05 Dec 15
Originally posted by normbenign"I've said from right after 9/11/2001 to the present, that responders to that event, and others who died in it, did not automatically deserve more favorable treatment than Americans who suffered injury or death in traffic accidents, or other terrorist events. "
I've said from right after 9/11/2001 to the present, that responders to that event, and others who died in it, did not automatically deserve more favorable treatment than Americans who suffered injury or death in traffic accidents, or other terrorist events.
Because of the large numbers of victims, Americans who are generally a compassionate group fe ...[text shortened]... to traffic accidents and crime reports die and are already given substantial insurance coverage.
yes, you were an ashole then as well.
your lame nirvana fallacy aside (all americans deserve healthcare, so if you can't give them to all because you're such a poor country, nobody should get it), 9/11 responders are in total about 30 thousand. you are perfectly capable of covering their medical expenses. these are 30 thousand people who didn't watch 9/11 from the comfort of their couches like you did. these are 30 thousand people who worked day and night in horrible conditions (despite Bush assuring them the sites are safe) just for a chance to save one more american. are you telling them they must die of cancer for their efforts because america is incapable of providing universal healthcare?
what about veterans? WWII, Koreea, Vietnam, Golf, they aren't deserving of medical care as well?
"First responders, in regular house fires, as well as cops responding to traffic accidents and crime reports die and are already given substantial insurance coverage."
those are cops and firemen who might be covered. first responders were not all firemen. some were just decent americans. they are those who when presented with a tragedy behave differently than you.
05 Dec 15
Originally posted by normbenignor sounds like denmark, sweeden, norway, other european countries. how do they work in practice?
[b]A decent society would organise its resources collectively to secure for everyone decent care based on need, not ability to pay.
Sounds like the old Soviet mantra. How did that work out in practice?[/b]
05 Dec 15
Originally posted by normbenignEven Cuba has better health outcomes for lower spending than the US but hey let's not put facts in the way of blinkered prejudice. However, social democratic countries across Europe have devised a variety of systems that work well and that cause us to look at the USA with astonishment. You are so ideologically blinded that you are unable to find a route out of the trap you have created for yourselves: huge, ridiculous spending on a technologically sophisticated and adminisitratively chaotic nightmare of buraucracy, with over a third of what you spend on health vanishing into administrative overheads.
[b]A decent society would organise its resources collectively to secure for everyone decent care based on need, not ability to pay.
Sounds like the old Soviet mantra. How did that work out in practice?[/b]
That is the way you Americans have allowed your society to be organised because you are unable to develop social commitment and collective engagement around desirable outcomes.
07 Dec 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think norm usually reverts to his "but some day..." vague prophecies about the imminent downfall of universal health care. Of course, ignoring that it is cheaper and more efficient and has been around for many decades.
or sounds like denmark, sweeden, norway, other european countries. how do they work in practice?
07 Dec 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorranorm knows perfectly well but pretends he doesn't that socializm is not synonymous with communism. he knows those countries have solid, free market economies (to one degree or another). they simply have chosen to give their citizens some safety nets in case "bad stuff happens"
I think norm usually reverts to his "but some day..." vague prophecies about the imminent downfall of universal health care. Of course, ignoring that it is cheaper and more efficient and has been around for many decades.
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by Great King Ratyes, 9/11 first responders need healthcare. in the video i linked only 1 of the four representatives from the first time jon stewart tackled this managed to come back (2 are very sick and one is dead), american elected officials are quite willing to let heroes die for political reasons.
I wonder how long he's going to keep up the joke of pretending not to be an American.
He's already slipped up at least two times.
The ice is getting thin.
and you and duchess care if i am american or not.
i lost respect for her a long time ago but i was on the fence about you. thank you for clarifying this conundrum for me.
09 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziOh goodgollygosh, no!!!!!!!!!!!
yes, 9/11 first responders need healthcare. in the video i linked only 1 of the four representatives from the first time jon stewart tackled this managed to come back (2 are very sick and one is dead), american elected officials are quite willing to let heroes die for political reasons.
and you and duchess care if i am american or not.
i lost respe ...[text shortened]... long time ago but i was on the fence about you. thank you for clarifying this conundrum for me.
Tell me it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I lost your respect!!!!!!!
Whatever will I do???
By the way, were you there, protesting against your Prime Minister concerning the Colectiv nightclub fire?
How did you feel about it?
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziI certainly feel bad for first responders who developed health problems, but they're eligible for the same government benefits everyone else is. Why is a 9/11 first responder inherently more special and more deserving of benefits than a factory worker in Sheboygan who had a heart attack?
it's funny how little interest this issue gets.
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by sh76"but they're eligible for the same government benefits everyone else is. "
I certainly feel bad for first responders who developed health problems, but they're eligible for the same government benefits everyone else is. Why is a 9/11 first responder inherently more special and more deserving of benefits than a factory worker in Sheboygan who had a heart attack?
they performed a task that nobody else did. they are entitled to benefits because of that.
"Why is a 9/11 first responder inherently more special and more deserving of benefits than a factory worker in Sheboygan who had a heart attack?"
because the sheboyganer didn't work in hazardous conditions during a tragic event.
say you are a lion tamer. are you supporting the idea that lion tamers should not get lion bite treatments because the hairdresser from sheboygan doesn't?
would you say women shouldn't get gynecology coverage until you (as a man) also get them?
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by Great King Rati am glad you can use google.
Oh goodgollygosh, no!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I lost your respect!!!!!!!
Whatever will I do???
By the way, were you there, protesting against your Prime Minister concerning the Colectiv nightclub fire?
How did you feel about it?
on the subject of the romanian prime minister, the colectiv fire was simply a pretext used by the population to demand the resignation of a corrupt and incompetent prime minister (under current investigation for corruption) and a pretext used by the prime minister to gather a modicum of decency and step down to make it appear he is obeying the wishes of his people (we demanded his resignation on numerous other occasions. the prime minister had nothing to do with the fire, he was just the most obvious boil on the diseased romanian political system.
club colectiv fire was the tragic effect of a festival of incompetence, stupidity, corruption, bad luck. it made my blood boil with anger. that is how it made me feel.