How California Became France

[quote name='perdition(troy']survival of the fittest my friend. the earth is over populated as it is.[/QUOTE]

troll.jpg
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']survival of the fittest my friend. the earth is over populated as it is.[/quote]
Interestingly enough, this isnt how evolution by natural selection actually works. Darwin himself only used the phrase 2 or 3 times ever, with the last time apologizing for the previous uses.

Whether the individual lives or dies is meaningless. The unit that natural selection acts on is the individual gene(s).

But back to your point, the way we reduce the birthrate is to increase the base standard of living. If conditions are harsher, people will have more kids, since as you may have noticed, it is those that can least afford many kids that are the ones having the most kids.
 
[quote name='Koggit']The need for nationalization isn't rooted in some need to improve the value of health care, it's to get care for those who need it most, people with serious conditions who can't get health care with a private company due to preexisting conditions.

Essentially, I want everyone to have health insurance through a government agency. That will solve the dilemma of the uninsured. Will everyone benefit - will it improve health care? Impossible to say, it might or it might not, nobody can actually know... regardless, that's a really insignificant issue in the face of what's important: taking care of those in need.

To 'sacrifice' these people because they have a burden that society deems unpleasant to bear is nothing short of inhumane. Whether they're a minority or not, everyone deserves opportunity.[/QUOTE]

If you really felt that way then you'd prefer us to give money to 3rd world countries instead. There, we can benefit a larger group of people more significantly, who have lower qualities of life, for less money. If it's really a human and selflessness issue, then why focus/limit it to Americans (and illegal immigrants).
 
[quote name='tivo']If you really felt that way then you'd prefer us to give money to 3rd world countries instead.[/quote]
This is absolutely a false assumption. At no point does he say that we should take care of others before we can adequately take care of our own.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']This is absolutely a false assumption. At no point does he say that we should take care of others before we can adequately take care of our own.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say he should, I said he would prefer it based on his desire to get care for those who need it most. My point being is that no one would vote for that. The poor people in this country are selfish in that they want everyone else to pay for their health care and wouldn't offer up their government handout to anyone.
 
[quote name='tivo']I didn't say he should, I said he would prefer it based on his desire to get care for those who need it most. My point being is that no one would vote for that. The poor people in this country are selfish in that they want everyone else to pay for their health care and wouldn't offer up their government handout to anyone.[/QUOTE]

Not that anyone should take you seriously, but let us get our own house in order first. ok?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']survival of the fittest my friend. the earth is over populated as it is.[/quote]
Oh, my. Who wants to bet that you're an internet tough guy to boot?

"Social Darwinism" makes my avatar cry, man. Just... no. Don't. Okay? Don't.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Not that anyone should take you seriously, but let us get our own house in order first. ok?[/QUOTE]

I am serious. in high school, 90% of the community service I performed was for medical bridges- a volunteer organization that sends medical supplies to developing nations. I enjoyed picking up, organizing, and packaging the supplies because 1) it was voluntary and 2) it helps a lot of people with problems American's don't even have to worry about.

I don't see any point in paying lots of money for an old person to extend their life a few years or to help an obese person when I could help combat the spread of diseases affecting thousands of otherwise healthy children.

P.S. Our house will never be in order, there will always be something.
 
[quote name='Koggit']america rules and you're a dick[/QUOTE]

:)
lol. no, this is a good discussion. I've learned a lot looking at it from your perspective.
 
[quote name='Koggit']america rules and you're a dick[/QUOTE]

lol. I'm just against it being implemented in the US; sorry about it.
 
We will never have European style or Canadian style national health care, no matter how much people want it.

Why?

Because we are too damn big. We have too much population, specifically poor population. It would drag our entire economy into the gutter, and quality of health care. We'd have to nearly double everyone's income tax to pay for a health care system like Norway's or Englands.

Small countries can pull it off rather easily while still keeping some semblance of a democracy, because those countries all have minute populations compared to us.

We may, soon, have some sort of hybrid, or socialize more of it. But it will never be like Canada/Europe.

And I dare someone to bring up China as an exception. Please. Pretty please.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Oh, my. Who wants to bet that you're an internet tough guy to boot?

"Social Darwinism" makes my avatar cry, man. Just... no. Don't. Okay? Don't.[/quote]

i've never been called an "internet tough guy" so i don't really know how to take that. sorry =\
 
[quote name='tivo']Those in favor of national health care think we could provide the same quality, access, and standards to our over 300 million population but this isn't true, but even if it was, it would be a bad idea. Read up on it; factors like the research and development of new drugs would decrease.[/quote]

That was one of the things I didn't like about Sicko. Moore mentioned the higher taxes associated with socialized medicine once.

I fully understand that spreading health care resources across an entire population will reduce the care available to people on the right side of the bell curve, but our current system leaves a good 30-40% of the population without adequate protection.

If the health care systems of France, England and Canada left the entire population as bad off as say a full time worker at Wal-mart in terms of care, I could see why socialized medicine would be a bad thing.

Moore's presumably biased film didn't show the downsides to their health care systems.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']And I dare someone to bring up China as an exception. Please. Pretty please.[/quote]

China has the greatest healthcare system in the world! I mean, I don't believe that, but your dare has been accepted nonetheless.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']China has the greatest healthcare system in the world! I mean, I don't believe that, but your dare has been accepted nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

I am sure every Chinese citizen gets health care from the government. But anyone impressed with that should go live there for a while to see at what cost.

Who said communism was all bad?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am sure every Chinese citizen gets health care from the government. But anyone impressed with that should go live there for a while to see at what cost.

Who said communism was all bad?[/quote]

I thought you were going to go in a different direction.

I remember some "BIRTH DAY" show on some TLC or some other channel documenting births on different continents where in China the father to be had to scrounge up cash so his twins could be delivered.

EDIT: My apologies to BigT for hijacking the thread. I happened to watch Sicko last Saturday so it was fresh in my mind.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']What are you talking about? I got $50 for my useless old kidney. What's wrong with that?[/quote]

In this country you would've gotten $10,000 for that kidney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top