry is still a douchebag, but at least he looked like a presidential douchebag :ND:

felt like puking catching the last 20 mins of the debate.

kerry did a fine job, making clean and forceful points and betraying no nervousness. bush stuck to his message, perhaps simplistically so, while allowing kerry to get under his skin a few times but in general appearing affably confident if not particularly presidential. we all know bush is no rhodes scholar but he didn't exactly embarrass the u.s. with his idiocy, he seemed at least to have a magazine reader's command of some issues. but clearly after all the latest polls and the swift boat lies kerry had the hardest job. just showing up and cruising may have been ok for bush at this point in his campaign but would have been disastrous for kerry. the senator needed to correct a few misperceptions of the waffling/shifty/wimpy variety and he did that and more. he was bush’s superior intellectually (no big news there) but he was also something else: he was bush’s dominator, quietly leaving the president with little room but to rehash the same weak anti-kerry republican slogans. the ones that have always been suspect, but seem doubly so coming out of the mouth of a commander-in-chief of the most powerful country in the history of the world while standing within arms’ reach of the man he’s been vilifying for months and frankly not measuring up. i just couldn’t help knowing this man lacks the strength to lead the planet. that after all the prep, all the staff meetings, all the eyes-only cia and fbi reports, all the white house inside information, after four years in the oval office and all the recent debate practice, i was asking "is that all you have within you mr. president?" while hearing what i hope to god was the sound of double digit leads evaporating away.

- js.

To be honest, I felt that both candidates stuck to their own routines and came off fairly evenly matched. The only reason one would side with either man, would be because of one's support for that man. Kerry did what Kerry does. Bush did his usual Bush-logic, arguing that because he's been president for 4 years, it qualifies him for 4 more. I think at one point he, rather ironically, argued that the American people would vote for him because they wanted "someone who sticks to their guns".

I can't imagine it being any other way.

They are both liars!

To bad one of them will be elected.

That is all.

Amen.

They weren't even allowed to ask eachother questions, that is not a debate, that is telling stories.

edit: i forgot the t in stories :o

i made a typo ..... go figure :RE:

yup, i agree the format is a little sterile - i think it changes in the next one to a "town hall" style.

Bush reminded me of that classic Hunter Thompson line: "he sounded like a farmer with terminal cancer, trying to borrow against next year's crop." :BL:

...and the DNC wasted no time in putting this together:


The Faces of Frustration

Bush looks for all the world like somebody who feels he's above this kind of criticism, how dare Kerry question his policies, and all of this is just some formailty he has to suffer through in order to get back to his rightful place in the White House...

yeah. he was even poutier than gore was during his first debate. since bush was there for that one (wasn't he lol?) you'd think he'd have learned.

- js.

lol, good one dd. i used to collect those bush juxtapostions too. but there were too many for my harddrive. :D

- js.

after reviewing the debate footage, it's clear that Bush's discomfort was the direct result of a desperate need to urinate. notice how he bolted for the men's room immediately after.

amazingly enough, i was undergoing a similar experience at the exact same time. notice how i bolted for the men's room immediately after.

Ummm....I didn't notice; though of course we were all watching you through your computer monitor. I must have gotten distracted.

Interesting coincidence alright.







cuckoo-cuckoo

I'm blaming the whole thing on the fookin' liberal media.

hahahahahahaa...........

were they really taking notes ?

tonite's the vp debate....meaningless in the whole context of things (although a major fuck up by either could hurt a bit). i'm looking forward to it anyway - i have this image of Edwards like a little terrier, growling and hanging on Cheney's pant leg, as he tries to brush him off :D

How sad.
 

Watching from afar.
I find it very sad,that this is the best America can come up with.
At least with Bush you know what your getting.
Kerry can't make his mind up where he stands.
Rightly or wrongly Bush has his beliefs and goes with it.
I seen him on O'Rielly.
He never dodged one question.
He reminded me of "that bloody women"
My God how I hated her
(and still do,no doubt we'll have to stand a state funeral when she goes)
I have always been to the left in politics.
But I'm sorry to say.
I could not vote for someone like Kerry.
He appears to me that when the shit hits the fan,he'd bottle it.

he has one of those loud 'booming' voices..
(i bet he IS one of thos PEOPLE that probably LIKE to punctuate their TYPE in CAPS )
thats sort of impressive i guess
maybe a bit cliche..

Anyone that saw the debate between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry saw that Kerry won decisively and anyone claiming that Bush had won has absolutely no credibility. It wasn't even close. I don't know what they said when they shook hands beforehand but maybe Kerry told Bush "60 million people watching, no pressure" and Bush panicked at the thought of having to actually explain to 60 million people and his God who I don't think would like a lying tongue, what his rush to war was after turning up absolutely no weapons of mass destruction...

Bush looked confused as be babbled repeatedly the talking points from his pep rallies. If you didn't know who Bush was and saw him at a restaurant talking as he did during the debate not only would you not let him drive your car but you definitely would not let him drive your future. It was embarrassing to see the President of the United States so bewildered and out of his league. Bush appeared as an angry, doting old man who refused to accept the responsibility of his own actions. Instead of being man enough to live up to the mistakes on the ground in Iraq and the continuing mistakes, he was in complete denial instead talking down to the audience while ignoring the facts. This was not a man worthy of holding the office of the president. Bush has damaged the credibility of the United States, the credibility of the office of the president, he has now dumb downed the country. It is a sad day for America when its leader cannot grasp the English language nor make a credible case for his mistakes. He kept telling Americans that it was a hard job. We know that, so maybe he should find a job more in keeping with his skills, however I fail to think of any job from flipping hamburgers to shining shoes that he could do a credible job at, okay, maybe cutting wood in the bush. I've seen him on television doing that but like everything else he does it is staged for TV by his handlers so he may not be good at that either...

After watching the debate it became obvious why there are so few allies helping in Iraq and why none help pay for the venture. Bush doesn't like summits because he gets nothing accomplished at a summit. Put him in a room with other world leaders and he will babble on repeating himself until the world leaders walk away laughing at this incoherent twit of a president. Summits will never work with Bush because he talks and doesn't listen...

Bush while campaigning said of the debate, "Sen. Kerry only continued his pattern of confusing contradictions." I guess it would be confusing for Bush; it has become apparent that Bush can't grasp basic concepts. He is a 'special president' in the same way the Special Olympics are special....

It is one thing whether a Democrat or a Republican to vote along party lines but I cannot understand how any person could feel good about themselves voting for a candidate so obviously dense and unprepared for a job that he has had for almost 4 years. The presidency is somewhat like an out of control motor boat speeding across a lake, for awhile it will go on its own but eventually it will crash and burn. Attacking Iraq was the start of the crash, four more years of Bush and he'll have America in flames. For the last three and a half years this country has hand nobody paying attention to where the boat is heading. With Bush sitting in the captain's seat, the country is now going in an extremely dangerous direction. How could anyone vote for a man who still doesn't understand the problems on the ground in Iraq? His answer to the current fighting was, "We achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. In other words, we thought we'd whip more of them going in. But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operations, we moved rapidly. And a lot of the Ba'athists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought we would -- they would stay and fight. But they didn't. And now we're fighting them now." This is a president that didn't prepare for a guerrilla war, which is something the Iraqis did plan for. The president just doesn't get it; it wasn't because General Tommy Franks moved so rapidly that insurgents are all over and chaos reins in Iraq. It is because Bush refused to listen to his own military leaders that said around 200,000 troops would be needed. Instead he used much less and didn't seal off the Iraqi borders. The foreign fighters and terrorists came into Iraq after the occupation because Bush didn't have the troops whether American or coalition troops on the border preventing them from entering and he still doesn't. I heard Congressman Dan Burton on a cable show defend the poor planning by saying the United States hasn't stopped the foreign influx on the U.S.'s Mexican border either. Well I would hope that Congressman Burton and George Bush would stop it if they were using arms against America and setting off improvised explosive devices on their constituents. Too bad they won't support the American troops enough to do something to stop the influx of fighters crossing from Syria and Iran that are killing American troops and beheading workers. Instead of getting enough troops to prevent a problem Bush recently sent a delegation to a meeting in Damascus for talks with Syria this of course was after the problem started instead of have listening to his military in the first place that they needed more troops. It is a little late for talks but that is all Bush can do because he didn't have a plan when he went into Iraq and he doesn't have a plan to get out of it now...

Bush thinks somehow because he is president that makes him more qualified for the job of president than Senator Kerry but when you look at Bush's record and the many times Bush flip flopped on issues and so many times he made the wrong decisions he is less qualified than the common man that Bush seems to identify with. Bush may be the common man but there is a reason the common man is common. With the war in Iraq worsening the last thing the United States needs is a commander in chief who can't tell the truth about Iraq to the 60 million Americans tuning in to watch and doesn't have a chance in hell in getting any more international support than he already has...

Bush is a stubborn man and his supporters are equally stubborn. As I already said, I wouldn't let George W. Bush drive my car but some people will let him drive their future and their children's future. The very same children that will have to pay off Bush's deficit and that's if they are lucky; if they are unlucky they come home from Iraq in a flag draped coffin and never pay another tax. Vote for Bush, no exit plan, no real international help and when it gets worse in a second Bush term, no excuses. If you vote for Bush don't complain when all hell breaks loose; you know what you are getting and it isn't much, low expectations and even lower results from a special president...

I pulled an all nighter today just to see the debate between Edwards and Cheney and I tried to make sense of it.
A bit of an illusion on my part I know but I gave it a shot anyways.

I have heard Cheney say that Kerry voted against this and that, he voted against something else but most of all he voted against. And that is about all he had to throw at Edwards. Now I am Dutch but that wouldn’t cut it over here. I think that most of you people like to know, just like I do, how they are going to solve the problems in Iraq, the economy, the loss of jobs and so on. Neither party had any examples on how to finance their plans and I seriously doubt that money magically appears in the U.S. (if it does let me know)

I heard Cheney say that Kerry’s administration will interfere more into the people lives (government control) Okay I might be a bit Dutch here again but isn’t that having a very big mouth? I mean this administration came up with the patriot act, right??? I have never, in my entire life, seen such a huge violation/infringement of your civil rights.

I have read one of our fellow Napsterite had to pay $600+ a month for medical insurance and I am sure many others will have to cough up that kind of dough with him/her/them
Now I am going to use a dirty word for ya yanks but wouldn’t it be better if you peeps start to pay attention to countries where medical insurance fees are paid COLLECTIVELY ????? I pay for a basic (no dentist, no alternative healthcare/treatment) roughly $60 a month and if I do want the whole deal I will pay about $84 (I don’t wanna be caught on a lie, so it is only fair to say that it is on the rise here too and this amounts comes on top of what my employer has to pay)

I have been told that without a job you peeps are not insured for medical treatment at all. Is this true ??? Sounds a bit dangerous to me!
We are all medically insured here, the working, the unemployed even illegal aliens won’t be without medical treatment. Don’t get me wrong here I am not saying that this country and that our system is so much better, far from it. However I like the idea that someone from a country where TB reigns supreme and when he/she makes it into this country he/she will get treated before he/she infects more and more people.

Another thing I noticed was that they went on and on about Iraq, very important, I know, however the subjects like the national deposit or the huge number of people that lost their job was dealt with in about 5 to 10 minutes. Both came with plans to cut the deposit in halve but again with hardly any backing on how to.

Like I said before I am not claiming our system is better, far from it!! And I am not taking a piss at the political system in the U.S. just trying to make heads and tails of it.

Hell Legi, i have a job and don't git no damn health insurance....not offered, not partial paid, nutting.

my (and family's) best hope of getting any sort of insurance is to sign up for medicaid (sorta welfare) but guess bloody what?! We own too much to qualify for any assistance. we'd have to live in a tent and ride a horse to work:S

there's nothing for the working poor or lower middle income folks....damn sorry for what's supposed to be one of the "richest" countries in the world, eh.

and yea, it's fucked up. totally.

Yeah, I thought about doing that... ah well, it's the thought that counts...
Ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh.....

Dangerously close to the 'S-word', legion. Careful mate, you'll be castrated with your hammer and sickle if you say it out loud. :sus:

i buy health insurance for myself, and just myself...no children or other dependents. it's a great plan albeit one with a fairly high deductible; but once that's met there are no co-pays or other nickel and dime things that bleed you to death. it does not however cover eyeglasses or dentists. it will cover transplants, long term care, hospitalization etc up to $5 million total. it costs me around $250.00 a month. it has more than paid for itself. having said that i realize even 250 can be out of reach of many individuals, and those with dependents would have to pay more, while those with "pre-existing conditions" would have to pay much, much more - if they could even find an underwriter willing to cover them to begin with. i sometimes think health insurance is the worst thing that's happened to the west, that in fact it should be banned. i happen to think you can't actually have an economy in which people can't buy what you're selling. as it applies to health care, if people - all people - had to pay out of their pockets the true cost of care as it stands now they wouldn't be able to - so to my way of thinking the market would have to adjust to reality and configure itself so it was supportable by it's customers, in this case the patients. in short order we'd go from most people not being able to afford it to the opposite: most people enjoying and affording good health care with lots of marketplace choices. there will always be the poor among us, those that really can't afford anything at all, and it will always be a problem accommodating them in any area, whether it's food, housing or health care, but to have a marketplace that essentially no one can participate in is the definition of dysfunctional, and unless that basic dichotomy is addressed all the health insurance schemes in the country, whether republican (brutally stingy) or democratic (optimistically overreaching) will not fix this increasingly dangerous problem.

- js.

SOCIALIZED MEDICAL CARE!!! Are you insane?

You seem to be confused about the word "paid" --and "deposit"(national debt)-- But socialism "takes". It isn't hard to figure that the people who take care of their health will be punished and the people who ruin their health will be rewarded.

The U.S. has all sorts of voluntary insurance programs for people to protect themselves from large unforseen medical expenses but the term insurance has been hijacked to mean subsidy and since someone has to pay the subsidy the premiums have gotten exorbantly large and it really ends up shifting the cost from the recipient to the premium payer(usually employers and government) until the payers rebel, the providers get shortchanged and start gouging and things degenerate into a mess.

I could really get into the economics and fairness but it simply boils down to the old maxim: if you want more of something subsidize it and if you want less of it tax it. If you want more sick people, even people pretending to be sick and scamming the system and hypochondriacs wasting money and resources, subsidize them.

The VP debate was pretty much the same format as the Bush/Kerry debate, meaning they really didn't debate anything, they just produced sound bytes for an hour and a half. The presidential candidates sent out their attack dogs to say the things they couldn't afford to say themselves. It wasn't as entertaining as last week's debate.
I tend to feel the same way. This Frankenstein's-monster mix of government subsidized and free market health care is a beast that few other nations have to deal with. I'm certain the FTC could probably drum up a profiteering case against the insurance companies, the perscription drug companies should have to face more competetion than they do, and there's lots more that can be done. Government intervention is necessary sometimes, but in this case they're intevening in the wrong places and they just need to shift gears.

It took a cold war to get us to the moon; it would take a similar push from the government to cure cancer and AIDS. They should be pushing for more research and be less liberal with awarding patents, this would drive down the cost of perscription drugs and other medical supplies. The government should help more medical students get through school, not just cheaply but also well educated in the end, and this would lead to lower litigation insurance rates and reduce doctor's fees overall. When the building is crumbling you don't waste resources making superficial repairs, the first thing you look at is the foundation and reinforce it, and that's research and education as far as heath care is concerned. That will at least prevent things from getting worse, and reforms thence forth will have a lasting effect.

that makes alot of sense..


this just in..;)

@ Jack spratts good point you got there, one I agree with whole heartily. Unfortunately it is the same here. When you just occupy a hospital bed it will set you back about $300 a day. Mind you, no doctor has visited you; no nurse fluffed your pillow, no drugs administered, just being there seems to be worth that kind of cash.
I spent more than one night in a Marriott hotel, valet parking, nice room, great view, good service, a swell mini bar, access to a gym and sauna, and a very nice breakfast (although vegemite isn’t my thing) but it didn’t cost me $300 a night. Damn close to it but still.

I also heard those two bitch about the lawsuits and the millions that are awarded for a medical mishap. Since my view on American society is distorted at best thanks to the media. I wander is this true or does overhead costs amount to the bulk of the money spent on health care on your side of the pond?
Here (the Netherlands) a member of the board of virtually any hospital takes home more money than our prime minister while they cannot afford to hire another nurse for those who really needs it. Therefore the level of care one receives here is in my opinion below average.

I do believe I read somewhere that you do have kid(s)( if I am wrong please do feel free to kick my ass about it.) May god forbid it will ever happen but what if one of them falls seriously ill? I take it you would have to cough up the money yourself, something that seems impossible to me. Also what happens when you run out of money? Would your kid(s) be kicked out of the hospital with all the horrible consequences that might have?
And a limit of 5 million dollars on your insurance??? is this the amount you can spend in your live time?

@ tambourine-man, SOCIALIST there I said it. Am I a brave little fucker or what? :BL:

No. But if I was, I'd be treated for it. :D
I wasn't aware I'd used either word in this thread? I mentioned 'paying' in another health-related thread, but the use of particular language and it's cultural context could take a long time to decipher. :ND:
On the one hand, you are correct. Such economic unfairness does occur. Some people - unfortunately, relatively few - will go through their lives never once requiring medical care. How unfair it must seem to have to pay for "another person's" care.

However, you seem to be labouring under a delusion regarding the social ettiquette or intelligence of illness. You seem to believe that your health is largely in your hands - which it is, and that all other factors are perhaps negligable - which they're not.

I'll tell you a little story. My beloved girlfriend is a pharmacist. In the course of her dispensary duty, she'll hand out quite a few medicinal prescriptions for cancer and, amazingly, quite a few of those who have cancer, have it through no fault of their own. Get this, some people who have lung/throat cancer have never smoked a cig in their life, some people who have skin cancer aren't sun worshippers nor have they spent half their life under a UV lamp. Some people whose liver has packed up haven't lived life with a bottle of scotch in their hand. Some people who have blood diseases didn't contract them through their own actions - they didn't 'ruin their own health'. If the equation were as simple as:

OWN ACTION = STANDARD OF HEALTH

... then I'd agree with you. I'd be right alongside you demanding that people pay their own way - after all, if I can stay healthy, then why can't others? And if others can't stay healthy, then why should I pay for them?

Unfortunately, as I suspect you're aware of, life often throws many of us a 'curl ball'... (are you impressed with my mastery of American colloquialism?)... which you comment on below...
OK. At this point you appear to be saying that the premiums are subsidized by Government so that people can afford them, and that this...
... encourages people to be ill? Hm. Errrr, I agree with the part about 'pretending to be ill' - sure, you'll get more scammers and sick leave if the opportunity is there, however, you're missing a fundamental point regarding an increase in 'actual illness'.

If subsidisation actually leads to an increase in reported illness - what does that tell you? Putting aside the scammers for a minute, is it logical to assume that increased subsidizing actually encourages the growth of micro-organisms and causes the spread of cancer? No. However, it is perhaps logical to assume that when people can afford coverage, they'll use it. In other words, there is an underlying 'unmet need' within the healthcare system. When people have no coverage - they suffer in silence. When there is cover, they claim. It is, believe it or not, a quality of life issue - and that is the basic principle of a socialised system of healthcare, the basic philosophical difference between an insurance and socialised system. That the shared economic burdon is worth it because:

1. we are all human
2. all humans are susceptable to disease, pain and 'bad luck'
3. not everyone within a commerce-based healthcare system will be able to afford coverage
4. life's too short to be suffering physical pain due to an inherant econmic imbalance

Don't get me wrong - it aint perfect. Far from it. But there's something disctinctly inhuman about turning someone away from treatment, sending them home to suffer or die, simply because they don't earn enough for coverage or, better yet, their coverage doesn't 'cover' pre-existing illness.

Jesus... imagine that. "Sorry, you were born with AIDS. Looks like you're shit out of luck".

*shapens the sickle*

?
 

Me thinks you mean sharpen that sickle.

http://www.iespell.com/

Sorry to be picky,but it lowers the tone of the neighbourhood.

Errrrr... ummmm... actually, I meant 'shapen'.. as in "I'm going to shapen the sickle with my worker hands, from the iron that our glorious motherland has produced." :BL:

Yeah. that's what I meant. :ND:

:rofl:

Is it finished yet.
 

Here's a template.

i'm admiring the shape of that sharp sickle, especially the curled outer edge. :p

Part of my point. But it takes some effort and discipline to stay healthy; and money: my treadmill, weight equipment, suppliments and time are already part of my health care costs and taking my money for someone who's money goes to beer, cigarettes, drugs, etc. doesn't "seem" unfair, it is unfair.






You're rambling into metaphysical nonsense with those silly terms, stick with health.

Almost everyone's health is in their own hands. I've seen studies indicating that 80% of US healthcare costs are a result of lifestyle choices. Give a drug addict top notch treatment for his overdose and he'll survive to need a second round later. A fat guy I worked with once commented his doctor would kill him if he saw the sausage and bacon he was eating after two bypass operations. People should face the consequences of their own choices or they'll have no reason to make better ones, and I shouldn't be billed for their choices.







Yeah, yeah, people are sometimes unfortunate. Why should I pay for it. I'll have my own problems in my life and my savings are for those. Should I pay for a new house when someone's is hit by lightning and burned...not their fault right? People should have the sense to prepare for these things like I have.








Nope. I said you'll get more sick people. Along the border with Mexico there are a lot of illegal immigrants coming over to get the subsidized healthcare. One slightly wacky girl I know got herself listed as psychiatrically disabled and actually got disability checks. More sick people.





You get into some silly reasoning and twisted definitions: 'unmet need' I guess means 'sick people' but you don't seem able to convey your opinion in clear realistic terms which I often notice in people who don't understand and just 'feel' a certain way.

kidless at present, so that's not an issue atm but of course my rates would follow my anatomy northwards should that status change. i would definitely insure my children, paying out of pocket for serious long-term care of any childhood disease or accident is as hard for me to imagine as it is for you.

that 5 mil then is for me alone and yeah, when it runs out i'll have to start selling assets. on the other hand something so catastrophically costly probably has such an infinitesimally low survival rate to begin with that figuring out the money angles will be the least of my worries. as for reaching 5 mil just in normal wear and tear well, i spend a few grand a year, on a bad year, for care, so it would take a very long time at that rate. in any event i usually pick up a new plan every 5 or ten tears anyway, and the money clock reverts to zero each time.

- js.

I'd love to read the same papers. If it's a COI study, you'd do well to give it a wide birth - they're notoriously inaccurate. On an aside, if I were to use the term 'lifestyle choices', there's very few costs that would fall outside of its scope. I'd have to read the paper first - if you've got a link or a library number, I'd be interested.
Agreed. Statistically speaking, placing a bet on this occurrence would be safer than placing it on a roulette wheel.
Agreed. It is frustrating watching someone slowly killing themselves - especially when they've been given a reprieve, only to squander it like an idiot.

You make valid points regarding the stupidity and irresponsible attitude of people and it's net effect on your premium. But as I stated earlier, you are choosing to ignore the factors that are out of your control...
But the fact is that people don't always have your luck/talent/finance. Yet you would condemn them? Like I also said, this is a fundamental difference in philosophy - I doubt either of us would change.
If I had money to help out, I would. If I had some spare time to help build their house, I would. I suspect that most people would help in some way - collectively.
Famous last words, albed.
Ah. Immigrants.
It's a well-used healthcare phrase.
I apologise for not 'understanding'.

Thankyou for your thoughts, albed.
-------------------------------------------
PS: malva - cheers for the iespell link!
-------------------------------------------

I always see this same twist of truth in so many people; like I'm doing the harm. How do I condemn people I don't even know exist. What is this philosophy you all share? Guilt by ignorance? Or am I guilty just for existing and have to redeem myself in your eyes. This perversion of the truth is what gets your ideas automatically dismissed by people who think in a normal, rational manner, but it must be the only way you can justify your ideaology.

Out of sight, out of mind?
Who is/are the 'all' you refer to?

I just don't mind looking out for others who aren't as lucky as me. No great conspiracy.
Albed, how have you arrived at this feeling? I'm surprised you even asked the question.
Is it rational to assume that I believe you are 'guilty' merely because of your existance? Probably not. Is it normal to hold such slapdash vitriol? Probably. Unfortunately.

Thanks for the insight jack. And there was no doubt on my mind you would insure your kids if ya had any (i should have been more clear on that one in my previous post) sorry about that :o

For a dutchie it's kinda weird to hear that there is a 5 million limit on healthcare plan (sounds a bit like insurance companie are putting a price tag on life) but you are right 5 million is a lot and it is not very likely one will spend that in a lifetime

Carefull, the sickle is making it's way towards you now :p

I couldn't agree more though. Besides if the other is a productive member of society I/we benefit from a quick return of this member. If not i am happy if this person get treated before he/she spreads a nasty disease like HIV or something something. Maybe save a life in the process ........ money well spent.

See the 'so many people' in the first quote.




Condemn is a verb, indicating I'm doing something, at least to you.

It was also contained withing a sentence ending with a question mark, indicating an inquiry, rather than an accusative... At least it does to 'all of us'. :D

Yes, but that requires thinking about things beyond your immediate gratification. More accurately, it requires a passing interest in collectivism over individualism - a pursuit that, traditionally, has been regarded as 'un-American'.

Oh right, that changes ummm....nothing.




Ever thought of just keeping it in your pants toy boy?




Thinking beyond immediate gratification....right.

What the fuck ?????

I am totally lost here. Why oh why should i keep it in my pants ?????
Did i say or even suggest somewhere that i had HIV???

All i said was, that i consider it a good point when a productive member of society returns to that society after falling sick and that everybody SHOULD have access to healthcare, without any consideration to their income.
Since HIV. has become controlable now i don't mind spending a few dollars more in order to save the life of someone else. Like i said money well spent.

So i should keep it in my pants, because????

Jeeze your dense. Keeping it in your pants keeps you from catching HIV. You don't have to worry about it spreading then. At least to you.


Ummm...maybe you were thinking about catching it in another way though. :dunno:

come on albed, HIV was an example, it could be TB, food poisoning, hepatitis whatever the list is virtually endless.
How people get infected is a bit beside the point. With your mindset people without insurance can go on for months if not years without even knowing that they are infected.

or shouldn't we eat food anymore or wait it's prolly my fault when someone with tb sneezes in the subway. yeah mike, you shouldn't sit next to someone like that. and how could i board that fucking plane while sars was around.

and with that keep your dick in your pants story .... well you start to sound holier than the pope mate. Must be the reason why africa has no AIDS :RE:

Like hell it is! It's almost all of the point; if people don't get infected then there is no other point, so why not look at stopping it. Modifying people's behaviour, quarantining people who won't behave themselves. Using resources for eliminating the disease instead of treating the people who have it for the rest of their lives. Maybe if they have to suffer and die or at least pay for their own healthcare as a result of their actions they'll change their behaviour and never get sick.

I think that maybe if the fat guy at work was faced with selling his big, expensive, and much beloved RV to pay for his bypass operations he might have become a vegan instead.




What mindset are you talking about? You can still take it out and check it you know.
Why would insurance make people get checkups if they're already engaging in behaviour that shows disreguard for their health as with HIV and Hepatitis. They need reasons to stop endangering themselves instead of a safety net to keep them alive once they've already screwed up.




You can pick your eateries more carefully, maybe wear a dust mask like the Japanese during SARS season. But these infections are low mortality and except for TB, curable.

My "keep your dick in your pants" story is just an example of avoiding disease in the first place; a condom will also work. And your Africa quip makes absolutely no sense at all.

This is a hoot. How do you think HIV gets spread except by thinking about immediate gratification.

Quarantining people who do not behave themselves, HAHAHAHA good one not even Stalin went that far and they are calling me a socialist :). On a more serious note, eliminating the disease instead of treating it. WOW man, what drugs are you using ? I want some! We have tried that with malaria ( didn't work ) we are trying it with the flu and the common cold ( it doesn't work ) we are trying to eliminate child diseases and you guessed it by now ( it doesn't work ) those diseases are still here. and of course Albed it's my own bloody fault for not sleeping in a bunker and a musquito stings me.

Thank gawd vegans never get heart problems

It won't. However it will make them have a check up much sooner therefor the disease might be discovered earlier which in it's turn stops the spreading of the disease. Besides that their is nothing and i mean nothing wrong with looking after someone albed, this entire world isn't revolving around YOU!!!!

Hmmm now let me think here. How many people die in the united states from Ecoli 0157 after eating a burger somewhere? Oh wait eating at burger king is a no no so is eating at mcdonalds. Am i to understand that you check the kitchen in every restaurant before you go eat there?
OH pssssst albed, a dusk mask does not protect you from a viral infection .... never have never will.


Okay i admit that africa crap i threw at you was a bit on the lame side. However most diseases you will contract in your life are beyond your own control. therefor albed you can't keep your statement up well you can, you are entitled to your own opinion, whether it is the best one i heard is irrelevant. i could extend this to driving a car and having an accident for no other reason then some granny gets an heart attack behind the wheel. you can no longer board a plane because of sars. you are not able to walk the streets anymore. all because you are taking health risks when doing so.

Quarantine has been used throughout history and Cuba now quarantines HIV infected citizens. You're knowledge of Stalin must be pretty biased.




Interesting how you completely forgot about HIV and Hepatitis now and you want to talk about Malaria to say disease can't be eliminated. Hmmm, wonder why we don't have malaria in the US now? Could it have been eliminated? You can't even cherry pick a disease to support your position.
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/spotlights/index_050704.htm




I don't know about Holland but you see some crappy little restaurants in the US. Burger King and McDonalds are reputable so I don't know what your problem is.




It's not 100% effective but it does provide protection.
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/512591.html
Probably the advice that motivates your opposition to preventing disease. You want to be free to smoke, drink and sleep with whores then get free medical care.




Since I take preventative measures obviously the ones I do get are beyond my control. Smoking and obesity are now leading causes of serious diseases in the US. Add on drinking and drug abuse and you've probably accounted for over 50% of medical costs. Easily preventable by personal behaviour.

WOW he is pointing at a communist country and yes my vision of stalin is very biased .... i don't like that fuck.

For the last time i used them as examples. Only to, and i know against my own better judgement, to show that you can contract many diseases beyond your control.


That doesn't take away they can make you fat, they can cause heart disease and maybe even cancer


if i wish to smoke, drink, eat and fuck every crackwhore in the neighbo(u)rood is none of your business even if i pay for a collective health insurance

Is that so albed? i hope when you jog you don't break a leg


But since it is easier to teach a pig how to whistle than to make you see my or someone elses point of view i am going to give this one a rest

mike out.

So, How About that Debate?
 

VS.

:rofl:


sorry for the hijack

I confess. I had a rectangular box between my shoulder blades shocking me in morse-code that I typed out and posted.









Wish they'd turn down the freakin' voltage.

for any that missed the debates

http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html