Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Sicko: Are you f!@#ing kidding me???

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Sicko: Are you f!@#ing kidding me???
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:03 am Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Here's the website.

Thank you. I also managed to find this site: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/01_Overview.asp

That is a federal program. Here is a state program.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:06 am Post subject:

thepeel wrote:

However, shouldn't the Iraqi's be afforded the same respect?

Absolutely. Why would you raise this issue with me, BJWD? I do not make policy on Iraq. If I did, things would be much different.

thepeel wrote:

Or Canada in regards to drug law?

Ditto.

This thread and others like it are not criticism, BJWD, but self-righteous judgment. Who are you to judge America or anything else for that matter? Are you blind to this? Look at the OP again.

Why would people here not distance themselves from such an approach to this "discussion?"

Last edited by Gopher on Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:09 am; edited 1 time in total

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:08 am Post subject:

Gopher.

let me help you out with your problem here.

you wrote;

Quote:

I love racking up evidence of you and your kinds' childish dichotomies.

You truly believe that because I reject Moore's discourse, then these are my views. And no matter how many times I disabuse you of this, you return to the allegation.

Morons.

maybe people wouldn't have to guess your views if you actually expressed your views.

if you expressed your views then you would see that in reality no dichotomy ever existed.

and then you could break free from that very dichotomy you detest (or amuses you?!?!)

and then, maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't smell of hy�poc�ri�sy, anymore.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:11 am Post subject:

Oh gopher. Go read your replies. Find where I made a judgment. It is you, you projecting dork, that has been judging. Not I. I don't care about the American or Canadian system. Both suck in different ways. But I will make a judgment now. You are probably the most nakedly insecure and madly/blindly patriotic person I've ever come across. It is 3am in California and you are still foaming with star spangled spittle at the Canadian internet villians of the day. Go to bed and start over tomorrow.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:11 am Post subject:

thepeel wrote:

However, shouldn't the Iraqi's be afforded the same respect? Or Canada in regards to drug law? Oh, the list could go on and on. An American, a republican American at that, getting all upset when the policies of his country are slammed and then crying sovereignty is a bit rich.

Americans are taken to task all the time for being *supposedly* ignorant about other countries...

...I think citing Michael Moore for anything is putting the shoe on the other foot for a change.

Free speech: its for Americans and god-slaves, too. Wink

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:14 am Post subject:

thepeel wrote:

It is 3am in California...

You sound like a fool here.

Who says I am in California or even the United States, BJWD?

If you want to judge something, judge yourself. Judge a man who, months before, spoke out against the same kind of internet nonsense I speak out against on this thread and who, suddenly, reversed direction, changed his internet name, and now argues the other way simply because the United States did not offer him the easy resident's visa he was expecting just because he earned a grad degree in economics and the whole world was supposed to be in demand for him...

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:16 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

thepeel wrote:

Yeah, I think MM a douche. Sicko was a stupid film designed to capture the emotions of the left. It was hardly a policy piece. Gopher is just an insecure little vase. It is unbelievable how worked up he gets.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:23 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

thepeel wrote:

It is 3am in California...

Oh gopher. Grow up. My opinions on the USA have not changed one bit. You are too damn dumb to get it. That is the final answer.

The United States is a chunk of land governed by a set of institutions. Some good, some bad. The government currently in charge is criminal, at best. Americans are the same as all other people. Some good, some bad, mostly neither. This, by the by, is the exact same thing I think of Canada.

I egg YOU on because it is fun. You get that? You are fun to piss off. You get all personal and heated..always editing and reediting your posts for maximum effect.. It is "lol'tastic"!

So, keep furiously typing away! YEAH! BJWD!! YEAH!! USA USA USA!!!!

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:23 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

[Americans do not enjoy the same "free" healthcare coverage Canadians do. But we do not see such a large percentage of Americans living on "Employment Insurance" or fleeing the country and its excessive taxes to find the only meaningful employment they can in South Korea and, in BJWD's case, Singapore.

.

You sure about that? Because I was under the impression that when a certain article laid out the details of the changes to the E-2 visa that MORE Americans were E-2 teachers in S.K than Canadians...quite a bit more in fact.

Back on topic. Canada's health care is indeed not "free" and is quite unwieldy to the tune of an estimated 160 billion dollars this year alone if I remember correctly. And even with that money being poured in, there are still quite long waiting times.

In fact it has gotten so bad that many Canadians (those who can afford to do so at least) flee to the wicked U.S and pay to have their medical care there.

Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:28 am; edited 2 times in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:25 am Post subject:

Oh BJWD. Grow up. My opinions on "the USA" have never been what you represent them to be. Keep playing off the usual dichotomy; you are too dumb to see any other alternatives. Whatever floats your boat.

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

In car accidents in the U.S., is everyone able to sue or to make a claim? What about the driver-at-fault (if there is one)? In Australia only the driver-at-fault is not able to make a third-party insurance claim, but all people involved would always be able to have treatment with no charge (other than that normally levied on the general public). In the U.S. if the driver-at-fault is not able to make a claim, how would s/he receive treatment other than at a free county hospital if they have no insurance?

People with no insurance would receive medical treatment at the county hospital regardless of any status in any driving accident.

But let me address what you seem to be arguing here: as an American voter I would never vote for a tax program meant to cover uninsured drivers who cause accidents.

(1) They break the law by driving without insurance. (2) They probably did something reckless or negligent to cause the accident, which probably harmed someone or their property. (3) And now they are in no position to make any complainant whole again (a contingency many of us already pay for in state-mandated car-insurance packages).

What is your philosophical justification for taxpayers' floating such people in a national healthcare scheme? Poor them?

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:09 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Gopher wrote:

Unbelievable, this density.

blaseblasphemener wrote:

going to the doctor is free in Canada. That means seeing the doctor and having surgery is free.

Please clarify: you mean to say that no one pays for these services to exist?

I think that what you seem extremely unwilling to concede is that when people talk about healthcare being free, they mean free of charge at the point of treatment, not magically requiring no funding whatsoever. I hope that you are just pretending to be this obtuse.

{1}Not at all. What you seem extremely unwilling to concede is that Americans may have decided through local, state, and federal elections through their history not to pay such taxes.

{2}Maybe they should and maybe they should not. But however it may be it is not your *beep* decision.

{3}And, in any case, please do not come here and tell me that healthcare is free in Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth.

(Numbers in curly brackets mine)

To address your points:
1. I simply asked a question about what would happen in America if someone had injuries such as I have had in the past. Where have I made a single statement in this thread or elsewhere showing that I don't believe that Americans don't want to fund universal healthcare or any other kind of taxes? I have not said (or written) what you say I have.

2. Where have I tried to tell anyone, American or otherwise that I could or should be able to make decisions anywhere? I have not made the claim that you say I have - indeed, I have not made any suggestions to do with changing anything. You appear to be speaking out of orifice that is round and rather inappropriate.

3. As I have patiently explained to you and anyone who cares to read my posts, universal healthcare is tax-funded and all the tax-payers know that they are paying for the (tax-funded) services received. (Sigh) I'll write it again for the slow of thinking - it is commonly referred to as free because it is charge-free at the point of treatment. You are arguing over semantics.

Why are you accusing me of making these statements that I have never made? Please read what people are writing and don't assume that you know what they are thinking. I really doubt that you are omniscient, especially as your assumptions about me so far have been completely wrong.

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:22 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

But let me address what you seem to be arguing here: as an American voter I would never vote for a tax program meant to cover uninsured drivers who cause accidents.

(1) They break the law by driving without insurance. (2) They probably did something reckless or negligent to cause the accident, which probably harmed someone or their property. (3) And now they are in no position to make any complainant whole again (a contingency many of us already pay for in state-mandated car-insurance packages).

What is your philosophical justification for taxpayers' floating such people in a national healthcare scheme? Poor them?

My philosophical justification for helping to provide tax-funded medical care for anyone, breakers of the law or otherwise, is simply that everyone deserves basic human rights, and I believe that equal access to medical care for all is one of those rights. As an ex-police officer, I have seen more misery and bad people in the world than I care to, but I still would not deprive anyone of tax-funded healthcare just because s/he is a criminal or too poor to afford insurance.

Would it be fair to say that your attitude is that if an American citizen is too poor to afford health insurance or is a criminal, then they don't deserve health care? This is merely a question, and I am reserving the right to make any assumptions and/or judgements after I read your reply.

The_Eyeball_Kid

Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:40 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that those people too poor to afford insurance don't deserve medical treatment? Seriously?

I sincerely hope that one day you come upon hard times.

Justin Hale

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:28 am Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

3. As I have patiently explained to you and anyone who cares to read my posts, universal healthcare is tax-funded and all the tax-payers know that they are paying for the (tax-funded) services received. (Sigh) I'll write it again for the slow of thinking - it is commonly referred to as free because it is charge-free at the point of treatment. You are arguing over semantics.

So far the discussion on this specific matter has proceeded as follows:

You: free healthcare, etc.
Gopher: It's not free
You: When we say 'free', we mean it is charge-free at the point of treatment - not that it's actually free.
Gopher: It's not free.

I wasn't sure, Sleepy, so I've just had a quick re-read of the thread and page 4 has this: "do you seriously assert that your country's healthcare system is free and no one pays anything for it?" (Gopher)

It's entirely possible that he completely overlooked what 'free' actually means in the context of healthcare.

Gopher's repetition of the exact same claim after you'd rebutted it (which your quote above responds to) is suggestive of someone of rather dubious sanity.

My advice: give up. You've made your point and Gopher's debating strategy seems to be to obfuscate with verbosity and bug-eyed anger - all of which ideologically and nationalistically driven rather than factually, and designed to silence any criticism whatsoever of the United States. As I said in the 'Brits boo American national anthem' thread, it's incredible how oversensitive some Americans are.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Would it be fair to say that...

No, Sleepy_in_Seoul, it would not. That does not represent my position. I will accept that you are genuinely interested in exchanging views on the American healthcare system and its problems and promise, however.

But if you want to seriously discuss the issue, I suggest you look for serious informants and information.

Let me start with this: why would you embrace a Michael Moore film, or enter a thread and attack someone who attacks Moore's manipulative tactics and America-hating, antagonistic style when you could get serious proposals from serious Americans who might actually position themselves to work for real change that all Americans can achieve together rather than divided into the far left's hostile, Marxist-inspired camps (e.g., "us against the corporations" or "'the people' against the State")...?

Why not start with a Hillary Clinton talk on this issue? You ask about my views. Both the Clintons have tended to closely represent my views on most issues in American affairs since the early-1990s.

Hillary Clinton wrote:

...most importantly, that in order to answer any question about what we can do better to provide healthcare for all of our citizens in a cost effective quality driven way, we first have to establish a consensus in America. That this is a goal we intend to achieve together. We have to reach that consensus among providers, employers, employees, citizens, those who pay for, depend upon, and actually deliver healthcare services. And this consensus has to be strong enough to persuade decision makers in Washington and to overcome entrenched opposition among the forces that oppose change for ideological and corporate reasons.

Now the good news is that I think we are finally reaching consensus. I see businesses, labor, government and other stakeholders increasingly investing in quality care because they realize that it's not only good for individuals and families that it's also goof or our economy. We've begun to agree that there is an economic as well as a moral imperative to reign in costs and to extend coverage to all Americans. There's a practical imperative to improve quality -- to promote wellness and prevent illness wherever possible. And these are the key components of my health care plan -- lowering costs for everyone, improving quality for everyone, and providing coverage for everyone. I list them as three interlocking goals because I think we cannot do one without doing all of them.

A few months ago, I outlined my agenda to reduce health care costs and today, I want to talk about health care quality. And next month, I will announce my plan for universal coverage. My order here is deliberate. In order to forge a consensus on universal health care, we need to assure people they'll get the quality they expect at a price they can afford. And my recommendations to control costs and ensure quality lay the groundwork for insuring everyone.

Now, by all accounts, we should already have the highest quality health care in the world. Our doctors, nurses and other health care practitioners are among the best in the world. They have access to the most cutting-edge drugs, and treatments and medical technologies. And we spend more money per capita on health care, almost $5,700, than any country in the world.

But we are far from having the best care. We're ranked 23rd in infant mortality and 42nd in life expectancy. According to the 2006 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 51 percent of Americans were dissatisfied with the quality of our health care system. According to a RAND study, adults in the United States on average fail to receive about one half the medical care they need. More than one in ten patients may receive care that isn't recommended -- and may be potentially harmful. And the Institute of Medicine estimates that as many as 98,000 Americans are killed each year by preventable medical errors.

Now in short, too often and in too may places, our health care system hurts us instead of helping us. It hurts doctors, who aren't rewarded for providing the best care -- and are often punished for it, financially at least. It hurts nurses, who are asked to work longer hours caring for more patients with fewer resources. And it hurts patients, who are forced to make complicated medical decisions without basic information about their conditions and options.

Now I'm hoping that we're getting to a point where the quality of our health care is not a partisan issue...

Let me restate that...

Quote:

I'm hoping that we're getting to a point where the quality of our health care is not a partisan issue...

Do discussions like Moore's film and those it inspires like the one OP proposes on this thread lead to that point, Sleepy_in_Seoul?

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Speech

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe