• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Spanish Election

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Woody1968 said:
OK, one more time. I siad nationalize health insurance, not health care. Do you not understand the difference?
Click to expand...

Health insurance is an important part of the health care industry. While it is true that I used the wrong word, it doesn't change my opinion of it. I see no reason to believe that nationalized health insurance is better than private health insurance.
 
Upvote 0
Woody

It was obvious that you were infering that these countries (France and Germany) were doing fine under their socialist regimes.("They haven't imploded")
I responded by saying that these countries are in horrible economic condition.
 
Upvote 0
Funny how the fair, open-minded guy loves "DUHbya" and "Rush Bimbo". Then I get heat for correctly charachterizing wanting to federalize health insurance as "socialist"? Too funny.

And um, I'd be the first Republican to tell you that Bush does have liberal tendancies. But the idea of government instituting a new function of gay marriage is also the government solving problems. Personally, I would get the government out of the marriage buisness altogether despite my moral aversion to homosexuality. I don't think it's the government's buisness to be involved with straight marriage or gay marriage. Like most things, government intervention causes more problems than it solves.

But nice job trying to change the subject, oh open-minded one.
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch said:
There are a lot of threads on the US election right now. In one of them I stated my opinion that the election will be decided on the issue of terrorism - not the economy and not character or lack thereof. I also said I believe either GW or Osama will make sure this is the case.

Well, the results of the Spanish election are in. In the wake of their 3-11 they have decided that the party that made them a target of Al Qeida by supporting the US must go. All indications are that the attacks were the deciding facto in this election.

To put it another way, in a referendum on the effectiveness of terrrorism as a political tool the people of Spain have said that yes, it is an effective tool and they encourage its continued use. Just not in Madrid, of course.

In their naivete - and righteous anger - they have not sperated the use of terrorism as a generic tool, but have considered it only in the light of its use by one group on one issue.

I find this result terribly disturbing.
Click to expand...
Nobody seems to be mentioning the disturbing fact that the victorious party in these Spanish elections was the Socialist Party. Spain is being run by Nazis (yes, that is rhetoric).

On a side note, my girlfriend's roommate from last summer, an engineer at UM, has an away message that reads "The SPOE won in Spain!" She has no idea that the SPOE are socialists, nor what that means. She just knows she spent two summers in Spain, and that the Madrid attacks bothered her more than any of the attacks on America because it's Spain and it "might have wrecked some cute little house in Spain or killed some poor Spanish person."

She is a complete idiot. She is a HUGE reason why my girlfriend is anxious to graduate from UM and get to OSU, since this idiot seems to want to follow her wherever she goes but refuses to go to OSU.
 
Upvote 0
If nothing else, at least we learned a little bit about our fellow posters on BP (sorry, I ducked out of the convo, when it went to def. of words, instead of ideas that folks want to bring to the table)...
Click to expand...
I laid out the idea of nationalizing health insurance instead of health care. So far I'm still witing for a reason why this won't work. The only response I have gotten so far is that I am a socialist.
 
Upvote 0
If you nationalize health insurance, how will things change? Any savings of corporate profit, would be offset by gov. inefficencies (sp?). Also how would you keep the gov. from taking "profit" from this and funneling it to some other program... I think it would be one for profit center for the gov. to fund more slush funds.

I think going after the root of the problem (huge lawsuites being awarded for malpractice) would be a more logical route... I'm all for capping what one can sue for.


The Fed. Gov. nationalized a retirement plan called Social Security... if they handle insurance anywhere near like they did SS, I'd like to keep that risk management business out of the gov.'s hand... The gov. has yet to prove they are capable of running such an organization. The less gov. the better IMO...
 
Upvote 0
In line with the subject of health care, how convenient is it that TB is rearing its ugly head again, supposedly affecting the Columbus area at this very time. This is an excerpt from today's Dispatch online:

"Stronger strain
Resurgence of tuberculosis felt locally
Pointing to a startling surge in drug-resistant tuberculosis, health experts are calling for more vigilance against the deadly disease and development of better medications. "

I do not subscribe to the Dispatch, so I have no idea what the article actually states. Now, again, why should government be concerned with an outbreak of TB?
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod said:
Do you see a role for government in assisting with the establishment of an affordable drug program in this country?
Click to expand...

This from "60 Minutes" last week:

A mayor from some city in Mass., when negotiating with that city"s unions over health benefits, signed a contract with a pharmacy in Canada for the city's employees to purchase their prescriptions there. Seems that the Canadian government regulates how much drug companies can chare for their drugs, and that the same drugs from the same companies are between 1/3 and 1/5 cheaper in Canada as they are in the US. The Mayor says he saved each city employee on the average of $250.00 a year.
This gets better. It is illegal for a US citizen to purchase their drugs in Canada. DEA says that US has safegards again bad drugs that the Canadian govern. doesn't offer. The mayor investigated those claims, and found that it wasn't true. The Mayor then received two letters from the Bush admin. (didn't say who signed the letters), asking him to stop the program imediately. The Mayor has declined.

IF THE US GOVERNMENT would put the same restrants on drug companies that Canada has done, the saving for US people would reach into the Billions of dollars every year. So why won't they? Over half of the drugs are being manufactured overseas now?
 
Upvote 0
IF THE US GOVERNMENT would put the same restrants on drug companies that Canada has done, the saving for US people would reach into the Billions of dollars every year. So why won't they?
Click to expand...
I'll take a stab at this question. The basic reason is that the US companies want more profit. On a more complex and ultimately relevant level, The government doesn't want to cut the profits, because doing so would create an incentive for the drug companies to put less work into developing new medications and would also lower the amount of resources available for new research.
 
Upvote 0
You have gotten a reason, you just don't like it. I don't expect to convince a person with socialist leanings that socialism is an awful, evil, immoral system. And for the ninth time, wanting to nationalize health insurance is a socialist idea.

There is no industry that is better served being controlled by a government bureacracy than being served by private industry that I know of. There is no place in the world with such a high level of quality health care as the United States of America. And it is one of the only countries that has a private health care system. Coincidence? I think not.

Not only that, but it is unconstitutional. There is nothing in article 1, section 8 which lists the powers of Congress that allows it to take over the health insurance industry.

Not only that, but I feel that every American should have the right to choose their own health care provider if they so desire. Nationalizing health insurance would allow the government to dictate where I could go to the doctor. That is revolting.

Not only that, but I feel that every American should have the right to invest in or start a health insurance company if they so desire. I believe that everybody should have the right to pursue their living in whatever legal field they desire. I believe in capitalism.

Not only that, but 99% of all government programs cost more than they are supposed to. Social security, medicare, medicaid, space missions, weapon systems, prescription drug coverage, construction projects, everything. Nationalized health insurance would be a horrible expensive, horribly bureaucratic mess. Ashland mentioned the BMV which is a great example. Government services are horribly inefficient, because the government has no incentive to save money, unlike a private corporation which wants to increase profits. The government can deficit spend, or just come crying that the rich aren't paying their "fair" share and pass tax increases which further enslave all Americans, particularly those who have achieved great things in buisness and in their professions, to the wants of the masses.

Just because you don't like the reasons or don't agree with the reasons you have been given doesn't mean that nobody has given them to you.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top