FALLOUT TACTICS IS SOOO KEWL!!

Make up your damned mind.

>Let's hear it to a system
>where doctors in private institutions
>foot medicare with the bill
>for medical operations that never
>happen!

Yeah, and when they get caught, they get to enjoy the comfort of a nice prison cell. However, it's hard to get caught because medicare is a government run bureaucracy.

Any time the government steps in something, it goes straight to hell. That's the point you're missing. The government absolutely sucks at what it does.

>Let's hear it
>for a system where old
>immigrants from other nations who
>haven't contributed a single PENNY
>to the social security can
>reap the benefits.

And you want these people running medicine?

>Yes let's hear it for inefficient
>government.

See topic.

>THAT'S why we
>should have less rights here.
> THAT'S why we need
>less public opinion and more
>results. THAT's why we
>need strong-arm policy.

So, what you want is the government taking on a larger role, and the people to have less rights at the same time? Have you considered moving to China? You'd fit right in there.

>I mean, why is it that
>loser environmental groups like "Save
>our Canyons" and Greenpeace can
>SUE the government and not
>have to pay for the
>legal costs when they lose?
> Why is it that
>the government has to pay
>for THEIR legal costs when
>it loses?

Probably because we need some serious tort reform. However, considering a lot of politicians are lawyers, I doubt you'll ever see it.

>Why is it that because of
>Affirmative Action, fully qualified white
>workers are denied jobs and
>pay-raises because of their skin
>color, when people of other
>nationalities, but less qualified get
>the jobs and raises?
>I'm not a racist, but
>I DO want TRUE equality.

I agree. Affirmative Action is inherently racist since they're a set of laws that are race based.

>Why? Because this government is
>too caught up with public
>opinions and votes. Because
>orders cannot be issued without
>first going through many levels
>of processing, because PEOPLE make
>government so difficult. We're
>so concerned about checks and
>balances that we forget the
>goal in mind.

Let me guess.. You'd prefer depotism?

Here's a more simple solution, let's get the government out of controlling as many things as possible. The less the government controls, the more streamlined it is.

>Well it certainly was government for
>the most part: http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/genomics/entry.htm

Poppycock. The company that cracked the human genome were a public company, meaning they allowed stock purchases. It wasn't done by a university.

>How the hell does that relate
>to pharmaceuticals? I'm talking
>about the huge amounts of
>money earned by pharmaceutical companies
>that charge 1000% the cost
>to manufacture the medicine.

That's because they fund research with that money? If they just charged a little over cost, there wouldn't be any left over to research additional treatments.

Case in point, that's the reason a lot of researchers actually get out of universities, because grants can't cover the cost of testing, and certification. In fact, I have a doctor on my ICQ list, he confirmed this just now by saying:

"well a major reason is that in order to get a drug released it takes millions of dollars to fund all of the testing that the government requires in order to accept a drug as safe for consumers. There isn't any university that would spend that amount of money to test it. Most of the time when a drug is discovered either the researcher in at the university starts up his own drug company and sells himself out to a bigger company. or he just flat out sells the drug idea/patent to a biopharm firm"

Yup, looks like your whole argument is just fading away now. Care to stop while you're only significantly behind?

>But what percentage of the populace
>can actually benefit from it?

Most anyone with health insurance can. It's really not hard to get health insurance unless you're self employed.

Even those who don't have insurance, there are several places people with critical illnesses, like diabetes, can turn to get insulin cheaply or even free depending on their economic status.

> And another point about
>slow government, why does it
>take YEARS for groundbreaking medicines
>to be approved for human
>usage?

Because it's nice to have pharmaceuticals that don't kill people?

>Why is it
>that by merely *filing* for
>a patent extension, a pharmaceutical
>company can prevent generic companies
>from selling cheaper drugs for
>TWO YEARS by default?

Because companies that develop a medication deserve to re-coup the loss of developing it?

>The government has enough trouble trying
>to please everyone all the
>time.

And yet, you want to expand it's role. Amazing.
 
>What country
>has the best medical system
>in the world? The
>U.S. you say? Why?
> Because it's privatized.

You are of course joking? Have you ever seen the WHO reports? The USA is no where near #1. Sorry.
 
>>independant thought too much for
>>you to bear?

>The idea that we are given God-given rights is too much to bear.

Wow, how sad is that? It's ironic that at the bottom of everyone's message (most notably yours) it says "PAS : People Against Stupidity". You Xotor, take your freedoms for granted, and need an extended vacation to a communist or socialist country. You'd sing a completely different song after that.

> Our government is inefficient because it tries to please
> everyone all the time.

Here's a hint, X, *EVERY* government is inefficient. It's a fact of government. The only person capable of effectively governing anyone is himself. Any government program makes generalizations that are applied to most benefit the largest number of people under the bell curve of the population it's designed to help/harm/affect. The people closer the the fringe of that bell curve usually feel unjustly treated by said program or policy. To tailor the program to each individual is inefficient. To force force everyone to the same level is communism, or totalitarian at best. The best system is to provide a place where all the individuals can work towards what they want at whatever pace they feel comfortable. That way, how far they make it is a direct reflection of how much effort they put into their life. I don't know about you, but I get very angry when my tax dollars go to feed someone who just wants to sit around their house squirting out babies instead of working.

> Take a look at the nationalized medical programs in Europe.

Oh, did they move the United Kingdom? I thought it was still in Europe, my bad. Yes, let's look at these medical programs. You name a country, and point out some facts as to why its medical program is better than ours. You need to do something more than just supply one-liners as a reply.

> I *do* see the benefits of privatization, but when private
> institutes start

When private institutes start...your sentences stop?

> how available is that to the populace?

As far as I know, it's available to everyone. Anyone you know ever been turned away by a hospital? I've never known anyone to be.

> Then what should happen then? Only the rich should receive
> treatment? Should a person have to sacrifice his entire
> life's earning to treat illness? Are the poor non-persons?
> Are the middle class?

Why is it society's fault that someone is poor? When did giving working people's money to lazy people become the national pastime? If someone doesn't have the desire to pull themselves out of the dirt, why should I give them my money? Nobody's saying that the poor are non-persons, but if you were laying around in your own filth, and had no desire to work to pull yourself out, what should you be considered? Being poor should be its own deterrent. Your motivation level will bring you to the level you truly desire in society. If you *WANT* a ferrari, you'll work to get one. If you're not willing to work hard enough to get one, then you didn't really want it that badly. It's not the government's job to buy you a ferrari because you couldn't afford one.

While it is unfair that a person would have to spend their life's savings to pay for an illness, life is filled with adversity. Here's a contrary example, if an already rich man wins the lottery, should he be forced to give the winnings away to poor people? (somewhere around 30% of it in taxes will be anyway but that's beside the point) No, of course he shouldn't. Should only poor people be allowed to win the lottery? Of course not. Life is full of good and bad luck. It's that age old question of "why does God let bad things happen to good people?" If you don't have any problems, count your blessings, and help as many other people as you can. But don't tell me that I have to give the money that I ear to some worthless lazy scrub who's too useless to get out of bed and go get a job.

> Oh I'm not complaining about my power needs, I don't live in
> California.

You'd also need an electric bill to complain about power needs. When you still live at home with mom and dad, you have no reason to complain. You also favor totalitarian or communist governments because that's what you have in a family situation. Those who don't work are as wealthy as those who do.

> Now they wan to "borrow" more power from my state. California
> should be isolated from the western power grid.

Why? Because they're not pulling their own weight? Are Californians non-people? Should someone living in cali have to spend their life savings to buy solar panels or generators to afford their basic electrical needs? Your circular logic is analogous to the Coriolis effect, with reason being flushed down the drain. (http://www.discovery.com/area/skinnyon/skinnyon970523/skinny1.html) You first say everyone should have the same thing, then you state that california should be cut off. Come back when you start making sense.
 
The WHO would also tell you that gun violence is a disease. They're an international socialist organization that favors socialized medical care. Much like the U.N. is a socialist organization that kicked the US off the human rights committee. Think before you write, dopey.
 
The WHO would also tell you that gun violence is a disease. They're an international socialist organization that favors socialized medical care. Much like the U.N. is a socialist organization that kicked the US off the human rights committee. Think before you write, dopey.
 
RE: er...

Isn`t it time to bring this to the General discussion forum? It would make more sense there, and i`ll gladly participate then.
 
Gun violence a disease? Sure, it's a social disease - but something tells me you're a big time fan of the NRA so I doubt you'd agree.

Now, given the US has the dubious pleasure of being one of the very few nations left in the world with capital punishment it wouldn't suprise me too much if they were kicked off a human rights committee. Hypocracy is something I can't stand - sure lets have a go at the Chinese whilst GWB is proud to execute all and sundry in the electric chair - innocent or guilty, as long as the public desire to feel more secure by the spilling of blood is fulfilled even if ultimately nothing is acheived.

You see just because you're clearly sucking rich dick doesn't mean the US has the best health care - I'm sure you don't care about the sick and dying as you tread on them as you go around as a fat cat enjoying the pleasure of knowing you're rich enough not to have to give a fuck about anyone but number one. Some people however have a capacity for having an emotional ability that's a tad more developed. It's always a mystery to me how Republicans can claim to be Christians and have this rather unchristian ethos of protecting big business at the expense of the poorest citizens. Put simply if you have cash US healthcare is just as good as any other developed country's - but you've got a real hard on over there for not giving a fuck about anyone else so they don't come into the equation right?
How you can sit there and tell me the US has the best healthcare in the world when you're looking at a new TB epidemic astounds me. It's shear ignorance, dopey. The policies that have ignored the most deprived sections of society brought it about - I can only hope you get it given the new antibiotic resistant strains. I wounder how long it'll be before the West is forced to buy phage technology from the Russians when all the current antibiotics become totally ineffective.

At the end of the day clearly reason doesn't come into your equation at any point so I've most likely indulged in this discourse for the simple pleasure of mouthing off. However, if you just state clealry for all of us you're a self involved bastard who just doesn't give a fuck about anything beyond himself then I'll be sure not to waste my time on you.
 
>Gun violence a disease? Sure, it's
>a social disease - but
>something tells me you're a
>big time fan of the
>NRA so I doubt you'd
>agree.

Well, I guess the Leiden University in Holland is a "big time fan of the NRA", considering they have tabulated violent crime statistics as a function of the overall populous and concluded that countries where guns are available have lower incidents of violent crime per capita than where they aren't legal.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Enjoy the read.


>Now, given the US has the
>dubious pleasure of being one
>of the very few nations
>left in the world with
>capital punishment it wouldn't suprise
>me too much if they
>were kicked off a human
>rights committee. Hypocracy is something
>I can't stand - sure
>lets have a go at
>the Chinese whilst GWB is
>proud to execute all and
>sundry in the electric chair
>- innocent or guilty, as
>long as the public desire
>to feel more secure by
>the spilling of blood is
>fulfilled even if ultimately nothing
>is acheived.

Hypocracy? China's still on the UN Human Rights Commission, and it's not uncommon for them to execute a hundred people a day over there. China also uses the firing squad as their principle method of execution.

In the place of the United States, the UN put Sudan on the HRC. In Sudan, slavery is still legal and practiced.

How's THAT for hypocracy?

>You see just because you're clearly
>sucking rich dick doesn't mean
>the US has the best
>health care

Kenturkey is hardly rich. He grew up in a single parent home with his mother, who worked as a secretary at the local university. However, he applied himself, got a technical degree(top of his class, also), and has ironed himself out a good job.

If anyone can testify that hard work pays off, it's him.
 
Some things definatly should be government controlled, and power may be one of them. However, the current U.S. Government has already proven that it is incapable of planning for the future, instead planning for the short term and its own gain. A true, functioning system of breeder reactors might work, however, what are the chances of that happening? Solar and wind power would be even better, but the chances of any money being put into either are even slimmer. Did you know that with current solar cell technology, the ENTIRE energy needs of the United States could be provided by a solar plant the size of New Jersey? The ENTIRE energy needs, with no conservation efforts. Something to think about.

"Wouldn't It Be Nice If Everyone Would Just Die?"
 
> Some things definatly should be government controlled, and
> power may be one of them.

I wholly disagree. I think a better plan would be to have an Energy Committee formed to create interstate standards of power production and transmission. Then, anyone who wants to make a power plant could make one, and hook it into the grid as long as it conformed to those standards. Then it becomes a matter of who can produce the energy the cheapest or most efficiently determining the price. The only time the government would need to step into that situation is if some sort of price fixing or anticompetetive activities were going on. But that's a matter of the judicial arm of the government, something that's established under the constitution.

Solar power is becoming a more and more viable alternative. Siemens makes solar panels for roof mounting that generate in the 100W+ range. They're an expensive investment ($500), but they're warrantied for 25 years (i think, maybe more), over their lifetime, especially if you live out in colorado, they'll pay for themselves. I mention colorado mainly because on average i think they have 300 days of sunshine a year. Depending on where you live too, utility companies may be obligated to buy your excess energy from you. Unfortunately KY isn't one of those states. If you think about it tho, if EVERY state would change its building code such that every new house built would have to have 2 of these 100W, $500 panels on the roof, you'd only add $1000 to the price of the house, but you'd cut back on the electricity bills for nearly the life of your mortgage. Every house would be feeding energy back into the grid, for maybe an extra $10/mo on your mortgage. Of course, as these things are pumped out at higher and higher volumes, the price would drop, and probably drive the technology faster, making them more efficient. A better idea might be that 1-2% of the cost of the house had to be invested into putting solar panels on its roof. Bigger, more expensive houses would contribute more to the grid, but bigger houses have more "real-estate" on the roof for panels. This way, you also distribute the cost and labor of maintenance of the panels to the population at large.
 
>Gun violence a disease? Sure, it's
>a social disease - but

No, it's a misuse of a tool. If I killed you with a hammer, it wouldn't be a social disease, it'd be misuse of a tool.

>something tells me you're a
>big time fan of the
>NRA so I doubt you'd
>agree.

Well, it's nice to see you get something right, I am a member of the NRA, but I do not own any firearms. I am a member because I think it's important to protect our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. If we let the 2nd slip away, how long before the others? Would you concede your freedom of speech or your protection from searches and seizures under the guise of "lowering crime rates"? But I wouldn't expect you to believe any facts about how Hitler disarmed the general population of Germany during the 30s so that the jews couldn't defend themselves against being hauled away by nazi troops.

>Now, given the US has the
>dubious pleasure of being one
>of the very few nations
>left in the world with
>capital punishment it wouldn't suprise

Hahaha... Aren't you just the little mouthpiece of the U.N.? Yeah, let's talk about that. A friend of a friend of mine had to spend three years in China for the company he works for. He told us of an incident where a man was accused of raping a young woman. The Chinese police came and dragged him out into the yard at 2AM, and put a bullet in him. This happened within 100 yards of where John was staying. This isn't some urban legend. This is fact.

>rights committee. Hypocracy is something
>I can't stand - sure

So why are you living it?

>You see just because you're clearly
>sucking rich dick doesn't mean

I feel no need to address this, Saint P. summed it up pretty well. I'm not sucking rich anything. I'm comfortable, and I've gotten here on my own. I went to school. I payed back my student loans. I work every day. I've never felt that the government or the world owes me anything. They were both here first. I just have to make my way the best I can in the environments they provide.

>you don't care about the
>sick and dying as you
>tread on them as you
>go around as a fat
>cat enjoying the pleasure of
>knowing you're rich enough not
>to have to give a
>fuck about anyone but number
>one.

I'm not sure where you even get this drivel.

>Some people however have
>a capacity for having an
>emotional ability that's a tad
>more developed.

Yeah, and some people are incoherent freaks who are overly emotionally sensitive. Take a prozac, and calm down.

>It's always a
>mystery to me how Republicans
>can claim to be Christians

Yeah, we both know that Jesus was a reform party member, damn those republicans.

>and have this rather unchristian
>ethos of protecting big business
>at the expense of the
>poorest citizens. Put simply if

Here we go again. People are not born into this inescapable fate of being poor. There are *SO* many programs that will help people who are poor help themselves. That's usually the problem, tho. These programs fall short because they expect the people they're helping to put forth a little effort. The "poorest citizens" are typically people who've put themselves in that position thru their own actions, or lack thereof. Besides, it makes good sense to favor "big business" because big business is what keeps our economy going. Without it, we'd all be dirt farmers, with no hope of being anything else.

>you have cash US healthcare
>is just as good as
>any other developed country's -

What? I think you need to check your facts, hospitals cannot turn people away from care. Regardless of whether or not they can afford treatment, hospitals still have to provide it. You can only be turned away from private practices.

>but you've got a real
>hard on over there for
>not giving a fuck about
>anyone else so they don't
>come into the equation right?

Well, no, but I'm expected to pay for decisions I have made or will make, so I expect the same of everyone else.

>How you can sit there and
>tell me the US has
>the best healthcare in the
>world when you're looking at
>a new TB epidemic astounds
>me. It's shear ignorance, dopey.

Yeah, you think it might be because of IMMIGRATION from countries with crappy healthcare systems, dopey?

>The policies that have ignored
>the most deprived sections of
>society brought it about -

If I'm not mistaken, TB immunizations have always been free from local health clinics.

>I can only hope you
>get it given the new
>antibiotic resistant strains. I wounder

Yeah, that's about the maturity level I would expect from someone with your viewpoints.

>how long it'll be before
>the West is forced to
>buy phage technology from the
>Russians when all the current
>antibiotics become totally ineffective.

Well, I don't know why Russians would be any more advanced in phage research than the rest of the world. You have some insight as to why they would or are?

>At the end of the day
>clearly reason doesn't come into
>your equation at any point
>so I've most likely indulged
>in this discourse for the
>simple pleasure of mouthing off.

All you have to do is change the word "your" to "my" and that sentence makes perfect sense. All you've done is spout liberal rhetoric about how oppressed the poor are, and how everyone else should support them and feel sorry for them. The fact of the matter is that 99% of poor people are poor because of their own doing. This is the reason that so many foreigners come to this country and do well. They're willing to WORK. There is a lot of opportunity in this country. If you don't take advantage of it, it's your own fault. Nobody has you enslaved where you cannot rise to the level of the best of society. You're not an endentured servant. If you're poor, or a minority you can probably go to school for little or next to nothing. As far as I know, there's no public discrimination policy against degreed professionals. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

>However, if you just state
>clealry for all of us
>you're a self involved bastard
>who just doesn't give a
>fuck about anything beyond himself
>then I'll be sure not
>to waste my time on
>you.

Yeah, you got me there. I guess I'll retire to my "fat cat" house where I have carpet made of poor people that I tread on daily. Just for the record, polltaxman, what is it you do for a living? Do you even have a job?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top