KaskadskyjKozak

what about old people? can you cook them in a way to get the old muscles tender enough?

You've got that market cornered all by yourself. in your case, you're trying to feed people horseshit and tell 'em it's a gourmet meal

I think you had it right before - "earning your keep" could be construed as "from each according to his ability". All the people you mention did meaningful things. There is also dignity to someone who picks fruit, farms, fishes, cleans toilets, collects garbage, etc. It always chafes me to hear some POS talk about some job as if it is "beneath him" (meaningless).

right next to the mountain biking forum

there should be a new road cycling forum

I'll bet I consider "meaningless" what you consider "meaningful" - and vice versa. you guys should check into nihilism Ivan - prole is one of those fucks who thinks any real "work" is beneath him (and others). A "meaningful" job is one that meets his inflated view of his self-importance, and contributes nothing of substance. Shovelling horse shit all day or picking fruit is more meaningful than anything that Prole will ever do.

delete joke with Choada-boy

I'll bet I consider "meaningless" what you consider "meaningful" - and vice versa.

funny - the anti drug-legalization crowd makes its stand on taht issue - they say it is governmetn's place to be ma'n'pa n' protect you from your own bad decisions - if they were consistent, they'd be for universal care as to the second point, yes, bill, though i don't think it's "government's" so much as "society's" obligation to see that all are fed (and that extends to healthcare i reckon - it's just that folks donate money/food/service to soup kitchens, not so much to meaningful healthcare for the poor, sick n' downtrodden) how many people starve to death in the usa? how many die b/c of no/shitty healthcare? it's a rhetorical question of course, but i seriously doubt the former outnumber the later. you're dodging the question dude. we have millions of homeless and millions who go hungry every day. It's hard to believe with all the lardasses, but it's true. Why doesn't the gov't ENSURE that everyone has a warm, dry, clean place to live, and 3 square meals a day. Universally.

cool - move to Netherlands!

why not? who decides what gets covered and what doesn't? what about the rich elderly? or a mentally ill person who inherited a fortune or managed to make one prior to become too ill to function?

You sick commie fuck. In commie countries you have a minimal amount of care (very shitty). To get decent care you have to pay/bribe the nursing staff, doctors, etc. or go abroad. Ask any ex-pat from the former Soviet Union for details.

words like "truly" are what send the crazies running for the exits w/ "death panels" on their lips, since it implies judgement It may be tough to enforce but face it - there are people whining about no coverage and affordability because they don't want to pay shit even though they can. They have other priorities and think others should pay for them. Then there are those who really can't afford to pay for coverage. Even if it were "affordable". The problem with simply saying insurance companies can't charge for "preexisting conditions" is that people can choose not to buy insurance until they are sick/hurt, then buy it to get "covered", then once treatment ends, cancel their policies. Repeat.

TANSTAAFL, dude. 1) health care costs need to be affordable, even if that means you can't buy a new Hummer every 3 years 2) everybody should pay something to be covered, even if the money is garnished from their wages or extracted by auctioning off the shit someone bought instead of paying for coverage 3) exceptions made to 2) to help the truly vulnerable, "truly" being the operative word

4. liposuctioning lardasses and making heating oil from the fat deposits This kills two birds with one stone, helping control energy costs using a renewable energy source

3. Mandatory food rationing and forced exercise for lard asses

right, but isn't Obama claiming he is adding more 'competition' with his plan? allowing you to purchase insurance across state lines increases competition. but, no, it's bad in this case... hmm... bad smell.

that article sounds like total BS to me. "it would be worse ... because it just would!" by allowing selling across state lines you would have more choices than you do now, and could always choose NOT to buy a policy outside your state. And no, I'm not saying this is the "solution to all our problems" (and neither is Jay)

Why is it disallowed in the first place? Sounds anti-American to me. It limits choice and competition.

Except when 1) there is nobody with a better "word on the street to switch to" 2) you have a "preexisting condition" and can't switch 3) your employer pays a large part of your premium and you can't switch without paying *all* the premium So, I raised this question before. Why the fuck can't insurers sell policies across state lines?

The major unstated premise here seems to be that, even under conditions of open competition, profits can only be realized by cheating consumers. you're going to the extreme there jay. its not "cheating consumers" its "maximizing share holder value". you see, it isn't all bad...because someone is winning! the shareholder. that why the corporation exists. I'll repeat what I said earlier. I'm all good with a doctor making a good salary and benefits - they earned it. Ditto for his/her nurses, administrative staff, etc. But I'm not good with a corporate hierarchy (or governmental one) telling the doctor how much he can/should charge to maximize profits (or implement price controls), stating what treatments are allowed and when (to control costs), etc, etc.

The major unstated premise here seems to be that, even under conditions of open competition, profits can only be realized by cheating consumers. Corporations seek to maximize profits. That leads to pressure from the board of directors, stakeholders, and senior management to do things like what we see today: - resist payouts - increase premium prices every year at an unsustainable rate - establish absolute lifetime maximums (and make these smaller) - establish guidelines on preexisting conditions - make application as difficult as possible

I proposed in an earlier thread/post to this thread requiring health care insurers, providers, etc to be non-profit. I think this would likely improve a lot of our problems. And I don't consider doctors, nurses and other health care providers making a good salary the problem here. It's more on the macro scale of large corporations (insurance companies, hospitals, etc) being profit-driven and being manipulated by stock holders, boards of directors, and senior execs ("our profit was 30 billion last year - how to increase it to 35 billion,next year??")

I proposed in an earlier thread/post to this thread requiring health care insurers, providers, etc to be non-profit. I think this would likely improve a lot of our problems. Another thing. I heard some conservative critics of the Health Care reform saying that if we want more competition, then you should be able to buy insurance from an insurer in another state. I recall the last time I bought insurance on my own (Jan 2007) that I was surprised by how few companies I could purchase from. It was one or two, if I recall correctly. Why the fuck is this? I assumed that only a few companies were willing to sell policies outside of an employer, but now wonder if there is some legal bullshit/gov't influence in this. Why can't I buy insurance from a company in Pennsylvania, Florida, or anywhere for that matter?

I proposed in an earlier thread/post to this thread requiring health care insurers, providers, etc to be non-profit. I think this would likely improve a lot of our problems.