Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(12-31-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 03:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 02:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Jeeeeeez....glad I am in NZ.

In America, you'd receive the same level of healthcare that you receive in New Zealand for almost nothing. Right now, one third of your income goes to your government to provide you with healthcare and whatever else your government provides. It isn't like that in America. In America, you don't pay federal taxes until you hit a certain level of income (which you would be below at this time) and whatever you receive as far as support from the federal level wouldn't cost you anything. Right now, a substantial number of Americans don't pay taxes but receive all kinds of benefits/subsidies.


For the last time, you don't know America as well as I do. You don't know Americans as well as I do. You don't know Republicans at all because you have none. How hard would it be for China to step in with a similar system already in place? Me, I'm glad that I'm in the United States with at least 64'000'000 American who would give China all kinds of fits because its system is so much different than your countries. BTW, 64,000,000 at least is ten times larger than 6,400,000. Perspective.

Least in NZ we are aware that everyone deserves automatic healthcare treatment and even the poorest of the poor can get healthcare without someone saying do you have insurance before treating you. Our medicine is also a heck of a lot cheaper too. So perhaps you also have something to learn about NZ. As far as I am concerned, given I am raising money for a lady in America so that she can get her legs treated before she looses them thanks to your wonderful healthcare system we have it better overall for everyone here with universal healthcare. There would be some changes I would make, but it is better for everyone in my books.

She must have made to much money to qualify for Obamacare or she an issue that requires a very expensive surgery that may or may not end up saving her legs. It would be nice to live in a small secluded nation that's more centered on local type issues. Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled). Perspective.

Classic-Xer Wrote:In America, you'd receive the same level of healthcare that you receive in New Zealand for almost nothing.

Huh? How do I procure health care here in the US for "next to nothing" without being so poor I'm eligible for Medicaid? I think you have to also forfeit all of your assets to get Medicaid.

Quote:Right now, one third of your income goes to your government to provide you with health care and whatever else your government provides.

I think  I'd rather have even some level of government provide health care than insurance companies. Insurance companies are run with profits in mind, not providing a reasonable service for the vig they take. Health care can't possibly work out as a private good because there's a demand/supply mismatch. What's happens to folks who get cancer, diabetes, heart disease, suffer some sort of accident, etc.?

Quote:It isn't like that in America. In America, you don't pay federal taxes until you hit a certain level of income (which you would be below at this time) and whatever you receive as far as support from the federal level wouldn't cost you anything.

Are you sure?  Payroll taxes start with the first dollar earned. If I had my way, I'd get rid of all payroll taxes and health insurance companies and have single payer and pay for it with a VAT tax.

Quote:Right now, a substantial number of Americans don't pay taxes but receive all kinds of benefits/subsidies.

I think almost everyone pays sales taxes. Almost everyone pays property taxes either directly or passed down via rent.

Quote:For the last time, you don't know America as well as I do. You don't know Americans as well as I do. You don't know Republicans at all because you have none.

Tara's lucky.   I really don't understand Republicans.  They can always find enough money for the Pentagram, but there's never money for safety net programs.


Of course there are a number of structural cost problems.
1. Enact tort reform.  Loser pays.
2. Delete all regulations that stifle competition.  Abolish the ban on drug imports. Legalize weed, since weed does have medical uses. The fact that the weed plant is a schedule 1, while Marinol is a schedule III is ridiculous.  Health insurance would not be abolished,  but constraints of competition area like restricted to a single state needs to go. So yeah, if anyone wants private insurance, then go for it. As long as a minimum of care is provided for, I see no problem with folks choosing better care on their own.

(12-31-2016, 03:40 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2016, 08:30 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, people like Classic X and I merely realize there was no "death by denial of health care" going on, since ever since the 1980s, emergency room services could not be refused based on ability to pay.

This is in contrast to progressive systems like the British NHS, where the health care system had an explicit "liverpool care pathway" that involved purposely denying food and water to patients to hasten their passing.  That's  what the progressive value system actually leads to in practice.

So you think that a policy that benefits you by hurting others is OK if the others are healthcare providers or taxpayers.  Free healthcare is oxymoronic.  It costs money to provide even cursory care.  Worse, sending the less than seriously sick and injured to the ER raises healthcare costs for everyone.  There is no healthcare delivery system that is more expensive than the ER.  You do know that hospitals just off-load the cost on insured patients or get taxpayer subsidies, right? 

And the NHS is not starving people to death.  That's nonsense.  Actually, the NHS rated #1 in the world for healthcare outcomes in 2015.  The US has never been in the running, and cost is not part of the evaluation.  Once cost is added, the NHS REALLY looks good!

Great job mouthing progressive propaganda.  If people on the NHS liberpool care pathway didn't starve to death, it was only because they died of dehydration first.  In fact, hospitals never spent more than 10% of their money on emergency rooms, and I was happy to pay what effectively amounted to a small tax on my health insurance to subsidize them.  As for the NHS doing well, only in ratings that highly value "equity in outcome" - which is code for "a system where everyone dies at 50 is better than one where everyone has a 50/50 chance of dying at 50 or surviving to 70.  Me, I'd rather have the 50% chance of surviving to 70.

(12-31-2016, 12:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]In this case, though, no one would have been hurt, if the administration had merely kept the policy of requiring proof of health insurance.  In fact, with Obamacare, they wouldn't even had to require proof of health insurance, since that was verified through tax law.

Instead, they used excessive regulatory enforcement to force people into employee status and take away peoples' control over their own lives, because the progressive ideal is to require everyone to live the way the government thinks they should, rather than the way they personally would prefer.

Well, we come back to the vile stereotype again.  You're presenting yourself as the definitive expert on progressive motivations, though you clearly dislike the progressive approach.  I feel like I could talk about the New Deal, Four Freedoms, and UDHR Article 25 indefinitely and it will go in one ear, out the other.  You seem unable to grasp the notion of people actually believing in what they say they believe in.  No, you have your stereotype, your strawman, and  you won't budge off of it.  All conversation gets immediately forced right back to your prejudices.

I didn't respond to the above note right away, as I had a shopping trip in mind.  As the Starks warned, winter is coming.  I was in need of a new gas container to keep my snow blower running.  I got to the hardware store, and sure enough, the only tanks available had the new fangled nozzles.  You know, the ones that won't dispense gas unless you twist this, push on that, stand on one's right foot, and pray to an appropriate deity?  I was about to complain about this to the sales guy, but he beat me to the punch by grumbling about it first.  Seemingly, nobody likes the new gas tanks.

Does anyone here like them?  Do they not make a good example of government regulation run amok?  Is there anyone here who wouldn't vote for a referendum allowing a return to gas tanks designed to dispense gas?

But how did it happen?  What motives might people have had to push these (expletive deleted) contraptions?

• We could go with Warren's text above that I highlighted.  There are progressives out there who think they know how everyone should live, and who will use the government to force it.
  
• Then there is corporate interest.  Presumably, the old gas cans resulted in spills, which resulted in fires, which resulted in people either dead or horribly burned, which resulted in insurance companies having to make pay outs to policy holders.  Insurance companies are often behind safety rules, in part to save cost, and perhaps to make life safer.
  
• I also expect that government bureaucrats in agencies that create regulations tend to believe in regulations.  There is a common red meme -- not without basis -- that everything the government does gets messed up.  The people attracted to a life of crating regulations are not apt to share that meme.  Give a regulatory bureaucrat a shot at saving lives and money and he is apt to leap on it.
  
• Progressives politicians in general aren't against saving lives, in preventing pain and suffering.  They could be convinced to improve safety without too much effort.
  
• Politicians of every ilk would be tempted to accept campaign donations from the insurance companies, and then to pay extra attention when insurance companies advise on regulations.  The Republicans have more of a reputation for this sort of thing, but the Democrats are very much into it as well.
  

Most of the above, excepting Warren's stereotype of Progressives, are understandable and plausibly benign.  Well, politicians yielding to money interests is a problem.  A lot will not call that benign.  There is a mostly progressive push for campaign finance reform and a repeal of Citizens United.  I can agree with this as much as I can agree that many regulations are undesirable.

In short, while I do not at all like the (expletive deleted) new fangled (expletive deleted) gas tanks, there are plausible motives for how they came to be forced on the public that do not assume malice on the part of anybody.  I see no point in focusing on malice that likely doesn't exist.  I dislike excessive regulation quite a bit myself.  However, I'd as soon focus on the real motivations than wallow in a vile stereotype.

Is there an anti-regulation lobby organization watching the insurance industry, keeping track of the new regulations they are trying to push, and attempting to block the more absurd efforts?  Should we push more to kill Citizen's United?  Should we be writing our legislators and questioning them during campaign swings about stupid regulations that they voted for?  Are we doing all we can to fight the more excessive efforts of the nanny state regulators?

There are, in short, more constructive things to do than obsess on how people are out to get you when in fact they aren't.  Obsessing on a strawman, being unable to consider that the guys on the other side are honestly trying to be helpful, is part of the stagnation and dysfunction of our eternal 3T deadlock.  I'd like to be able to say, I believe this needs to be improved, how can we avoid unwanted side effects, and have a reasonable back and forth conversation about how to do things cleanly.  I don't generally get this.  Instead, I get folk telling me that I am motivated by malace and hate.  "All progressives are alike, you are progressive, and therefore you think that..."

And it isn't a problem exclusively with one faction or the other.  No faction has a monopoly on attributing vile motives, evil, insanity, prejudice or other forms of malignant motive on the other.

A closer look back at 2016

(12-31-2016, 10:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

That's...  interesting.  It's also kind of vague.  I don't have a good enough feeling for what you want to do to give it a blanket endorsement.

I was just articulating a guideline, since hard fixed rules  seem to get lawyered to death.  It's not perfect; it's not really mean to be.

(12-31-2016, 12:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

In this case, though, no one would have been hurt, if the administration had merely kept the policy of requiring proof of health insurance.  In fact, with Obamacare, they wouldn't even had to require proof of health insurance, since that was verified through tax law.

Instead, they used excessive regulatory enforcement to force people into employee status and take away peoples' control over their own lives, because the progressive ideal is to require everyone to live the way the government thinks they should, rather than the way they personally would prefer.

What insurance were you unable to use as a 'proof of insurance'?  Was yours an example of cheery picking ideal clients? Obviously, allowing insurance that only insures people who don't need a it and rarely if ever use it is not really broad based insurance.  It's a subsidy to the insurance industry.  Worse, it makes insurance impossible for others not as well positioned.  A word to the wise: never have a preexisting condition ... ever.

You can't have universal health insurance if you only insure the healthy.  Employer-based insurance has included that as a basic premise for decades.

(01-01-2017, 01:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 12:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

In this case, though, no one would have been hurt, if the administration had merely kept the policy of requiring proof of health insurance.  In fact, with Obamacare, they wouldn't even had to require proof of health insurance, since that was verified through tax law.

Instead, they used excessive regulatory enforcement to force people into employee status and take away peoples' control over their own lives, because the progressive ideal is to require everyone to live the way the government thinks they should, rather than the way they personally would prefer.

What insurance were you unable to use as a 'proof of insurance'?

You need to reread what I actually wrote.  I bolded the most relevant parts to simplify it for you.

(12-31-2016, 05:42 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 03:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 02:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Jeeeeeez....glad I am in NZ.

In America, you'd receive the same level of healthcare that you receive in New Zealand for almost nothing. Right now, one third of your income goes to your government to provide you with healthcare and whatever else your government provides. It isn't like that in America. In America, you don't pay federal taxes until you hit a certain level of income (which you would be below at this time) and whatever you receive as far as support from the federal level wouldn't cost you anything. Right now, a substantial number of Americans don't pay taxes but receive all kinds of benefits/subsidies.


For the last time, you don't know America as well as I do. You don't know Americans as well as I do. You don't know Republicans at all because you have none. How hard would it be for China to step in with a similar system already in place? Me, I'm glad that I'm in the United States with at least 64'000'000 American who would give China all kinds of fits because its system is so much different than your countries. BTW, 64,000,000 at least is ten times larger than 6,400,000. Perspective.

Least in NZ we are aware that everyone deserves automatic healthcare treatment and even the poorest of the poor can get healthcare without someone saying do you have insurance before treating you. Our medicine is also a heck of a lot cheaper too. So perhaps you also have something to learn about NZ. As far as I am concerned, given I am raising money for a lady in America so that she can get her legs treated before she looses them thanks to your wonderful healthcare system we have it better overall for everyone here with universal healthcare. There would be some changes I would make, but it is better for everyone in my books.

She must make to much money to qualify for Obamacare or have an issue that requires a very expensive surgery that may or may not save her legs. It would be nice to live in a small  secluded nation that's more centered on local type issues. Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled). Perspective.

She is unable to work due to her condition and she has a son who has a mental disability. She is extremely poor and has a mystery ailment that needs a specialist to study what is wrong. Apparently she cannot afford it. Sir, my mother has overspent and on top of it put a caveat on the house. My situation is that i have to help pay off her debt so it is wise to get an understanding of my very individual circumstance which my mother put me in. It has nothing to do with our system and everything to do with my mothers individual greed. Sorry, but you seem to be covering yourself over with already preconceived ideas ad closing the door without knowing the full picture with regards to me. Ehem....perspective.

I knew about your situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about yourself including the situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about your country as well. I get the picture, so to speak. You given me enough of the picture to form some opinions and make some decisions. I'm a Republican voter. I've been told that Republican voters are very very rare in your part of the world.

(01-01-2017, 09:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:42 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 03:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]In America, you'd receive the same level of healthcare that you receive in New Zealand for almost nothing. Right now, one third of your income goes to your government to provide you with healthcare and whatever else your government provides. It isn't like that in America. In America, you don't pay federal taxes until you hit a certain level of income (which you would be below at this time) and whatever you receive as far as support from the federal level wouldn't cost you anything. Right now, a substantial number of Americans don't pay taxes but receive all kinds of benefits/subsidies.


For the last time, you don't know America as well as I do. You don't know Americans as well as I do. You don't know Republicans at all because you have none. How hard would it be for China to step in with a similar system already in place? Me, I'm glad that I'm in the United States with at least 64'000'000 American who would give China all kinds of fits because its system is so much different than your countries. BTW, 64,000,000 at least is ten times larger than 6,400,000. Perspective.

Least in NZ we are aware that everyone deserves automatic healthcare treatment and even the poorest of the poor can get healthcare without someone saying do you have insurance before treating you. Our medicine is also a heck of a lot cheaper too. So perhaps you also have something to learn about NZ. As far as I am concerned, given I am raising money for a lady in America so that she can get her legs treated before she looses them thanks to your wonderful healthcare system we have it better overall for everyone here with universal healthcare. There would be some changes I would make, but it is better for everyone in my books.

She must make to much money to qualify for Obamacare or have an issue that requires a very expensive surgery that may or may not save her legs. It would be nice to live in a small  secluded nation that's more centered on local type issues. Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled). Perspective.

She is unable to work due to her condition and she has a son who has a mental disability. She is extremely poor and has a mystery ailment that needs a specialist to study what is wrong. Apparently she cannot afford it. Sir, my mother has overspent and on top of it put a caveat on the house. My situation is that i have to help pay off her debt so it is wise to get an understanding of my very individual circumstance which my mother put me in. It has nothing to do with our system and everything to do with my mothers individual greed. Sorry, but you seem to be covering yourself over with already preconceived ideas ad closing the door without knowing the full picture with regards to me. Ehem....perspective.

I knew about your situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about yourself including the situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about your country as well. I get the picture, so to speak. You given me enough of the picture to form some opinions and make some decisions. I'm a Republican voter. I've been told that Republican voters are very very rare in your part of the world.

New Zealand is not a republic; it is a constitutional monarchy... a Dominion of which the reigning monarch of the Kingdom of England is the head. A "republican" party in England would be seeking to sever that tie.

Taramarie has a toxic relationship with her mother, something having nothing to do with politics.

(01-02-2017, 03:44 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2017, 09:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:42 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Least in NZ we are aware that everyone deserves automatic healthcare treatment and even the poorest of the poor can get healthcare without someone saying do you have insurance before treating you. Our medicine is also a heck of a lot cheaper too. So perhaps you also have something to learn about NZ. As far as I am concerned, given I am raising money for a lady in America so that she can get her legs treated before she looses them thanks to your wonderful healthcare system we have it better overall for everyone here with universal healthcare. There would be some changes I would make, but it is better for everyone in my books.

She must make to much money to qualify for Obamacare or have an issue that requires a very expensive surgery that may or may not save her legs. It would be nice to live in a small  secluded nation that's more centered on local type issues. Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled). Perspective.

She is unable to work due to her condition and she has a son who has a mental disability. She is extremely poor and has a mystery ailment that needs a specialist to study what is wrong. Apparently she cannot afford it. Sir, my mother has overspent and on top of it put a caveat on the house. My situation is that i have to help pay off her debt so it is wise to get an understanding of my very individual circumstance which my mother put me in. It has nothing to do with our system and everything to do with my mothers individual greed. Sorry, but you seem to be covering yourself over with already preconceived ideas ad closing the door without knowing the full picture with regards to me. Ehem....perspective.

I knew about your situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about yourself including the situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about your country as well. I get the picture, so to speak. You given me enough of the picture to form some opinions and make some decisions. I'm a Republican voter. I've been told that Republican voters are very very rare in your part of the world.

Given you know of my particular situation judging my country on my situation is a poor judgement. Judge by what goes on for the majority, not just by my situation. Your comment, "Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled)." Tells me you are comparing my situation to your own individual situation. A silly comparison given we are both living different lives with a different past. If you were talking about the crap that goes on with the govt you may have a leg to stand on. But as you said, "Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day.  You instead are comparing our lives. If you know of my situation it is silly to compare us. It is wiser to look at the wider human condition in both countries or preferably, state by state compared to NZ perhaps. Not by two people in two countries. You are not getting a wide picture that way. One thing you are right about is that Republican voters are not a thing here. Good that you are listening.

We're not hearing from the  "majority" in New Zealand, though; we're hearing from you.  Peoples' political views are to some  extent influenced by their personal situations.  For all we know, someone in New Zealand who has Classic-Xer's situation might have very different political views - or no such people may exist.

You could help by providing objective statistics when you talk about how good you think New Zealand's situation is.

I have fairly good insurance, it was better before the ACA, both in cost to me and cost to my employer and coverage.

I'd probably not have the level of care I do now under single payer.

My issues with medical coverage and getting my health sorted out have more to do with there are 3 autoimmune diseases at hand that must be dealt cohesively. The problem, I have had is getting the docs to work together, each of the three falls under a different specialist. Which is why in less than 3 weeks I am heading to a doctor in a bigger city that deals with autoimmune disorders, and doesn't feel they should be treated individually. But works on the them all as the issue they are, autoimmune disorders that should be put into remission and balanced equally so that they can all be in harmony and the patient can have relief.

I'm going to pay dearly for this, this group of doctors has excused themselves from the insurance industry they neither accept or file it. They will give you forms to do it yourself, but they have no idea how much insurance will reimburse. I am now fine with this set-up. I have seen how much the ACA has influenced care and insurance willingness to cover treatment and doctors.

(01-02-2017, 09:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2017, 03:44 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2017, 09:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:42 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]She must make to much money to qualify for Obamacare or have an issue that requires a very expensive surgery that may or may not save her legs. It would be nice to live in a small  secluded nation that's more centered on local type issues. Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled). Perspective.

She is unable to work due to her condition and she has a son who has a mental disability. She is extremely poor and has a mystery ailment that needs a specialist to study what is wrong. Apparently she cannot afford it. Sir, my mother has overspent and on top of it put a caveat on the house. My situation is that i have to help pay off her debt so it is wise to get an understanding of my very individual circumstance which my mother put me in. It has nothing to do with our system and everything to do with my mothers individual greed. Sorry, but you seem to be covering yourself over with already preconceived ideas ad closing the door without knowing the full picture with regards to me. Ehem....perspective.

I knew about your situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about yourself including the situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about your country as well. I get the picture, so to speak. You given me enough of the picture to form some opinions and make some decisions. I'm a Republican voter. I've been told that Republican voters are very very rare in your part of the world.

Given you know of my particular situation judging my country on my situation is a poor judgement. Judge by what goes on for the majority, not just by my situation. Your comment, "Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled)." Tells me you are comparing my situation to your own individual situation. A silly comparison given we are both living different lives with a different past. If you were talking about the crap that goes on with the govt you may have a leg to stand on. But as you said, "Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day.  You instead are comparing our lives. If you know of my situation it is silly to compare us. It is wiser to look at the wider human condition in both countries or preferably, state by state compared to NZ perhaps. Not by two people in two countries. You are not getting a wide picture that way. One thing you are right about is that Republican voters are not a thing here. Good that you are listening.

We're not hearing from the  "majority" in New Zealand, though; we're hearing from you.  Peoples' political views are to some  extent influenced by their personal situations.  For all we know, someone in New Zealand who has Classic-Xer's situation might have very different political views - or no such people may exist.

You could help by providing objective statistics when you talk about how good you think New Zealand's situation is.

The USA is the only country, besides perhaps the UK, that is strongly influenced by the trickle-down theory/free market economics/neo-liberalism. Most other countries do not fall for this nonsense. Only in the USA do we have a substantial political base for such reactionary ideologies as neo-liberalism and religious-right fundamentalism (however, the Islamic countries also have a strong base for the latter). There are virtually no Classic Xers in any country other than the USA. The USA is an exceptionally-backward country. No wonder; it was handicapped from the start by being saddled with an ancient slave-based aristocracy as half of it. Its legacy continues.

(01-01-2017, 01:14 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]And it isn't a problem exclusively with one faction or the other.  No faction has a monopoly on attributing vile motives, evil, insanity, prejudice or other forms of malignant motive on the other.

Correct, but......... one faction has a much higher representation of these "vile" motives than the other.

False equivalence, you might call it. It's a false assumption that one thing is necessarily equal to another. Differences exist in the world as we know it.

And, some opinions are correct, and others are not. Regardless of who says which is which.

(01-01-2017, 07:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2017, 01:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 12:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

In this case, though, no one would have been hurt, if the administration had merely kept the policy of requiring proof of health insurance.  In fact, with Obamacare, they wouldn't even had to require proof of health insurance, since that was verified through tax law.

Instead, they used excessive regulatory enforcement to force people into employee status and take away peoples' control over their own lives, because the progressive ideal is to require everyone to live the way the government thinks they should, rather than the way they personally would prefer.

What insurance were you unable to use as a 'proof of insurance'?

You need to reread what I actually wrote.  I bolded the most relevant parts to simplify it for you.

In other words, you chose to fly naked, and got dinged?  Or am I missing something.

(01-02-2017, 10:56 AM)Danilynn Wrote: [ -> ]I have fairly good insurance, it was better before the ACA, both in cost to me and cost to my employer and coverage.

I'd probably not have the level of care I do now under single payer.

My issues with medical coverage and getting my health sorted out have more to do with there are 3 autoimmune diseases at hand that must be dealt cohesively. The problem, I have had is getting the docs to work together, each of the three falls under a different specialist. Which is why in less than 3 weeks I am heading to a doctor in a bigger city that deals with autoimmune disorders, and doesn't feel they should be treated individually. But works on the them all as the issue they are, autoimmune disorders that should be put into remission and balanced equally so that they can all be in harmony and the patient can have relief.

I'm going to pay dearly for this, this group of doctors has excused themselves from the insurance industry they neither accept or file it. They will give you forms to do it yourself, but they have no idea how much insurance will reimburse.  I am now fine with this set-up. I have seen how much the ACA has influenced care and insurance willingness to cover treatment and doctors.

I'm finally on Medicare, and I have literally unlimited coverage for almost everything.  I can't get cosmetic surgery to improve my looks, but I can for reconstructive issues.  In any case, I have a massive $166.00 annual copay, and the rest is covered , either by Medicare directly of through my Medigap plan.  It's hard to beat that.  If it was up to me, I would just change the Medicare law to drop the eligibility age from 65 to 0.

Show a better plan in the US, unless it's the VA which is also single payer.

(01-02-2017, 03:44 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2017, 09:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:42 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 05:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 03:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Least in NZ we are aware that everyone deserves automatic healthcare treatment and even the poorest of the poor can get healthcare without someone saying do you have insurance before treating you. Our medicine is also a heck of a lot cheaper too. So perhaps you also have something to learn about NZ. As far as I am concerned, given I am raising money for a lady in America so that she can get her legs treated before she looses them thanks to your wonderful healthcare system we have it better overall for everyone here with universal healthcare. There would be some changes I would make, but it is better for everyone in my books.

She must make to much money to qualify for Obamacare or have an issue that requires a very expensive surgery that may or may not save her legs. It would be nice to live in a small  secluded nation that's more centered on local type issues. Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled). Perspective.

She is unable to work due to her condition and she has a son who has a mental disability. She is extremely poor and has a mystery ailment that needs a specialist to study what is wrong. Apparently she cannot afford it. Sir, my mother has overspent and on top of it put a caveat on the house. My situation is that i have to help pay off her debt so it is wise to get an understanding of my very individual circumstance which my mother put me in. It has nothing to do with our system and everything to do with my mothers individual greed. Sorry, but you seem to be covering yourself over with already preconceived ideas ad closing the door without knowing the full picture with regards to me. Ehem....perspective.

I knew about your situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about yourself including the situation with your mother. You've told us a lot about your country as well. I get the picture, so to speak. You given me enough of the picture to form some opinions and make some decisions. I'm a Republican voter. I've been told that Republican voters are very very rare in your part of the world.

Given you know of my particular situation judging my country on my situation is a poor judgement. Judge by what goes on for the majority, not just by my situation. Your comment, "Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day. You're going to have a hard time convincing someone like me that your system of preference (government controlled) is better than the system that we prefer (individually controlled)." Tells me you are comparing my situation to your own individual situation. A silly comparison given we are both living different lives with a different past. If you were talking about the crap that goes on with the govt you may have a leg to stand on. But as you said, "Lady, based on what you've told me about yourself, I've got everything you dream about/talk about having some day.  You instead are comparing our lives. If you know of my situation it is silly to compare us. It is wiser to look at the wider human condition in both countries or preferably, state by state compared to NZ perhaps. Not by two people in two countries. You are not getting a wide picture that way. One thing you are right about is that Republican voters are not a thing here. Good that you are listening.

Who has a broader view, the person who knows the Republicans, the Democrats and the Progressives or the person who only knows two of the three? I've been comparing more than just our lives. Its silly of you to come back at me the way you just came back at me. You must not have been thinking. You must have been just going with your emotions.

(12-31-2016, 06:50 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Great job mouthing progressive propaganda.  If people on the NHS liberpool care pathway didn't starve to death, it was only because they died of dehydration first.  In fact, hospitals never spent more than 10% of their money on emergency rooms, and I was happy to pay what effectively amounted to a small tax on my health insurance to subsidize them.  As for the NHS doing well, only in ratings that highly value "equity in outcome" - which is code for "a system where everyone dies at 50 is better than one where everyone has a 50/50 chance of dying at 50 or surviving to 70.  Me, I'd rather have the 50% chance of surviving to 70.

I can't locate the 2015 ratings, but I do have the WHO's ratings based on 2016.  Note the source is Canada, and they are trying to improve from their rating of 30.  The US is rated 37, just ahead of Slovenia and Cuba.  The UK, with their "failing system" is rated 18.  As is often the case, the French and Italians are at the top.  If you want more detail, here is the 2015 WHO World Health Statistics.  Start on page 90 (Section 4) and 114 (Section 6) to save some time.

(01-02-2017, 06:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2017, 07:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2017, 01:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 12:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

In this case, though, no one would have been hurt, if the administration had merely kept the policy of requiring proof of health insurance.  In fact, with Obamacare, they wouldn't even had to require proof of health insurance, since that was verified through tax law.

Instead, they used excessive regulatory enforcement to force people into employee status and take away peoples' control over their own lives, because the progressive ideal is to require everyone to live the way the government thinks they should, rather than the way they personally would prefer.

What insurance were you unable to use as a 'proof of insurance'?

You need to reread what I actually wrote.  I bolded the most relevant parts to simplify it for you.

In other words, you chose to fly naked, and got dinged?  Or am I missing something.

You're missing something.  Maybe I should have said, go back and read what I wrote, slowly enough to comprehend it.

(01-02-2017, 06:10 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2017, 10:56 AM)Danilynn Wrote: [ -> ]I have fairly good insurance, it was better before the ACA, both in cost to me and cost to my employer and coverage.

I'd probably not have the level of care I do now under single payer.

My issues with medical coverage and getting my health sorted out have more to do with there are 3 autoimmune diseases at hand that must be dealt cohesively. The problem, I have had is getting the docs to work together, each of the three falls under a different specialist. Which is why in less than 3 weeks I am heading to a doctor in a bigger city that deals with autoimmune disorders, and doesn't feel they should be treated individually. But works on the them all as the issue they are, autoimmune disorders that should be put into remission and balanced equally so that they can all be in harmony and the patient can have relief.

I'm going to pay dearly for this, this group of doctors has excused themselves from the insurance industry they neither accept or file it. They will give you forms to do it yourself, but they have no idea how much insurance will reimburse.  I am now fine with this set-up. I have seen how much the ACA has influenced care and insurance willingness to cover treatment and doctors.

I'm finally on Medicare, and I have literally unlimited coverage for almost everything.  I can't get cosmetic surgery to improve my looks, but I can for reconstructive issues.  In any case, I have a massive $166.00 annual copay, and the rest is covered , either by Medicare directly of through my Medigap plan.  It's hard to beat that.  If it was up to me, I would just change the Medicare law to drop the eligibility age from 65 to 0.

Show a better plan in the US, unless it's the VA which is also single payer.

You should be thanking us instead of attacking us and burning bridges. Right now, you are an election or two away from loosing the bulk of the taxpayers and businesses associated with the support of your newly beloved system. How much does your supplemental plan cost per month? My mother's costed a couple hundred dollars a month a few years ago.