Log in

View Full Version : Good Idea or Not: Legalizing Prostitution



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12

xdamage
08-16-2009, 12:02 AM
I am simply pointing out the latest trend in human evolution – altruism. There are people who truly sacrifice their well being for others on a daily basis. There are some people who are born that way and there are some who are not born that way.

And this is why I read people like Pinker, and Dawkins and Darwin who make no such claim (actually the reverse, that altruism is an illusion) and not Cyril who believes what he wants. The difference is you are trying to serve me yet more popular social myth of the day candy and tell me it is healthy for me because it seems "sweet"; and it is OLD, the very crap that others much more knowledgeable then you have spent decades writing books trying to debunk.

So when I read this drivel from you all I end up thinking is you are clueless but not surprisingly believe what you believe absolutely and without question. FWIW I use to think as you do. Smarter people then I who thought about this much more showed me why I was wrong.

I suggest for you less writing fantasy worlds about strippers, and more reading.



“Beaver building the dam” argument is pointless because I am not denying survival of the fittest. We all read that stuff in school. You are not breaking any news here.

No you completely missed the point. Animals can and do work together too for the "apparent" group good (which is also for their own good, for their common genetic good for an even larger genetic competition good); this apparent altruism is not something uniquely human.

Cyril
08-16-2009, 12:11 AM
No you completely missed the point. Animals can and do work together too for the "apparent" group good (which is also for their own good, for their common genetic good for an even larger genetic competition good); this apparent altruism is not something uniquely human.

Working together is a form of strength and a strength is what makes you fit for the survival. That is my point. Why do you rush to judgment so quickly?

I suggest you read a little less from Dawkins. It is turning you into an arrogant person. Darwin is fine though. He was objective.

xdamage
08-16-2009, 12:32 AM
Working together is a form of strength and a strength is what makes you fit for the survival. That is my point. Why do you rush to judgment so quickly?

I suggest you read a little less from Dawkins. It is turning you into an arrogant person. Darwin is fine though. He was objective.

Look you're not going to tell me who to read just like not one person here agreed to proof read for you or contribute free time to your silly fantasy world.

Also you are clueless so I'll leave you with this since what you just wrote above was typically non-insightful. Here it is:

Two lions work together, which according to your drivel is lovely, it makes them stronger, almost like a Disney Movie, so sweet... but let me finish the thought...

for the purpose of trapping a weaker/slower animal who will surely suffer greatly while it dies a slow painful death as they feast it on it alive.

Now please don't try to convince me again that you are smarter then the people I read. They at least would have finished the thought just like that, at least a brilliant insight into the big picture. That would have impressed me. Your candy coated view of reality did not.

Cyril
08-16-2009, 01:13 AM
Look you're not going to tell me who to read just like not one person here agreed to proof read for you or contribute free time to your silly fantasy world.

Also you are clueless so I'll leave you with this since what you just wrote above was typically non-insightful. Here it is:

Two lions work together, which according to your drivel is lovely, it makes them stronger, almost like a Disney Movie, so sweet... but let me finish the thought...

for the purpose of trapping a weaker/slower animal who will surely suffer greatly while it dies a slow painful death as they feast it on it alive.

Now please don't try to convince me again that you are smarter then the people I read. They at least would have finished the thought just like that, at least a brilliant insight into the big picture. That would have impressed me. Your candy coated view of reality did not.

Dude, you were giving me advise to read more. I gave you some advise of my own. So, what is the fuss?

You are saying that even Beavers display altruism. Dude, that is even a better news. The whole point I was trying to make was everyone is not born selfish. There are plenty of people who are altruistic by birth. Your Beaver point is icing to the cake.

I will leave this conversation too. Because you seem to have created a burden for yourself that you are a bit too wise.

Your lion example is pointless because I am not saying that all collaborations are altruistic.



Note: Dawkins is not above scrutiny, at least for me.

xdamage
08-16-2009, 01:16 AM
You are saying that even Beavers display altruism.

BZZZTTT WRONG!!! I was saying Beavers work together because they benefit, because the genes benefit, not for Altruism. Even that simple point alluded you??? WTF?



Your lion example is pointless because I am not saying that all collaborations are altruistic.

Even sweet Beavers working together (eyes roll sarcastically) can well end up negatively effecting the weaker fish who live in the streams. The Lion example is right on because it shows exactly that two people working together for their own benefit often is done so precisely at the expense of another who is definitely aggressed against.

Now please, don't bother trying to be smarter then the people I read. They've actually given some thought to this vs just spewing candy coated social happy happy joy drivel.

Cyril
08-16-2009, 01:17 AM
BZZZTTT WRONG!!! I was saying Beavers work together because they benefit, because the genes benefit, not for Altruism. Even that simple point alluded you??? WTF?

OK, I think I read you wrong on the Beaver. It is time for me to hit the bed.

xdamage
08-16-2009, 01:35 AM
OK, I think I read you wrong on the Beaver. It is time for me to hit the bed.

You absolutely read it wrong, but it is not entirely your fault. We've all been raised with the same popular social beliefs.

It is actually very hard to look at the whole panorama of evolutionary history and ourselves and see the that for every winner there was also a loser; to see the complex way in which we compete with each other as well and some of us have lived better because some have lived worse off.

And it simply doesn't make us feel good about ourselves to think about it, which of course yet again, is motivated by the fact that we are in it for us. We like feeling better about ourselves far more then we like a truth about ourselves that is not all positive.

p.s. But FWIW, I honestly believe if humans really do have a chance of breaking the animal survival of the fittest cycle then they MUST also come to the point where the face some not so attractive truths; only then can they really start to change things permanently and even that remains a long shot.

PatheticLoserCuckold
08-16-2009, 01:48 AM
I'm a libertarian, so to keep it easy, I say YES 8)

Cyril
08-16-2009, 12:56 PM
It was the wrong kind of beaver we were discussing anyway. :D

Otoki
08-16-2009, 07:06 PM
I'm not a prostitute, but honestly, I find the fact that one consenting adult can not pay another consenting adult for sex incredibly offensive.

I'm all about personal freedom and choices and IMO, prostitution is a victimless crime. There is no way that someone can justify it's illegality to me.

That being said, I agree that legalizing it could help keep it out of strip clubs. Why do I think that's important? Because they are SEPARATE SERVICES. Having prostitutes inside the club confuses what the industry is about. Plain and simple.
Thank you. I don't know how many times it has to be repeated for people to understand:
If prostitution is LEGALIZED and REGULATED (ie, NOT what's going on in RI) it would be very easy to keep it out of SCs (see Melbourne). Will extras still go on? Probably. Will they still be illegal? YES, because they are not supposed to go on in SCs, only brothels (or other legal venues for prostitution).

Otoki
08-16-2009, 07:07 PM
Exactly. I've had that shit happen when I'm in a baggy tshirt, jeans, no make-up, and pumping gas or something.

Although (a little off topic) I gotta admit... the most weird in-public stares/whistles/etc I ever got from men was one day after I left work and went to the grocery store. I kept thinking "WTF am I desperate-dick magnet tonight or what?" I mean, I -was- wearing make-up and whatever.. but I had on jeans and a tank top. Hardly "trashy". One guy even did the "yo baby, how you doooiiinnn??" thing.

It wasn't until I got home that I realized I'd left my bright neon yellow thong on and that the back and one side was a good 2 inches above my jeans.

Awesome.
That is hilarious.

On a not-so-hilarious note:
bem, I find your assertion that healthcare is not a right to be very callous and disappointing. I wonder if your opinion would be different if you were one of the many people with pre-existing conditions who got rejected for insurance, or make too much for state health care but not enough to afford private insurance.

As for "no one leaves the US", plenty of people get important procedures in other countries, INCLUDING life-saving ones. They just happen to be life-saving in the long-run, rather than "I will die in the next hour if I don't get this procedure." Besides all that, I find many people's belief that everyone shouldn't contribute, through taxes, to ensure a healthier population (thanks to preventative procedures and checkups that would otherwise not be performed due to lack of insurance) to be amazingly selfish and short-sighted. Just as I support the idea that everyone deserves the option of a stellar public education (and can choose to pay extra for a private one), I see no reason why healthcare should be treated differently.

bem401
08-17-2009, 06:16 AM
That is hilarious.

On a not-so-hilarious note:
bem, I find your assertion that healthcare is not a right to be very callous and disappointing. I wonder if your opinion would be different if you were one of the many people with pre-existing conditions who got rejected for insurance, or make too much for state health care but not enough to afford private insurance.

As for "no one leaves the US", plenty of people get important procedures in other countries, INCLUDING life-saving ones. They just happen to be life-saving in the long-run, rather than "I will die in the next hour if I don't get this procedure." Besides all that, I find many people's belief that everyone shouldn't contribute, through taxes, to ensure a healthier population (thanks to preventative procedures and checkups that would otherwise not be performed due to lack of insurance) to be amazingly selfish and short-sighted. Just as I support the idea that everyone deserves the option of a stellar public education (and can choose to pay extra for a private one), I see no reason why healthcare should be treated differently.


I respectfully disagree. Health care is not a right, it is the responsibility of the individual to provide for his or her self. it is not a right any more than housing, transportation, or anything else is a right. under the constitution, we are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one is entitled to have anything provided solely by the taxes paid by others.

And for the record, I am a school teacher and the education system is so fucked up because of liberal influences, they might just as well scrap the whole damn thing. They've turned my job into an absolute joke. I teach algebra 2 and pre-calculus to students who can't even subtract. I'd hate to see them do the same with health care, as they have with everything they provide ( except defense ).

hockeybobby
08-17-2009, 07:57 AM
Caring for people in your community, especially those who can't care for themselves could be something to aspire to, rather than some obligation you chafe against. Whether talking about the sick and disabled, or the poor, or prostitutes trying to eke out a living. Caring for people isn't a losing proposition. The concept of all members of a society contributing in accordance with their means to worthwhile services, even when they don't necessarily use all those services right now themselves, is a tried and true recipe for a great society.

xdamage
08-17-2009, 08:36 AM
I agree that socialized health care works, but it is not black or white.

On the positive side, just as we benefit from society (e.g., legal protections, military protection, roads and infrastructure, and more), it is likewise reasonable that some of our earnings go back into the system.

There is also a simple fact that nobody can escape the aging process and with it our bodies tendencies to malfunction as we age. The younger in societies do need the elder's experience and contributions; and the younger will one day be the older. Factor in random chance bad luck, and none of us are immune from the possibility of needing more health care then we can afford. That is further complicated by the fact that we believe (with good reasons) that those who practice medicine should be well compensated for their skills, which leads into my next point....

Socialism has a key flaw though. Just as we accept not everyone is equal in a million ways, one way that is key is that not everyone chooses to work equally as hard. Some choose to lounge in life, do as little as possible and relax as much as possible while they are younger. And that is fine. Enjoy. But not if it comes at the expense of others.

If someone is a lounger you have no right to bitch that others aren't picking up your slack, or if they do, that they won't do it for free. My key problem with some socialists is they are so self-absorbed that they think just because others choose higher stress jobs that carry with them far greater responsibility, that it is because others owe this to society. That nature chooses that and the others do it according to gifts. Incorrect!!!

The difference is while some lounge for the benefit of less stress in life now, others will work harder now for the benefit of owning more wealth or the freedom to lounge later. Those who work harder now are gambling they will live long enough to eventually relax later. Those who lounge now gambling that someone will have saved up money for them later in life.

And sure some people have wealthy parents who make it easier to get started, but I want them weeded out of medical school. I want medical school to be so tough that only the most serious can make it through.

Now when it comes to medical practitioners, for me I want the non-loungers working on me. The ones who bust their ass and are stressed as hell about it, and if that means paying them huge sums of money, then we should do it! The last thing I want is some guy working on me who couldn't decide if he'd rather kick back working as a tour guide in the tropics, or as a medical doctor, either paying about $30K a year because a socialist has it in their head that the later owes them.

And therein lies the reason medicine needs to be socialized. There are benefits in the medical profession remaining an incredibly difficult one; one that attracts individuals who are perfectionists, and most them do want to be payed well for the stress of it. Because they too are smart enough to realize that if it is going to pay them crappy wages, they might as well just live the life of a tour guide and de-stress as much as possible. As long as we want those kinds of stressy perfectionists practicing medicine, then it is going to also be true that most of us will have trouble affording their services now, and especially later in life.

threlayer
08-17-2009, 09:47 AM
We could use some good, socialized prostitutes. (getting back on track)

xdamage
08-17-2009, 12:09 PM
^^^I asked a friend from Norway who visited several brothels and window hookers when we were in Amsterdam on business (hey he is 28, why not?). He said they were all beautiful and it was far cheaper then you can imagine; not quite socialism, but 35-75 Euros for 15 minutes of pretty much anything (price varies). That is 50-100$ then, far cheaper then going to a SC, and pretty poor money given the cost of living in NL, but probably better then many day jobs.

The competition is pretty high and the novelty of prostitution has long ago worn off in the Netherlands, so now it really is just a business competing for lower prices.

I get the sense that it is the independent women in the windows who compete with each other that drives prices down. If it was a few big clubs (or brothels?) they might all agree to a certain minimum pricing structure, but the independents are free to do what they want short of pissing off the women in the windows next door (or their johns if they have them).

As I said before, there was only one (1) true strip club in Amsterdam. We stopped in for a beer. 5 Euros to get in. 10 for a lap dance but the women were not so hot and we left. The place is tiny. What remains is clubs that offer live sex shows, and peep shows were pretty much anything is allowed by law, and my friends described enough that I am suspect most dancers in the USA would not be cool with it (e.g., live dildo shows are so common that nobody thinks twice, and non-penetrative sex acts barely noteworthy).

Like all things there are trade offs, and it is a possible outcome in any country should the market become entirely unregulated. The value of anything is (almost always) inversely proportional to its rarity. In the Netherlands the public attitudes about sex and liberal laws regarding prostitution are making sex increasingly valueless. I'm told this extends to male attitudes about sex in general and how they feel about relationships and getting married. A sort of general malaise about the whole thing. It remains to be seen what the attitudes are like in 50 more years.

bem401
08-18-2009, 06:26 AM
The concept of all members of a society contributing in accordance with their means to worthwhile services, even when they don't necessarily use all those services right now themselves, is a tried and true recipe for a great society.


Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. Oh wait a minute, he did say exactly that. "to each according to their needs, from each according to their means " or something very similar. His tried and true recipe for a great society ( your words ) did Russia well, don't you think?

I don't chafe either at the thought of helping the truly unfortunate among us. I do chafe however at helping the truly lazy among us who figure to get what they can for free.

If socialism is such a great idea, lets socialize the strip clubs then. Let all the employees /dancers share equally in whatever tips are earned in a given night. The girl who does 4 hours in champagne gets the same as the girl who doesn't get a dance because she sits and drinks the whole shift. Barbacks, waitresses, and bouncers get an equal share too. Watch the girls line up in support of that.

While we're at it, let the customers all get the same treatment and same number of dances and attention from the girls regardless of what they are willing to spend. The guy who can barely afford the cover should get treated the same as the guy who drops a thousand. Just take some of the attention from the guys with the thousands.

If this all sounds ridiculous, you are right. It is. But so is socialism.

Otoki
08-18-2009, 08:47 AM
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. Oh wait a minute, he did say exactly that. "to each according to their needs, from each according to their means " or something very similar. His tried and true recipe for a great society ( your words ) did Russia well, don't you think?

I don't chafe either at the thought of helping the truly unfortunate among us. I do chafe however at helping the truly lazy among us who figure to get what they can for free.

If socialism is such a great idea, lets socialize the strip clubs then. Let all the employees /dancers share equally in whatever tips are earned in a given night. The girl who does 4 hours in champagne gets the same as the girl who doesn't get a dance because she sits and drinks the whole shift. Barbacks, waitresses, and bouncers get an equal share too. Watch the girls line up in support of that.

While we're at it, let the customers all get the same treatment and same number of dances and attention from the girls regardless of what they are willing to spend. The guy who can barely afford the cover should get treated the same as the guy who drops a thousand. Just take some of the attention from the guys with the thousands.

If this all sounds ridiculous, you are right. It is. But so is socialism.
I'm a little frightened that someone who is responsible for teaching in a HS has such an overly simplistic view of this argument. No one is arguing that everything should be socialized. What most in this thread who are pro-public option are saying is that we should have an OPTION that is affordable and efficient, and if you want super-luxurious healthcare, you are more than welcome to have it. Australia is a good example.

And while I am extremely frustrated to know that there will always be people who cheat the system so they can be lazy assholes, I don't think that's a good argument for doing away with ANYTHING funded by taxes. It's a slippery slope argument, and you know it.

xdamage
08-18-2009, 10:31 AM
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself. Oh wait a minute, he did say exactly that. "to each according to their needs, from each according to their means " or something very similar. His tried and true recipe for a great society ( your words ) did Russia well, don't you think?

I am definitely not a socialist and Karl Marx' vision was flawed from the beginning (because it is an idealistic view of human nature, it appeals to those who are doing poorly, but long term it fails to build a competitive society, and so the whole society fails), but...

That said, even Cyril started out with an okay idea in Dream Girls. Could we make incremental improvements over existing practices? Is there a system that finds a balance point which rewards the innovators, rewards the medical practitioners for the highest standards of care, yet still protects those in society who are poorer?

Where things go wrong is we look, see it is impossible to create a perfect system and so either give up on it entirely (black), or we disregard reality and live in an idealized fantasy world (white).

I really wish I could teach all kids one simple lesson from day one. There are no perfect solutions. Just trade offs. But you can make better choices and we can encourage in individuals to have higher aspirations and doing that, everyone benefits over the long run.

Pure socialism fails, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to promoting the social mindset that just as we benefit from society, something needs to be given back that may not benefit the giver directly, but will (hopefully) benefit the society's ability to remain stable (and improve) as a whole.

And let us not forget the worst case. In the worst case a society that ends up too split between it's well to do, and poor ends up utterly failing. It fails because at some point such a large percentage of the population ends up realizing they don't stand a chance so why even try? Or why not even just take what they want? What do they have to lose? So even those putting more into a socialized system then what they take out do actually benefit (in terms of social stability, which protects their own wealth and benefits).

bem401
08-18-2009, 11:03 AM
I'm a little frightened that someone who is responsible for teaching in a HS has such an overly simplistic view of this argument. No one is arguing that everything should be socialized. What most in this thread who are pro-public option are saying is that we should have an OPTION that is affordable and efficient, and if you want super-luxurious healthcare, you are more than welcome to have it. Australia is a good example.

And while I am extremely frustrated to know that there will always be people who cheat the system so they can be lazy assholes, I don't think that's a good argument for doing away with ANYTHING funded by taxes. It's a slippery slope argument, and you know it.

Otoki, with all due respect, I teach in an inner-city school which is virtually all minority and receiving some sort of public assistance ( 90% on free lunch ) , yet they all seem to have Jordans, iPhones, iPods, designer jeans, and their parents drive late model cars. These would be the people being afforded health care on the public dime. The families have chosen to spend their money on luxuries and not on health care. Why should they get free healthcare when they have chosen to spend their money elsewhere. Its all about personal responsibility. That's what I try to impart on my students.

The health care plan as currently described will eventually force everyone into the government plan. That's the whole purpose for the plan anyhow. The government wants more control over us and that is done through socializing things.

threlayer
08-18-2009, 02:26 PM
The competition is pretty high and the novelty of prostitution has long ago worn off in the Netherlands, so now it really is just a business competing for lower prices.

I get the sense that it is the independent women in the windows who compete with each other that drives prices down. If it was a few big clubs (or brothels?) they might all agree to a certain minimum pricing structure, but the independents are free to do what they want short of pissing off the women in the windows next door...
...Like all things there are trade offs, and it is a possible outcome in any country should the market become entirely unregulated. The value of anything is (almost always) inversely proportional to its rarity..This is happening to an extent in US clubs, as tyh novelty has worn off for the early-adopters of the SC experience. But it is not so much lowering the minimum cost as it is forcing services beyond the ordinary. In a free market the prostitutes will find novel ways of servicing their clientele, but their businesses are not entirely free from control there though it is probably the most legaly free in the world.


The health care plan as currently described will eventually force everyone into the government plan. That's the whole purpose for the plan anyhow. The government wants more control over us and that is done through socializing things. Off the Track again. Now, that is just plain WRONG; it is typical of a paranoid, conservative view. We already have Medicaid, Medicare, the Congressional system, and the Veterans system. If they wanted to nationalize the private insurance industry, they would be talking about it in those terms. As it is, they want to regulate the insurance industry to play fair wth premium-payers' lives and hold up heir contract, which many are not doing now. Being a teacher you havre a great insurance system, and I sauppose you or your associated have not had to put up with these unethical industry practices. So you have no synpathy.

\Further, since this topic has nothing to do with legalizing prostitution, I suggest you start your own thread on socialism again.

Earl_the_Pearl
08-18-2009, 10:44 PM
I don't chafe either at the thought of helping the truly unfortunate among us. I do chafe however at helping the truly lazy among us who figure to get what they can for free.

Sounds like banks, insurance companies and the airlines.

Earl_the_Pearl
08-18-2009, 10:51 PM
Otoki, with all due respect, I teach in an inner-city school which is virtually all minority and receiving some sort of public assistance ( 90% on free lunch )
These people also have medicaid.

Almost Jaded
08-18-2009, 11:13 PM
I hate to agree with Bem (no offense, lol) but I do to a large extent.

However, I also think that the private sector had their shot at healthcare and fucked it up hugely.

I think we need a radical overhaul of the system - but the current ideas aren't anything of the sort. They're a way for the private companies to continue raking in huge profits at the public's expense - now the ENTIRE public's expense rather than just those that can (usually barely) afford it.

How about overhaulig the system to eliminate the FDA/drug companies back room handshakes and cutting their profits a bit - you know, the companies that make more than OPEC? How about better monitoring the research being done to prevent the stifling of overly-effective treatments for profitable diseases? How about researching and approving so-called "alternative" medicinal practices that are known to be amazingly effective whe properly applied - but that the current business models for the drug companies and healthcare providers do not profit from? How about limiting the ability of these companies to get "diseases" recognized by the FA in order to sell them drugs and procedures to "cure" them when good ol' fashioned common sense would fix it 99% of the time? On that note, how about eliminating their making up diseases for conditions that frankly they have no idea what they are, but slap a name on and issue profitable - but useless - drugs and treatments for? How about holding food and drug companies responsible for their products harmful effects the way we've lambasted the tobacco industry (note: I do NOT condone this as I think that people should take responsibility for their own retarded decisions, including mine as a smoker. Interesting that lung cancer isn't profitable, but obesity is - and one industry is shut down while another prospers... Weird, huh?). And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the condensed "I don't have time for this" version.

More tripe and bullshit from an administration that will destroy our nation in record time while the press and the public cheer them on. And no, I'm not a right winger. I'm a disenchanted moderate liberal who happens to love our country and has a smidgen of common sense and indignation.

bem401
08-19-2009, 06:26 AM
Off the Track again. Now, that is just plain WRONG; it is typical of a paranoid, conservative view. We already have Medicaid, Medicare, the Congressional system, and the Veterans system. If they wanted to nationalize the private insurance industry, they would be talking about it in those terms. As it is, they want to regulate the insurance industry to play fair wth premium-payers' lives and hold up heir contract, which many are not doing now. Being a teacher you havre a great insurance system, and I sauppose you or your associated have not had to put up with these unethical industry practices. So you have no synpathy.

\Further, since this topic has nothing to do with legalizing prostitution, I suggest you start your own thread on socialism again.

First of all, I didn't steer this thread into a discussion of health care and insurance. That was done by others.

Its paranoid of me to think the government will screw this up if it passes? They screw up everything they get their hands on.

The reason they don't want to talk about nationalizing insurance is because it generates the type of response you see right now at the town hall meetings. This is their intent. The idiot Obama, despite his recent (lying) comments, is on record as supporting a single-payer plan.

Show me where you get your evidence that the insurance companies are not playing fairly, are unethical, and do not hold up their end of a contract. You make a statement but do not support it at all.

And you are right, I am a teacher. One of the good things about teaching is the health plan. I don't know what you do or how much you make for doing it, but I had to accept the fact that I'd never be able to make over $100k a year in the classroom when I took the job. In exchange, I got good health care, job security, and a shitty pension.

I will give you some credit though. you managed a whole post without trashing Bush.

xdamage
08-19-2009, 07:24 AM
First of all, I didn't steer this thread into a discussion of health care and insurance. That was done by others.

Its paranoid of me to think the government will screw this up if it passes? They screw up everything they get their hands on.


FWIW

http://www.line.dk/reading/sommerfelt1.html

There is something to be said for looking at history, asking how well has a system done before repeating the same mistake.

A key point in the article above (IMHO) - "The government argued that a private hospital would attract scarce doctors and nurses for the state hospitals, that payment for private health care was socially unjust and that for-profit hospitals had no place in Norway."..."Also almost all new doctors are forced to become salaried employees of the counties; very few annual fees have been awarded since 1982. This reform has caused waiting lists and deterioration of services. "

Therein lies what I see as a key problem and I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread. The notion that we should sign others up to be saints (cross our fingers and hope they will want to do it and realize they owe it to us!) is precisely the type of entitlement mindset that makes me cringe.

Basically you end up with a whole society of children stomping their feet wondering why someone else won't step up to the plate and work their asses off, provide us with amazing and perfect health care, and do it all for minimal profit and wages while we enjoy lesser stressful jobs in life.

The scary thing is this mindset is just so assumed, so unquestioned by some that I do wonder if there is hope for our country. I am beginning to think not.

As I said, the people I want working on me are the high stress perfectionists who will want to be paid extremely well for their efforts and the responsibility they are carrying. The only problem is chances are I won't be able to afford them and will need a system of taxes in place to supplement what it will cost, even if I saved and paid out of my own pocket, one medical incident could wipe me and my family out. But the solution to that is not to pay the best doctors less, it is to find a way to make sure they are paid well, and in exchange, that the standards we hold them to remain the highest possible.

bem401
08-19-2009, 08:27 AM
That said, even Cyril started out with an okay idea in Dream Girls. Could we make incremental improvements over existing practices? Is there a system that finds a balance point which rewards the innovators, rewards the medical practitioners for the highest standards of care, yet still protects those in society who are poorer?

I paid no attention to that thread. I prefer to remain rooted in reality. His siggy alone led me to assume he was clueless and just another one of the suck-ups on the site. Add to that the fact he hasn't been to a club in years and advocates free tours before paying the cover..... well you see where I am going with this.

We do have a system that rewards the innovators and practitioners for high standards and we do ( for the most part ) take care of the most unfortunate among us. Some people fall through the cracks for sure but that's life. If they had planned ahead properly and realized they needed to be responsible for their own well-being, maybe they'd have a better lot in life.

I'll give you an analogy. Nearly twenty years ago, the school district I teach in embraced a program that espoused equity for all, equal access to all classes, and no ability-grouping. In other words, everybody gets treated the same. The result now is that the percentage of excellent students we see completing the program is virtually zero now, whereas it once might have been 15-20%. ( and around here, excellent only means above the nationwide mean ). So they certainly have gotten their equity but the product as a whole has suffered. IMHO, the same will happen with healthcare.

Almost Jaded
08-19-2009, 10:42 AM
The result now is that the percentage of excellent students we see completing the program is virtually zero now, whereas it once might have been 15-20%.

You think this was unintentional? LOL

bem401
08-19-2009, 10:46 AM
You think this was unintentional? LOL

Not at all. The intent was to dumb everyone down. Previously, some kids got screwed. Now, they are all screwed.

The intent of health care reform isn't to make it better. Its to make it "more equal", which will reward the stupid and and the lazy (in other words, Obama's most ardent supporters).

Almost Jaded
08-19-2009, 11:16 AM
Right conclusion, wrong application. But close enough, lol.

datchapin
08-19-2009, 02:45 PM
Dunno how this got to healthcare reform, but anyhoo. Legalizing bad, decriminalizing good. Too many damn laws as it is, getting rid of some and getting the gov. out of some of our business is for the best. JMO.

yoda57us
08-19-2009, 04:39 PM
Dunno how this got to healthcare reform, but anyhoo. Legalizing bad, decriminalizing good. Too many damn laws as it is, getting rid of some and getting the gov. out of some of our business is for the best. JMO.


Excellent, can we delete everything before this post?

firemaiden04
08-20-2009, 06:57 AM
Excellent, can we delete everything before this post?

Yeah, I was going to contribute to this thread...then I read everything and decided this was something I was going to stay out of.

JayATee
08-20-2009, 03:03 PM
Dunno how this got to healthcare reform, but anyhoo. Legalizing bad, decriminalizing good. Too many damn laws as it is, getting rid of some and getting the gov. out of some of our business is for the best. JMO.

LoL. Decriminalizing is good? Seems to me that hasn't worked out fabulously in the great state of RI.

Almost Jaded
08-20-2009, 05:58 PM
Legalize it, tax it, use the revenue to fund universal healthcare.

[/partial sarcasm]

yoda57us
08-20-2009, 06:21 PM
LoL. Decriminalizing is good? Seems to me that hasn't worked out fabulously in the great state of RI.

LOL, well, in all fairness to the concept of decriminalization, what happened in RI is a poor example. The current law in RI is more of an "oops" than the result of a grass-roots campaign to decriminalize prostitution.

Otoki
08-21-2009, 01:58 AM
Otoki, with all due respect, I teach in an inner-city school which is virtually all minority and receiving some sort of public assistance ( 90% on free lunch ) , yet they all seem to have Jordans, iPhones, iPods, designer jeans, and their parents drive late model cars. These would be the people being afforded health care on the public dime. The families have chosen to spend their money on luxuries and not on health care. Why should they get free healthcare when they have chosen to spend their money elsewhere. Its all about personal responsibility. That's what I try to impart on my students.

The health care plan as currently described will eventually force everyone into the government plan. That's the whole purpose for the plan anyhow. The government wants more control over us and that is done through socializing things.
Actually, if their kids are on assisted lunch they probably already get state health care. The people who would be getting healthcare under the public option would be people like my boyfriend, who makes too much money for MNCare, but gets rejected from EVERY other insurance company for pre-existing conditions. He just went to the ER twice without insurance, so he'll be paying that off for a damned long time. Do you think it's his responsibility that no insurance would take him? Do you honestly think this system is that great? Because I think everyone should be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Otoki
08-21-2009, 02:05 AM
Yeah, I was going to contribute to this thread...then I read everything and decided this was something I was going to stay out of.
You know, looking back, I really wish I had. This is even worse than debating healthcare on SG.

bem401
08-21-2009, 06:20 AM
Actually, if their kids are on assisted lunch they probably already get state health care. The people who would be getting healthcare under the public option would be people like my boyfriend, who makes too much money for MNCare, but gets rejected from EVERY other insurance company for pre-existing conditions. He just went to the ER twice without insurance, so he'll be paying that off for a damned long time. Do you think it's his responsibility that no insurance would take him? Do you honestly think this system is that great? Because I think everyone should be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Nobody said any system is perfect, but our system is the best in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong ( and I very well might be ), but your BF had no insurance initially, developed a condition, and now wants insurance? The theory behind insurance is to buy it before you need so that it is in place when you need it.

Our system is the one that develops almost all the new life-saving procedures and medications. Far fewer advancements happen at a far slower rate when you remove profit potential from the equation.

There are better ways to improve the health care system than what is presently being proposed.

Otoki
08-21-2009, 08:48 AM
Nobody said any system is perfect, but our system is the best in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong ( and I very well might be ), but your BF had no insurance initially, developed a condition, and now wants insurance? The theory behind insurance is to buy it before you need so that it is in place when you need it.

Our system is the one that develops almost all the new life-saving procedures and medications. Far fewer advancements happen at a far slower rate when you remove profit potential from the equation.

There are better ways to improve the health care system than what is presently being proposed.
I really don't think our insurance is the best in the world, nor is our healthcare. While there are many things I disliked about living in Japan, healthcare wasn't one of them. The Japanese gov't is wrong on lots of things, but damn, they know what they're doing with healthcare. And it doesn't seem like Japanese docs are underpaid, nor does the medical research seem to be falling behind::)

As for my BF, as soon as he found out he was getting dropped from state insurance, he immediately started applying to private companies (most notably blue cross blue shield,) which rejected him over and over due to "pre-existing conditions" which MNCare covered without question.

So in an ideal world, he would have had insurance. The problem was not that he didn't bother looking. The problem was that NO PRIVATE INSURANCE would accept him because he has a pre-existing condition (which he maintains by taking medication).

Then, he ended up in the ER TWICE for a brand new problem (heart issue that came out of the blue, you know, the exact sort of thing you'd want insurance for). The first time he was in the ER, the doc spent five minutes with him, prescribed him ineffective pain killers and a mild anti-inflammatory, and left. He also made sure to only give him enough for seven days, without refill, so he would have to visit the doc at his office (you know, pay 140-200 to see the doc w/o insurance) to get a refill.

The second time he was in the ER (for the same thing, meds weren't really working) the doctor spend more time with him, but took forever to get to him because she was the only one on duty. She prescribed stronger painkillers and a better anti-inflammatory drug, and he's feeling better (though not fixed). I don't know if his treatment would have been better by the first doc if he'd had insurance, but I sure as fuck don't think that's an example of "the best healthcare in the world".

And for the record, this was at one of the better hospitals in the Cities.

What I look for with Healthcare:
relatively short wait-times for non-urgent procedures (1-2 mos OK, that's how much I usually have to wait for my doc anyway), little or no copay for preventative treatments and yearly checkups, free or extremely cheap prescriptions, BEING COVERED FOR ALL OF MY MEDICAL PROBLEMS, and NOT BEING KICKED OFF OF MY INSURANCE once I get something big, like cancer. I'm lucky enough not to have medical problems, but I have absolutely no issue with my taxes going to Medicare to support the elderly and disabled. I further see no issue with being on a policy with people who have severe medical conditions because someday I may be one of them and I see no reason why they should be denied care.

I disagree with your beliefs about "everyone being responsible for their own care, and no one else's" because you seem to willfully disregard that many people who are TRYING to be responsible about their heathcare are simply being rejected or kicked off of healthcare because they're TOO SICK for the insurance companies to think them worth the risk.

And THAT profit-driven mentality in the insurance companies is the reason I'd like a not-for-profit gov't option, so that those who can't afford $5000/yr for basic coverage, or those who are considered "too sick" for insurance, there will be coverage available that they can pay for instead (which will be much cheaper than private insurance).

I don't think many people need reminding of how much the health insurance companies are profiting right now http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/

I wonder how many people in this thread alone saw their premiums JUMP this and last year for no reason. I wonder how much their premiums would go down if insurance companies were suddenly competing with an insurance policy actually meant to cover patients, rather than turn an enormous profit.

Countries with single-payer care still have plenty of private options, as well, for those who feel their gov't care doesn't completely meet their needs. the difference is that their private insurance is MUCH cheaper, because if companies opt to rape people on prices, they won't have enough customers because they can just stick to gov't healthcare.

If someone can explain how to spoiler things on this site, I'd appreciate it. My method didn't work:-[

Otoki
08-21-2009, 08:56 AM
This is also an interesting read.

http://www.nwfco.org/pubs/2008.0110_Insuring.Health.or.Ensuring.Profit.pdf

It's from a study done by people who are part of a progressive organization, so I don't claim that it's not biased, but there are plenty of facts in that pdf that stand on their own.

bem401
08-21-2009, 09:05 AM
^^^ I'll comment later in more depth ( I'm headed out to see Inglorious Basterds right now) but my initial reaction is : nothing you said would indicate to me that a government health care plan would have had him treated any better.

firemaiden04
08-21-2009, 09:33 AM
I have something to say about this subject. I know I said I was going to stay out of it, but I'm too pissed off now.

My father was a pilot in the US Air Force. Graduated with a degree in Aerospace Engineering before he entered the service as an officer. In the mid-80's, he was flying on a mission in Nicaragua when he contracted an unknown disease that attacked his spinal cord. Apparently, everyone in his unit got sick. One guy he knew had to have his leg amputated twice...they didn't take enough off the first time. Lots of people died. There are several conspiracy theories suggesting that this was the military performing tests on these people without prior knowledge and consent, but I digress.

After Dad came home (keep in mind Mom wasn't even pregnant with me yet), he was in the hospital for months. No one knew what was wrong with him. In fact, they still don't know, and this is 25 years later. His condition is very gradually deteriorating. When I was little, he just had a cane. Then he progressed to fore-arm crutches. Then a wheelchair whenever we go out somewhere. We have a stair-lift in our house. He's on morphine, oxy, and a shit ton of other medications that barely take the edge off. The VA constantly dick him around about meds and office visits. He describes it like a constant migraine, but worse.

My father did not have health insurance for about 10 years after he got sick. The military dropped him from their coverage, and no insurance would take him due to a "pre-existing condition." He was not covered until my mother started working for Southwest Airlines when I was in third grade. And Southwest Airlines has a phenomenal system for health care, similar to what is being proposed right now. Under the plan that is being proposed, my father would have full coverage.

Now, you explain to me why this health care reform would be worse than what my father had before he got insurance through my mother. You don't want to pay a few extra bucks out of your paycheck to improve the quality of life for the entire country? Then fucking move somewhere else. Your selfishness really makes me sick.

Almost Jaded
08-21-2009, 03:18 PM
Otoki, Firmaiden - both of you make excellent points. But there's a little more to look into. Keep in mind - I DETEST the current system and view it as a profit-ballooning fail of the first magnitude.

BUT - fire - think about how the VA worked for your dad. If real government HC is put in place, it will rapidly come to resemble that. Pessimistic? Yes. realistic? Look at the rest of the government, lol.

I have already stated a few things that would actually change the landscape, but that nothing even close is in ANY proposed legislation by ANYONE. We could avoid the need for government control if the government would take steps to break up the AMA, FDA, drug company and food company cabal. The current programs are only ways of deferring the cost to support their astronomical profits more evenly and to further inflate those profits. :(

JayATee
08-21-2009, 03:24 PM
^My husband is in a similar situation. He's self employed as well. He has a stomach condition which keeps him from qualifying for any health ins out there. We have NOTHING. We can't afford what would basically be a mortgage pymt to have private ins, and most private ins doesn't even want to take him at all. He landed in the hospital 2 years ago for 2 weeks. After the admit through the ER, the drugs, the dr's, the x-rays, the MRI's and whatnot, he ended up having to have emergency surgery. Emergency surgery costs more than regular surgery so add that on as well. Add more dr's (they charge every time they come to your bedside), more drugs and tests and we were out of there for $60k. We can't afford the drugs he needs to be on so he's not on anything. We can't afford the dr's visits he should be going in for, so he's not, and in a 5 - 10 years, bc he's not getting the care he needs he will be sick all over again and we'll get to go through the hospital process again as well. This is better? This is what people are so worried about losing? A healthcare system that is so broken that ppl who need care don't get it? Im sorry, Obama's idea may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than what's currently in place.

Cyril
08-21-2009, 03:27 PM
I have to agree with the poster above. A friend of mine was down for $160K when his wife was hospitalized for two months. Their coverage lapsed between the time she got ill. On the issue of universal health care, we have to think collectively as a society.

bem401
08-21-2009, 05:04 PM
I sympathize about the plight of those unfortunate people. But rolling out unfortunate people, (like Michael J. Fox ) doesn't mean a government takeover is in the best interest of the country as a whole.

Almost Jaded
08-21-2009, 05:34 PM
That's what I'm saying - it needs fixing, but the systems proposed at this time WILL NOT FIX IT.

They MAY make it so everyone gets covered regardless of preexisting conditions, sure - but if the REAL issues were addressed, preexisting conditions wouldn't be a problem either. What's going to happen long-term with the systems being proposed now is the drug and medical companies are going to make ASTRONOMICAL amounts of money, and it has to come from SOMEWHERE. I do NOT mind paying to help everyone else out - until my taxes more than double in under a decade. Anyone know what the Swiss pay in taxes? France? I have a freind who owns a small business in France. His effective tax rate as the business owner is SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT. Shall I go on?

Otoki
08-24-2009, 09:44 AM
^^^ I'll comment later in more depth ( I'm headed out to see Inglorious Basterds right now) but my initial reaction is : nothing you said would indicate to me that a government health care plan would have had him treated any better.
You don't see how my bf being covered by his insurance for his pre-existing conditions would have made this situation far less stressful, and possibly prevented the need for an ER visit in the first place? /:O

Otoki
08-24-2009, 09:47 AM
Now, you explain to me why this health care reform would be worse than what my father had before he got insurance through my mother. You don't want to pay a few extra bucks out of your paycheck to improve the quality of life for the entire country? Then fucking move somewhere else. Your selfishness really makes me sick.
This is the thing that continues to boggle my mind. We're talking about improving the overall health and condition of every citizen in this country, but people don't want to pay a few hundred dollars extra in taxes a year to accomplish what other countries have had since the end of WWII.