Ordering pizza the hard way

Upchurch said:
Whether or not you agree with the ACLU, this is just kinda funny.
Click to expand...

Very funny UC! :D Enjoyed it, thanks! The ironic part was how left-leaning the nanny-info-state seemed. Seems to me that a properly evil government big brother would be pushing the double meat pies and killing off the weak. The big-sister pizza lady seemed instead to be a cog in a system pushing sprouts and tofu on the advice of an all-knowing national health system. Aren't tofu, sprouts, and national health for all kind of like the major utopian wet-dreams of liberals??? That's some weird spin for the ACLU to put into this clip....

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Very funny UC! :D Enjoyed it, thanks! The ironic part was how left-leaning the nanny-info-state seemed. Seems to me that a properly evil government big brother would be pushing the double meat pies and killing off the weak. The big-sister pizza lady seemed instead to be a cog in a system pushing sprouts and tofu on the advice of an all-knowing national health system. Aren't tofu, sprouts, and national health for all kind of like the major utopian wet-dreams of liberals??? That's some weird spin for the ACLU to put into this clip....

-z
Click to expand...

That's one of the odd, conflicting views from the left, IMO. They are quick to scream big brother and invasion of privacy but then want government healthcare.
 
Grammatron said:
That's one of the odd, conflicting views from the left, IMO. They are quick to scream big brother and invasion of privacy but then want government healthcare.
Click to expand...
National healthcare doesn't have to invade a person's privacy. The purpose of national health care is to, guess what, heal the sick.
 
Grammatron said:
That's one of the odd, conflicting views from the left, IMO. They are quick to scream big brother and invasion of privacy but then want government healthcare.
Click to expand...

How are medical record held by a health proivided funded by teh state any different from record kept by a health provider funded by insurance?

The invasion of privacy issue, is only an issue once those records are released to people not directly connected with health provision, regardless of who has payed for that helthcare.
 
brodski said:
How are medical record held by a health proivided funded by teh state any different from record kept by a health provider funded by insurance?

The invasion of privacy issue, is only an issue once those records are released to people not directly connected with health provision, regardless of who has payed for that helthcare.
Click to expand...

#define SARCASM 1

But, but, you don't understand. National Healthcare is a socialist plot, intended to steal all of our private information and turn the USA into a carbon copy of Canada or New Zealand. It has nothing to do with healing people, really. (Um, do I really need the sarcasm marker?)

The phone tap issue, of course, we should trust the government for, because it's a way to know who to arrest. So that's ok. (Ditto on do I need the sarcasm marker.)

#define SARCASM 0

There is actually some precedent for some of the phone tapping. It's the lack of oversight that really is a problem, as well as what may happen to any data that isn't related to terrorist organizations.
 
Grammatron said:
That's one of the odd, conflicting views from the left, IMO. They are quick to scream big brother and invasion of privacy but then want government healthcare.
Click to expand...

Why is that odd or conflicting? I want government-funded schools, to, but I don't want everyone and his dog to have access to grading records. I like a well-stocked video store, but I don't want the world to be able to find out what everyone's renting. I want the medicines my doctor proscribes to be safe and effective, but I don't want to see my prescription records on national TV. I want to be able to trust the accuracy of stock prospectuses that I'm sent -- but I don't want my neighbor to know how much money I have in the stock market. I want the road in front of my house to be free from potholes, but I don't want The Man to know where I choose to drive to.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
National healthcare doesn't have to invade a person's privacy. The purpose of national health care is to, guess what, heal the sick.
Click to expand...
I am not convinced of either of those statements. Any more than I am convinced that some of what is being done now is to "guess what", find terrorists.
 
Freakshow said:
I am not convinced of either of those statements. Any more than I am convinced that some of what is being done now is to "guess what", find terrorists.
Click to expand...

Hospitals alreayd keep records of patients. A national health care system would simply do the same thing. If they are also obligated the respect a patient's privacy, then we're fine.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Hospitals alreayd keep records of patients. A national health care system would simply do the same thing. If they are also obligated the respect a patient's privacy, then we're fine.
Click to expand...
It isn't a matter of people getting my records. It is a matter of people now having some sort of "interest" in my health, now that they are contributing to my care, through taxes. Once people have an "interest" in you, they then start telling you what to do. We see that a lot in talk about smoking or obesity already. When everyone is paying for everyone else's healthcare, the situation is going to get much worse.

I want to be left alone, and left to live my own life however I see fit. Having others taxed for my healthcare is going to make that more difficult. Because it is going to give more excuses for others to tell me how to live.
 
Freakshow said:
It isn't a matter of people getting my records. It is a matter of people now having some sort of "interest" in my health, now that they are contributing to my care, through taxes. Once people have an "interest" in you, they then start telling you what to do. We see that a lot in talk about smoking or obesity already. When everyone is paying for everyone else's healthcare, the situation is going to get much worse.

I want to be left alone, and left to live my own life however I see fit. Having others taxed for my healthcare is going to make that more difficult. Because it is going to give more excuses for others to tell me how to live.
Click to expand...

The smoking talk is mostly about prohibitng smoking in public places. Keeping good demographic data is going to be pretty helpful in spotting a lot of trends, but it's only as open for abuse as private insurance. I pay two and a half times as much for my car insurance as my female freinds, because males under 25 are accident prone. Likewise, an obese smoker is going to have a much higher risk of heart disease.

The benefits of a national healthcare system more than outweigh the costs, especially because it'll make preventative medical care, such as doctor's visitis, free, or at a reduced cost, which'll go a long way to preventing costly, chronic illnesses from progessing to the point where the patient's treatment will become extremely costly.

As it is now, a person who is made destitute by medical bills either becomes a cotly medicare recipient, or they die for lack of care. You're worried that the government will start to make health care descisions for people since it'll be paying for healthcare with tax money. That's already the case, it's just being done in a poor and slipshod fashion.
 
I forgot to add this paragraph.

As it is, private insurance companies, and private medical insitutions get to make choices about our healthcare. I would rather the government be in that position, because I have a constitutional right to seek redress from my government and it is, usually, answerable to me. Insurance companies are answerable to their stock holders, not the people they serve.
 
Freakshow said:
It isn't a matter of people getting my records. It is a matter of people now having some sort of "interest" in my health, now that they are contributing to my care, through taxes.
Click to expand...

Why is this worse than government-funded universities?

If you're at a state-funded school, lots of people pay taxes and therefore have an "interest" in your education. To the best of my knowledge, this has never extended to people -- the state at large -- starting to dictate to individual students what they may and may not take, or inspecting individual students' grades or academic progress.

As a matter of fact, there are some rather stringent laws in place specifically to protect the privacy of individual students against random snooping. The fact that little Suzy Creamcheese is attending school on a Pell Grant specifically does not give you as a taxpayer any authority to mess around with her school experience.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
The smoking talk is mostly about prohibitng smoking in public places.
Click to expand...
Much of the government talk of the tobacco company lawsuits was about how much those governments were spending to provide healthcare to government employees. What will it be like when everyone is getting their healthcare paid for by the government.

The benefits of a national healthcare system more than outweigh the costs
Click to expand...
That is an opinion

especially because it'll make preventative medical care, such as doctor's visitis, free, or at a reduced cost, which'll go a long way to preventing costly, chronic illnesses from progessing to the point where the patient's treatment will become extremely costly.
Click to expand...
It will not be "free". It will just be paid for by someone else, that's all.

You're worried that the government will start to make health care descisions for people since it'll be paying for healthcare with tax money. That's already the case, it's just being done in a poor and slipshod fashion.
Click to expand...
So lets note make the situation even worse.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I forgot to add this paragraph.

As it is, private insurance companies, and private medical insitutions get to make choices about our healthcare. I would rather the government be in that position, because I have a constitutional right to seek redress from my government and it is, usually, answerable to me. Insurance companies are answerable to their stock holders, not the people they serve.
Click to expand...
I feel the exact opposite way. I have multiple insurance companies I can choose from. But I only have one government.
 
Freakshow said:
Much of the government talk of the tobacco company lawsuits was about how much those governments were spending to provide healthcare to government employees. What will it be like when everyone is getting their healthcare paid for by the government.
Click to expand...

You mean, when we're paying for it ourselves, through the government.

That is an opinion
Click to expand...

Yes, and so is your view that it would be bad.

It will not be "free". It will just be paid for by someone else, that's all.
Click to expand...

That's quibbling a bit on the definition of "free", but granted. I'll rephrase that. People will be able to seek preventative care at no additional cost.

So lets note make the situation even worse.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, that's not possible.
 
Freakshow said:
I feel the exact opposite way. I have multiple insurance companies I can choose from. But I only have one government.
Click to expand...

The prupose of insurance companies is to make money. To do so, they will gleefully deny coverage to many ill people, and charge more in premiums than they pay out in coverage, to turn a profit.

Our government however, was founded in order to provide for our needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom