It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Progressives want to kill the elderly and the sick

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Some people? Obama's favorite strawman? Really?



Uh, if FOX News said "Some People" any more often, they would own a copyright on it!




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Oh! Now, killing is such a strong word! Surely, there are alternative and more natural ways of caring for the elderly and the sick without the dependency of the current health care system. "Some people," however, would prefer to remain dependent on the system than to be free from it once and for all, you know.
edit on 2010-12-30 by pikypiky because: To correct "flow of thoughts..."



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
The first topic on C-Span's Washington Journal ask the question, Will Medicare survive the Baby Boom Generation?

The only reason this question is asked is because Medicare and S.S. are Pyramid schemes. As life expectancy increases the systems will crash.

Obamacare is about rationing out healthcare to protect the pyramid scheme instead of reforming and replacing it.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


SOOOOOOO, showing that other people use the strawman, some people, proves what in your little tiny world?

And you pull out ANOTHER fallacy-Converse Accident: an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply

Come on wuk, you can do better than that right?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 




The only reason this question is asked is because Medicare and S.S. are Pyramid schemes. As life expectancy increases the systems will crash.


As long as ratio of givers/takers stays constant, direct system wont crash. If life expectancy increases, increase retirement age accordingly (and maybe increase taxes). If number of takers still temporarily increases due to baby-boomers, temporarily increase social security taxes or decrease benefits, till demography stabilizes. Of course putting a lock on the SS fund so it can only be used for social security payments is a must.

These are the solutions, not privatisation or only savings accounts, they wont solve anything.
edit on 30/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I highly doubt either political movement wants to directly or indirectly kill off Americans of any type. That would reduce the voter/tax base, which is simply unacceptable to those in power. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see the retirement age at 80 in 50 years from now. Probably sooner.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by whatukno
 


SOOOOOOO, showing that other people use the strawman, some people, proves what in your little tiny world?

And you pull out ANOTHER fallacy-Converse Accident: an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply

Come on wuk, you can do better than that right?


see foam I think you get what you want politically mixed up with what liberal folks want practically.
It is fair to say that liberals would LOVE to interfere with business and find a way to control or force
the healthcare industry to change... This is EXACTLY what i would want, you can beef on us for our methods,
but it is intellectual unfair or untrue to state we want to cause harm, I know we WOULD change and effect
the system if we were unchecked, YOU guys are that ones who don not want to interfere. I would be very happy if you would explore the way that works when it is put next to the title of this thread, it not in line with reality, it is a method to front an opposition. If king, who do you thing would get you cheaper healthcare, me or Mnemeth?
I assure you it would be me, because I would make it happen, he would not because he doesn't believe in that



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Its prop 101- pre qualify an idea by making it sound like it is a prevalent idea in the heard, the idea is
then injected into the heard for REAL via the viewer.

"SO and SO said" then the person observing actually has BECOME SO and SO, inception?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
If king, who do you thing would get you cheaper healthcare, me or Mnemeth?


If Mnemeth1 were our benevolent Dictator Monarch, he would provide an environment where a more affordable and efficient health care system would thrive.

People would come from your kingdom to his kingdom to get treatment - those who can afford such things, that is. I don't imagine that your people would be considered wealthy, relative to those who would live under the benevolent dictator king Mnemeth the 1st.

*I bet some of the hospitals in Mnemeth's kingdom would even do 'pro bono' work, paid for by the money provided by the myriad of charities that exist in his kingdom; a kingdom where people have alot of extra wealth due to low taxes and few regulations and so can afford to give to those who they want to help.

Frankly, I think your kingdom will have to strictly enforce your border zones to prevent a brain and labour drain into the neighbouring kingdom.



edit on 31-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: for dramatic effect



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


From what I know of Mnemeth1, I believe life under his "benevolent" rule would make Pol Pot look like the rule of mythical King Aurthur of Camelot.

A self described Anarchist with fascist tendencies does not a benevolent dictator make.

In an Anarchist society, medical treatment would be given to those who can coerce, threaten, bribe, or cajole whatever medical professional one could kidnap. Under such a society, most doctors would have been killed in lieu of payment. There certainly wouldn't be anyone training for the profession because no one would be insane enough to actually go to learn a skill where your best option would be the permanent kidnapping of yourself and the forced servitude under some warlord.

On the other hand, a person who has the best interests of their subjects in mind may in fact work to protect and encourage the best doctors to work in their kingdom and my in fact try to protect their people from the rampant cannibalism that would be inherent in an anarchic society.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Janky Red
If king, who do you thing would get you cheaper healthcare, me or Mnemeth?


If Mnemeth1 were our benevolent Dictator Monarch, he would provide an environment where a more affordable and efficient health care system would thrive.

People would come from your kingdom to his kingdom to get treatment - those who can afford such things, that is. I don't imagine that your people would be considered wealthy, relative to those who would live under the benevolent dictator king Mnemeth the 1st.

*I bet some of the hospitals in Mnemeth's kingdom would even do 'pro bono' work, paid for by the money provided by the myriad of charities that exist in his kingdom; a kingdom where people have alot of extra wealth due to low taxes and few regulations and so can afford to give to those who they want to help.

Frankly, I think your kingdom will have to strictly enforce your border zones to prevent a brain and labour drain into the neighbouring kingdom.



edit on 31-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: for dramatic effect


SCREEEEEED!

And I suppose Unicorns would appear in Mnemeth's Kingdom

You scantly seem to be conscious of the healthcare industry- its model is not based upon your idealized
utopia, there is never a dip in demand, EVERYONE gets sick, everything about it warrants a hyper premium
in our society. Your foolish consortium are so ignorant you are not even willing to consider your own money, your employers money, your families money - IF your money it is obtained thru the current Healthcare scheme it does not seem to matter, even if that costs is more than income tax (it is more)

Again, the scheme is only possible if the masses BELIEVE health maintenance is a luxury item


Boots and Marches for corporate profits. You believe


King Mnemeth on the other hand, too intelligent to see that death to critically ill patients
is far cheaper anyway you slice it. Since cost born on providers is too VIOLENT, the market will figure out
a way to filter out the excessive cost; the chronically ill


The fact is the private healthcare industry expenditure WILL outshine the ENTIRE federal budget in a decade and equal the GDP in less than thirty years, if nothing changes. Do know the term mathematic certainty?
thank god we are not intrinsically linked to it... Do you know who carries these costs? Your chin is dripping

So I suppose you and Gracious king Mnemeth suppose
someone making truck loads of money in this market will suddenly change the model to impact, and lessen their own profit for goodness sake???


No Mr. Short Bus they will not... See you SUPPORT and MAINTAIN the
status quo
which currently IS a mindless, FOR PROFIT machine which it built to take as much of your money as possible. Maybe when you severe head injuries abate you will realize you cannot change ANYTHING
if you are unwilling to change anything,,, simple equation.


Meanwhile please keep wearing your helmet and make sure you chin strap is on tight and nurse will be around shortly to wipe your chin.


edit on 31-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Initially you would make it cheaper.

But by historical reference, you would not only make it more expensive, you would also make it unavailable.

This experiment in the Marxist system has been done a vast number of times. Did not work out so well for the citizens.

It ALWAYS comes down to that.

I will agree this thread is hyperbole, but I will not allow others to use it for their own hyperbole.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Initially you would make it cheaper.

But by historical reference, you would not only make it more expensive, you would also make it unavailable.

This experiment in the Marxist system has been done a vast number of times. Did not work out so well for the citizens.

It ALWAYS comes down to that.

I will agree this thread is hyperbole, but I will not allow others to use it for their own hyperbole.


I would not, because I would allow the private system to remain intact just the same. I would also
insulate the money of anyone that wanted to buy in so politicians could not touch the money.

If private companies are indeed BETTER they will simply out compete the public NFPO/S.

I would let the members vote on the salary structures (if they want or not) and then the potential management
would be free to take the job or not, doctors are free to take the jobs or not.

Foam, people pay more for healthcare than the government spends on the wars, SS and medicare combined...
Spend more than their PROPERTY is taxed on a whole - read that again, I am saying we are ALL Americans
and We All get sick and sometimes need a doc, it is as universal as water.

Please, hear this... We pay far more then any other country and our MODEL is NOT GOVERNMENT RUN,
our private, none Marxist system is the most costly, how could it get worse than the worst?


The words are there and they add up, I cannot believe that you believe that our system can reform itself by itself. As for the Marxist healthcare it does not work because the societies fall apart. But in the countries where they utilize BOTH you will find care is commensurate and far cheaper... Again you maintain your choice - NOBODY I see here advocates otherwise.

If you are unwilling to intervene or act how do you change things? This issue is like liberals and immigration -
But notice the conservative idea is to DO SOMETHING in that case?


edit on 31-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Problem is (is that a strawman I am building?
) the government is the one with the choice.

They have bailed out the failing systems have they not? It always comes to that, that the system argues that the entrenched systems have to be bailed out, for the good of the system.

There is no way a public system can compete with a private system. Impossible, it is like adding a monkey on the back and saying the monkey is not going to cost anything. I have been a manager my entire life. I grew up the youngest of 5 sons. I have learned through the bastions of experience that any system that has more management than is ABSOLUTELY necessary fails.

Ask the Japanese about the hierarchy of systems. They will tell you they have tried it and it has failed. The more systems of control, the more and more the overloading of the system.

It is the same in software engineering or any system. You cannot have the hierarchy interfering with the production. You cannot also have a system where the management is too lean. Otherwise you have non control, the control of any system is based upon an equilibrium. Anytime a system attempts to force an outcome, that outcome is NEVER what is anticipated.

You cannot and will not ever control chaos. You can nudge it, but you cannot control it. Attempt to run 500 men once in a construction system and attempt to force an issue, it will only cause backlash. You can only lead by example, I have seen it and I excelled at what I did. Yes there were things that I would have liked to have done differently, but you cannot force an issue. EVER.

This is the problem of the control models. Chaos and the human condition is NOT and WILL NEVER be a mathematical formula. There is too many variables.

Okay, that was quite the rant, be back later.


edit on 31-12-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: fix a couple errors in grammar



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Yes, indeed. The American progressive movement - which is more conservative than the EU progressive states wants to kill sick and elderly people. You are so astute in your crazy conspiracies.

I thought it was insurance companies that deny medical coverage to people who are sick and elderly...

I guess I haven't been paying attention.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red
 




Problem is (is that a strawman I am building?:lol
the government is the one with the choice.


You are assuming I would like the FEDs to be the final say, i would not build a traditional government
agency or system. I would design it smart like a private entity, but I would strip the ENTITIES profit motive from the picture. Providers would reap the benefit, my mindless, unconcious entity would not. This is where externalities destroy things, it is this unconcious factor that you can see in free trade, pollution, obesity epidemic, everything has a secondary cost. The system we have is geared to make more and more money,
it is really simple foam, it is the best in the world at making money. Who's money Foam???


I say shift the focus of life, health in death from money - to health - there are a million other ways to make a buck which I FULLY support.

It is really simple - the system works great if you concede that the system is to make money... but then you also seem to believe think the government can make even more money....? in business, would make it
superior...


You argue the efficiency quotient, but you are in essence admitting that the Private system is far better at taking your money... (Not to be a dick - but in this argument look who is on the side of corporate existence,
this is why many think conservatives are pro corporate FYI)
In this case I would state the concern should be care, you apply a factor that benefits a profit driven motivation, the crux of the 2.5 T a year problem to begin with. My argument is to shift the entire focus of it from business/profit to people/well-being.



They have bailed out the failing systems have they not? It always comes to that, that the system argues that the entrenched systems have to be bailed out, for the good of the system.


well I did not agree with this action, then again I do not know what would have happened otherwise, I suspect
Americans would have seen a lot of bad things if everyones money was wiped from existence. But I will press again, I think you should look at how your position buffers the system, that funds the system you hate.
The politicians are funded by the private system, pair this with hands off business and it is no wonder
the government is used to facilitate ill will. I will point out that regulation kept our markets relatively clean for
over fifty years, not the other way around. As you said to regulate even one bit totally negates the free market idea.




There is no way a public system can compete with a private system. Impossible, it is like adding a monkey on the back and saying the monkey is not going to cost anything. I have been a manager my entire life. I grew up the youngest of 5 sons. I have learned through the bastions of experience that any system that has more management than is ABSOLUTELY necessary fails.


Again see my first paragraphs, I think you are right if you are speaking of profit - that is what competition refers to - the bottom line in business is profit. In this case you are trying to juxtapose price or quality, which is always a slave to profit. The CEO is there to make as much money as possible - I think in that way and the way you are inadvertently framing it, that is true... I think that is the problem, you need to WILLING to go below the first layer to see WHY the private model is so costly, simple because it is designed that way. I think that factor is very hard for you to see...




Ask the Japanese about the hierarchy of systems. They will tell you they have tried it and it has failed. The more systems of control, the more and more the overloading of the system.


They still employ some fascet of this, your are speaking in absolutes, I am speaking of hybrid
ideas, where function trumps whimsy.



It is the same in software engineering or any system. You cannot have the hierarchy interfering with the production. You cannot also have a system where the management is too lean. Otherwise you have non control, the control of any system is based upon an equilibrium. Anytime a system attempts to force an outcome, that outcome is NEVER what is anticipated.


I think you need hierarchy to produce anything, are you saying a system where pee ons have some say?
As far as control this is why I think mnemeth1 talks right out his backside - I agree outcome is never precisely
what is anticipated. But if you do nothing you can expect NOTHING, correct?




You cannot and will not ever control chaos. You can nudge it, but you cannot control it. Attempt to run 500 men once in a construction system and attempt to force an issue, it will only cause backlash. You can only lead by example, I have seen it and I excelled at what I did. Yes there were things that I would have liked to have done differently, but you cannot force an issue. EVER.


absolutes - I hope you are not hanging your hat on this universal obscurity - there is plenty of truth this
and there are many exceptions if the word force is defined. A healthcare company can force a doctor to
eat a cost if the company can find a way to withhold payment. The companies can force people into bankruptcy when there coverage is receinded. The system can force sick people to suffer without any modern care because there is simple no other option. I cannot force a company to reconsider based upon basic ethics, responsibilty and morality. I am not sure where this is going... resubmit please...



This is the problem of the control models. Chaos and the human condition is NOT and WILL NEVER be a mathematical formula. There is too many variables.

Okay, that what quite the rant, be back later.



this is universal - however business is based on the opposite of this - it is the idea that you CAN grab hold of reality and change things, earn money, succeed, etc... In a hundred years at this rate the mathematic certainty
is dire, this system is funneling money, with pressure of design towards more capital, money makes money, etc... the simple mathematical model says, private business is making more and more each year, just calculate the ten year trends X's 10 - I am not sure where the threat to private system is, I mean it is working better and better each decade. given this FACT, i am not sure why you feel all is threatened by a reconsideration of healthcare. You hold the key, it is your hang, if nothing is acceptable must we all
be robbed by the private arm too? They are as you said granted by the public, see foam???
edit on 31-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I have to add to this.

Yes, a public system can win, IF THEY USE PUBLIC FUNDS.

Of course the public system can takeover and destroy the private. IF the public system uses funds from other components. Think Social Security system. The government steals from one system to feed another system.
WUK will argue that he paid into that system and he deserves that money. Sorry, that money is gone, the government has spent it. Soooooooo, what are you going to do? OHHHH, that would be create another completely different system to bail out the first.

Now introducing the carbon credit system/scandal!




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I have to add to this.

Yes, a public system can win, IF THEY USE PUBLIC FUNDS.

Of course the public system can takeover and destroy the private. IF the public system uses funds from other components. Think Social Security system. The government steals from one system to feed another system.
WUK will argue that he paid into that system and he deserves that money. Sorry, that money is gone, the government has spent it. Soooooooo, what are you going to do? OHHHH, that would be create another completely different system to bail out the first.

Now introducing the carbon credit system/scandal!



How 'bout we consider that ALL money comes from the same source?

can you still justify a system takes as much as the Feds spend, while not being the feds?


You either do something or your don't right?

answer this please???


If the system is designed to make maximum profits and the goal is to make it affordable, how can you achieve the second without addressing the first?

help me get it?
edit on 31-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



What is the MOST hilarious component of this argument though, is WHO is going to pay for the next system?

Oh, that would be the poor and the other serfs. This has NOTHING to do with the rich, this has to do with increasing the prices of EVERYTHING that has to do with energy.

Tell me, what does not take energy to produce it? Oh, that would be NOTHING.

I am glad that Obama has convinced people that the sky rocketing costs of energy will not effect everyone.

Problem is, what happens when everyone realizes that it means everyone is going to be hit by it?

Is this a planned creation of chaos? Is this what they mean by creating the revolution? I just hope no idiot comes near me, I am one of those Armageddon type folks. Prepare for everything.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red
 



What is the MOST hilarious component of this argument though, is WHO is going to pay for the next system?

Oh, that would be the poor and the other serfs. This has NOTHING to do with the rich, this has to do with increasing the prices of EVERYTHING that has to do with energy.

Tell me, what does not take energy to produce it? Oh, that would be NOTHING.

I am glad that Obama has convinced people that the sky rocketing costs of energy will not effect everyone.

Problem is, what happens when everyone realizes that it means everyone is going to be hit by it?

Is this a planned creation of chaos? Is this what they mean by creating the revolution? I just hope no idiot comes near me, I am one of those Armageddon type folks. Prepare for everything.


Oh, you are on Cap and Trade...

I am still on topic


Do me a favor and answer my question

Off topic -

I think three things - I think the tax is a scam

I think man can destroy his environment and effect the ecosystem

I think America long term prosperity will depend on it leading the "GREEN" energy race, sadly, I really do believe this.

Refer back to 1 - conflicting notions

...It would be the first time we did not lead a technological revolution if you think about it.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join