|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Troutslayer
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Mortifying.
I happened to see that on TV. I doubt CNN was on, so it was likely someone on FOX vilifying the moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hardly surprising.
By the way, not just any random group of children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd rather news organizations were promoting health care reform than trying to stifle it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox: no objections to their using minors? This seems to be a little more than merely "promoting health care reform," no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox: no objections to their using minors? This seems to be a little more than merely "promoting health care reform," no? |
If the parents in question consent, I don't see how using minors for this is any different than, say, using minors to raise money for UNICEF honestly. I don't see health care reform as a political issue, but rather a human welfare issue. Children working in service of human welfare -- with the consent of their parents -- is not a bad thing.
If some parents had objected -- or even if some students had objected -- I'd fully support their lack of participation though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Once you demand the government become involved, it becomes a matter of politics. Those who are serious about serving humanity re: healthcare would build clinics and hospitals. They would voluntarily ask for donations and for help in their cause. They might even solicit a few MDs and PAs to help them in their peaceful endeavors. However, in order to serve humanity, they would never coerce or otherwise threaten violence in such an effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Once you demand the government become involved, it becomes a matter of politics. |
I demand the government be involved in the prevention of murders and the apprehension of people who have murdered others. I don't consider that a political matter.
| Pluto wrote: |
| Those who are serious about serving humanity re: healthcare would build clinics and hospitals. They would voluntarily ask for donations and for help in their cause. They might even solicit a few MDs and PAs to help them in their peaceful endeavors. |
I agree, it would be totally great if enough people did this that no governmental involvement was required. But, they don't. And because that happens at a totally insufficient level, it's time for governmental involvement.
| Pluto wrote: |
| However, in order to serve humanity, they would never coerce or otherwise threaten violence in such an effort. |
This is an argument against taxes, not governmental health care. Personally, I'd like a single payer, government run system, but I all ready said I'd be fine with a non-subsidized, non-profit public health care option. Such a thing doesn't coerce anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Once you demand the government become involved, it becomes a matter of politics. |
I demand the government be involved in the prevention of murders and the apprehension of people who have murdered others. I don't consider that a political matter.
|
How is the govt supposed to prevent murders?
| Quote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Those who are serious about serving humanity re: healthcare would build clinics and hospitals. They would voluntarily ask for donations and for help in their cause. They might even solicit a few MDs and PAs to help them in their peaceful endeavors. |
I agree, it would be totally great if enough people did this that no governmental involvement was required. But, they don't. And because that happens at a totally insufficient level, it's time for governmental involvement. |
If you left hospitals to the free market more than enough would be built to serve peoples needs at every given price. Charities would set up hospitals for the poor in the same way and for the same reasons they build hospitals in undeveloped countries. Because govts have been building hospitals for so long, they crowd out people who want to do it out of charity. The same way govt spending in other areas of the economy crowds out investment.
It would surprise me if you would even be allowed to build a free hospital for poor people. I'm sure there is some kind of law against it.
| Quote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| However, in order to serve humanity, they would never coerce or otherwise threaten violence in such an effort. |
This is an argument against taxes, not governmental health care. Personally, I'd like a single payer, government run system, but I all ready said I'd be fine with a non-subsidized, non-profit public health care option. Such a thing doesn't coerce anyone. |
How do you propose to pay for public health care, without taxes? All govt spending is from taxes. They don't have any money of their own.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redhed
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Everyone is whining like children about funding 900,000,000,000 over a decade for healthcare. Our military budget for 2009 is somewhere in the realm of 600,000,000 BEFORE discretionary spending. That's ONE YEAR!! A significant portion of that spending being pumped into the profit margins of private corporations doing "bidded" contracting work. It is my understanding that they (being DOD) can't even account for enough money misplaced in Iraq to fund the year of a revamped health program. Healthcare for maximum profit does not serve the best interest of the ill, it serves the best interest of the people making the profit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr1ncejeffie
Joined: 07 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, its a given that we must pay taxes for healthcare. Why not cut some of the military spending?!?
It took congress 30 years to stop making those useless F-22s. 1.67 billion shaved right there. Military spending has steadily gone up.
So, yeah we can trim the fat of a lot of crap and finally get it done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Once you demand the government become involved, it becomes a matter of politics. |
I demand the government be involved in the prevention of murders and the apprehension of people who have murdered others. I don't consider that a political matter.
|
How is the govt supposed to prevent murders? |
Last I heard, one of the functions of the police was to help prevent murders where possible.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If you left hospitals to the free market more than enough would be built to serve peoples needs at every given price. |
I don't believe you, and I don't think you have any data to back up your claim.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| How do you propose to pay for public health care, without taxes? |
The same way private health insurance is run: people pay in to enroll, and in return, get their health care covered. Unlike private insurance -- whose only goal is to profit -- this program's purpose would be to keep costs to a minimum while still providing a reasonable level of benefit to its members. It would receive no subsidies, and thus have to be run efficiently to stay in business. Even you can't find anything to complain about with such a suggestion, since the worst thing that could happen is that it failed due to inefficiency and went out of business like any failed private enterprise would. The only reason it's a "public" option is because this non-profit health insurnance provider would be owned by the government, not by private individuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Once you demand the government become involved, it becomes a matter of politics. |
I demand the government be involved in the prevention of murders and the apprehension of people who have murdered others. I don't consider that a political matter.
|
How is the govt supposed to prevent murders? |
Last I heard, one of the functions of the police was to help prevent murders where possible. |
I didn't ask if it was one of their functions, I asked how they do it?
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If you left hospitals to the free market more than enough would be built to serve peoples needs at every given price. |
I don't believe you, and I don't think you have any data to back up your claim. |
It's been proven time and again that the govt doesn't do even its core functions efficiently, so how do you expect it to do something as complicated as centrally plan health outcomes for millions of people with millions of different needs, wants and preferences. A one size fits all health scheme won't improve health outcomes. The free market does this for millions of other goods, so it stands to reason, it would do it for health care also.
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| How do you propose to pay for public health care, without taxes? |
The same way private health insurance is run: people pay in to enroll, and in return, get their health care covered. Unlike private insurance -- whose only goal is to profit -- this program's purpose would be to keep costs to a minimum while still providing a reasonable level of benefit to its members. It would receive no subsidies, and thus have to be run efficiently to stay in business. Even you can't find anything to complain about with such a suggestion, since the worst thing that could happen is that it failed due to inefficiency and went out of business like any failed private enterprise would. The only reason it's a "public" option is because this non-profit health insurnance provider would be owned by the government, not by private individuals. |
This would never, ever happen in a million years. Since when would the govt let one of its precious enterprises go out of business? It would be the same as the post office. When it inevitably gets the subsidies, it will no doubt need to stay in business, it will be effectively offering health care at a lower cost, thus competing unfairly with the other health providers.
Can you name one govt enterprise that has ever failed financially due to inefficiency? It's almost an oxymoron. Failing govt enterprises are always rewarded with more tax money.
Even if the health care reforms were about providing better health outcomes, why haven't those things that can be done TODAY for little cost, been included in the legislation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Once you demand the government become involved, it becomes a matter of politics. |
I demand the government be involved in the prevention of murders and the apprehension of people who have murdered others. I don't consider that a political matter.
|
How is the govt supposed to prevent murders? |
Last I heard, one of the functions of the police was to help prevent murders where possible. |
I didn't ask if it was one of their functions, I asked how they do it? |
Inquire at your local police station, I'm sure they'll inform you about the basics of their methodology if you wish.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If you left hospitals to the free market more than enough would be built to serve peoples needs at every given price. |
I don't believe you, and I don't think you have any data to back up your claim. |
It's been proven time and again that the govt doesn't do even its core functions efficiently, so how do you expect it to do something as complicated as centrally plan health outcomes for millions of people with millions of different needs, wants and preferences. A one size fits all health scheme won't improve health outcomes. The free market does this for millions of other goods, so it stands to reason, it would do it for health care also. |
When you've got some data, let me know. I'm not interested in your rhetoric on this matter, I told you that.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| How do you propose to pay for public health care, without taxes? |
The same way private health insurance is run: people pay in to enroll, and in return, get their health care covered. Unlike private insurance -- whose only goal is to profit -- this program's purpose would be to keep costs to a minimum while still providing a reasonable level of benefit to its members. It would receive no subsidies, and thus have to be run efficiently to stay in business. Even you can't find anything to complain about with such a suggestion, since the worst thing that could happen is that it failed due to inefficiency and went out of business like any failed private enterprise would. The only reason it's a "public" option is because this non-profit health insurnance provider would be owned by the government, not by private individuals. |
This would never, ever happen in a million years. |
All I can talk about is what I'd like to see happen. I'm not interested in your predictions regarding the future. If you've got data, show me data. I've had enough Libertarian rhetoric to last me a lifetime. I could virtually write you guys' posts for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troutslayer
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| All I can talk about is what I'd like to see happen. I'm not interested in your predictions regarding the future. If you've got data, show me data. I've had enough Libertarian rhetoric to last me a lifetime. I could virtually write you guys' posts for you. |
Fair enough.
Bottom Line:
CNN (or ANY news agency, for that matter) should not be USING children to broadcast their own political and ideological agenda(s). It is wrong.
slayer of trout |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
