0

Universal healthcare is not really a good idea.. it really screws a lot of doctors and medical professionals.. but then again, it does provide all of us with heathcare.

1

Kinda figured you'd say that, being republican (no offense), but I'm glad you presented both sides of the argument. I think if you become a doctor you can't get so far in the profession if you are doing it only for the money. I think many of them feel they are helping people and they probably feel pretty bad when patients die on them. That just means, they care about the people they are trying to help. And I think they wouldn't mind the inconvenience too much if they would be able to help more people than they already are. But, I want to know how it is doctors and medical professionals get screwed? (And just if it counts I'll throw it in. My mom is a registered nurse and she supports universal healthcare. She believes in will benefit her patients and/or potential patients)

Votes + Comments
So, you're willing to pay for it when I get sick, then?
1

If by universal healthcare you mean government controlled healthcare, no thanks. Nothing the government touches works out good. Unless of course you think veteran and military hospitals are run well.

Votes + Comments
Point.
0

It's better than no healthcare. You are being very very vague in your explanation. A simple, "government touches it, and it's bad" is a poor argument. C'mon. Convince me. Well, the government is in charge the social security and I think that's a good program. Better than privatized social security, in my opinion.

0

Social Security good? LOL Maybe in concept. But not in implementation, along with welfare and public education. The US government is horribly inefficient. All this does is give more control to the government. Once the government gets hold of healthcare it will not give it back. Just another step towards socialized America.

0

What's so bad about nationalized social security as opposed to privatized social security? You fail to even provide evidence or examples. And what do you mean "give it back"? After receiving health care for free, why would I want them to take it away? Nations like Canada, and France, along with others seem to be doing just fine in this respect.

0

It's better than no healthcare. You are being very very vague in your explanation. A simple, "government touches it, and it's bad" is a poor argument. C'mon. Convince me. Well, the government is in charge the social security and I think that's a good program. Better than privatized social security, in my opinion.

This half-hour audio presents much of my point of view.

0

What's so bad about nationalized social security as opposed to privatized social security? You fail to even provide evidence or examples. And what do you mean "give it back"? After receiving health care for free, why would I want them to take it away? Nations like Canada, and France, along with others seem to be doing just fine in this respect.

I will tell you what's wrong with it.
I hope you will remember that I told you I am originally from Spain.
Over there that's what we have. Exactly like France.
You need to get in a schedule list to be considerate for an operation necesary for health and for you to function. You know how long do you have to wait for it. Think a year if you are lucky. Most people end up paying what we call `private' doctors to get attended correctly.
I know how terrible it is. And it boils my blood just to talk about it.

0

Kinda figured you'd say that, being republican (no offense), but I'm glad you presented both sides of the argument. I think if you become a doctor you can't get so far in the profession if you are doing it only for the money. I think many of them feel they are helping people and they probably feel pretty bad when patients die on them. That just means, they care about the people they are trying to help. And I think they wouldn't mind the inconvenience too much if they would be able to help more people than they already are. But, I want to know how it is doctors and medical professionals get screwed? (And just if it counts I'll throw it in. My mom is a registered nurse and she supports universal healthcare. She believes in will benefit her patients and/or potential patients)

haha none taken. And actually, I know a few doctors.. and they really couldn't care less if a patient dies or not.. so long as they are not held responsible. There are many out there who are only in it for the money. I truthfully don't know much about the affects of a nationalized health plan, but I do know that it means less pay for doctors.. and more control for the government. The doctors would be providing care for all patients, and thus wouldn't receive their usual big time checks. The waiting would also be unconceivable.. A waiting list out the ass to see a doctor, and get an operation.. I can also see most of the good doctors converting to the private sector.. I really don't think it's a good idea, but I definitely need to do more research on it before I truly make up my mind.

It's better than no healthcare. You are being very very vague in your explanation. A simple, "government touches it, and it's bad" is a poor argument. C'mon. Convince me. Well, the government is in charge the social security and I think that's a good program. Better than privatized social security, in my opinion.

Yea, social security was good in theory, but once the baby-boomers bankrupt the system then what? The younger generation will probably never see a penny of social security money.

0

The younger generation will probably never see a penny of social security money.

That's not the whole picture. You keep paying the system.

0

Yea, We'll keep paying, but we won't ever receive a damn cent.

I am indulging myself.
If I were you, I would be more concern in how much I would be paying during my working life. That money that not only you are not
going to get, but that you could use towards retirement at your own.

0

Yea.. which is why I need to get a good job.. possibly with the government.. maybe the NSA or the CIA so I can just shoot people and take their money without anyone knowing :D

0

Yea.. which is why I need to get a good job.. possibly with the government.. maybe the NSA or the CIA so I can just shoot people and take their money without anyone knowing :D

I going to save you a post, by just saying for you. I was just kidding.

0

I going to save you a post, by just saying for you. I was just kidding.

Are you sure he's kidding, maybe his real name is Jason Bourne :P

0

Guys,

We went off topic with the medical discussion.

Now, joshSCH, as you are being from Texas, you should now that US holds oil for about 60years in 'conserved' oil wells in Texas. The US economy is highly dependent on oil, but this dependency is not based on their own, but on imported oil.
Do you know that US government has sponsored creation of electromobile in mid 50-60's. It has been created by GM,if I am not mistaking, and has been given for free in some cities in California during the sixties. It turned out to be a really nice car running on electricity, however it suddenly has disappeared and has been taken away from the testers in no time, although being really popular? Why do you think it just 'evaporated' and no one has ever seen it again?
I am deeply convinced that a lot of things happen that remain hidden from the masses, and only a bunch of people benefit from what happens. I am even convinced that things happen behind the back of the government, as someone from behind the scene pulls the strings in a way that certain companies or groups of people will benefit from it.

0

On Oil:
We'd have more than that if we were allowed to drill the dark side of the moon...er, ANWR.

On Electric Cars:
How good is the battery/capacitor setup in them? And what's the fuel Cost of Production (CoP) for the electricity that will be used to power them? If the fuel CoP for an electric car is greater than that for a 'normal' car, then the electric ones provide net negatives, not positives.

Or, for that matter, what about other 'alternative' energy sources? Any comments on those? Or should I start a new thread about them?

I am deeply convinced that a lot of things happen that remain hidden from the masses, and only a bunch of people benefit from what happens.

Um, maybe I'm not reading that right, but something in that paragraph doesn't quite make sense to me. Care to explain what you mean?

I am even convinced that things happen behind the back of the government, as someone from behind the scene pulls the strings in a way that certain companies or groups of people will benefit from it.

Such as?

0

Ok,

For my last, will care to explain.

Regarding electric cars and oil consumption for electricity production : take a look on this one. http://www.teslamotors.com/images/content/us_oil.gif
Source is US Annual energy review. Also - alternative power sources for electricity generation - sun, wind, tides, dams, there are so many.
Electric cars - I am pretty convinced that if some great minds put it together they will figure out how a car running on battery will recharge itself while running. What makes me believe that is a small thing called dynamo and every normal car running on gas has one that recharges the battery while running.
Even if oil used for electricity generation rises, half the way of the transportation expenses - still it will be better than now, don't you think.
Another thing are the oxygen or hydrogen cars - indeed something new, still can be a good one for the future.

About the last ones - I am not speaking of the US government only, but for all countries around the world.

In my opinion it is the big business that is behind the political scene and pulls the strings this or that way. Everything made has it sole purpose called money making. You know that saying- "There's no such thing as a free lunch" and it is true - whatever is done, someone has to pay a price.
Now the business sponsors elections, and sponsorship is a long-term agreement like this one - We will give you money, and we will make things that you win the elections, however, we want a new law that will benefit us in this way, or, it will allow us to do that thing, or, we will supply the army or government with this and that, etc.
And it would be OK if companies have limited to one single country, but, multi national companies around the world have interests all over the globe. It is the multi-national companies that make part of the politics. I mean part, because there are a lot of other interest.

I will give you following example:
I live in Bulgaria - average monthly income here is 200-300EUR.
Brand new car here costs 12-15 000EUR the lower price range.
Second hand car imported from Italy, Austria, Germany costs here 3000-6000EUR, depending on age, brand, model, engine, etc. So a 10year old car costs approx 3000EUR for a French like Citroen or Peugeot, and approx 4-5000EUR for german cars like Opel, Volks Wagen. Gas on the gas station costs ~1 eur / littre +- 0.15cents depending on the type of fuel(leaded, unleaded, high octane, etc.)
The government is speaking that new measures and restrictions will be placed in order to prevent further import of old cars, that are potentially unsafe from Europe. The government also says it will stimulate the purchase of new cars by increasing the tax for old ones, and decreasing tax for new ones. Still, by raising taxes and not increasing people's salaries the government stimulates the purchase of old cars, as it turns out to be cheaper to have and maintain old one than buy a new one.
You would say it is not true, however, for the last 6 months in Sofia(Bulgaria's capital) have been registered over 200 000 old vehicles and only 27000 brand new. Believe me - joining the EU did not make us richer, on the contrary - all prices went up, and salaries remained the same, including 2nd hand car prices, still we have approx 2 times increase of number of registered vehicles as of last year same period.
Now, it is not a secret, that most of the 2nd hand resellers in Bulgaria have some relations with the government. The government does not take restrictive measures against the big importers, but takes restrictive measures against the average citizen by another law, that says that if one person imports more than 2 cars during the year from another EU country, he should pay corporate tax on the profit. In this way the big fish is stimulated, as the profit from this business is pure net 2000EUR per car for the importer. Net means after all expenses have been covered - transportation, registration, small repairs, all tax and dues, etc.
And this is just a minor thing - think what a large company like Microsoft might do? And they're doing it...

0

Regarding electric cars and oil consumption for electricity production : take a look on this one. http://www.teslamotors.com/images/content/us_oil.gif
Source is US Annual energy review.

I looked at the image, but it's not answering my original question. I'll try to make that clearer.

Let us assume two cars, Model [G] and Model [E]. [G] runs on gasoline, [E] runs on pure electricity. Both cars in my hypothetical scenario weigh ~1.75 tons (estimated), and can carry a load of ~500-750 lb. Over a single course of about one thousand miles, with both straight stretches, gentle curves, and turns, which of the two cars fuel CoP values will be greater? The direct fuel CoP of the Model [G], or the 'transform into electricty first' fuel CoP of the Model [E]?

Also - alternative power sources for electricity generation - sun, wind, tides, dams, there are so many.

I know what the commonly cited alternative power supplies are, I'm asking how they'd be useful. From what I've seen, the simple effort involved in getting one working on a large enough scale to do any good would vastly outweigh any benefits it might provide, not including the probable costs of various legal matters. I probably will start another topic on this count; I'm starting to get a bit too heated in my response. (Now if we could only harness that energy!)

Electric cars - I am pretty convinced that if some great minds put it together they will figure out how a car running on battery will recharge itself while running. What makes me believe that is a small thing called dynamo and every normal car running on gas has one that recharges the battery while running.
Even if oil used for electricity generation rises, half the way of the transportation expenses - still it will be better than now, don't you think.

I'm still not quite getting this. As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this), the point of a battery in a gas-powered car is to provide power to the electric components (lights, etc) and to provide the 'spark' that starts the engine off. (I want to say it's what ignites the fuel at the 'explosion' stage of the power cycle...again, please correct me if I'm wrong.) In an electric car, the battery would have to run everything, including the engine. I'm having trouble seeing how you're going to recharge the battery while it would seem to be continuously discharging, and I'm getting mental images of an attempt at a perpetual motion machine. Please explain to me where I'm going wrong in this.


And as to your gigantic example of the new car/old car problem, I'm having trouble seeing how you'd think that "You would say it is not true" here. The scenario you're describing is perfectly logical to me. However, I'm not seeing how that's "behind the back of the government", unless you're simply saying that Government Employee[12345] does something without letting any other (or no more than a few other) members of the Government in on it. What I'm seeing in your car description is a clear-cut case of how things work when a Government gets directly involved in the normal commercial process. That would, by definition, require direct government intervention, so I wouldn't think it's "behind the back" at that point.

0

If CoP stands for coeficient of performance, well there is a lot of calculation to be made in order to answer your question. And such calculation is beyond my knowledge, so will not discuss any further.

About alternative sources - we will see what will happen in nearest future, however wind and water have been used since the medieval. They were exploited once, will be exploited again. It is up to the smart guys to figure out how to increase the power provided from such sources.

About the battery in gas-powered cars. You are right that the battery is needed for the electric consumption only, not the engine, however a battery drains its power constantly when the + and - are connected. Car wiring has the - all over the metal parts of the car, and the wires are used in most cases for the +. The consumption, although minimal, still occurs even when all electric stuff in one car are off. In order to compensate and recharge the battery, all cars have this thing called dynamo. Dynamo is connected to the main engine via a belt and produces enough charge to recharge the battery. Simplest thing coming to my mind is just to have 2 batteries in one car. While you are running usign the one, the other will recharge from the dynamo and vice versa.
Now, frankly, I have no idea how large a battery for such car is, neither have idea how much power it consumes, etc. Still if I had that idea, I should have been producing electric cars now for some time :D.


About the car example. I suspect it goes like this: some people controlling the 2nd hand car market, although being a competition among themselves, arrange a meeting and agree what will be good for their business and how to keep it going. After their arrangement has been made, they find the correct people from different political parties and convince them - one way or another, that such a law is useful, bla bla. On their hand, these politics start a new debate in the parliament and propose a new law, that will be good for the control of old vehicles. Their part is to convince the parliament, that this law is OK, etc...so after a few debates, etc, the new law is voted.
Now, being from separate political parties decreases the suspition who has really proposed the law, and, the more people from different parties are involved in the initial proposal, the greater the chances are this law to pass.
Such things happen all around the world, and I am pretty sure it is like that in the US as well. And for sure there are much more important things decided this way, that we don't even suspect.
For example, a few days ago it was on the news, that Marti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland, and at present the main UN representative leading the discussions for the status of Kosovo, has been charged that he has accepted millions from Albanian resistance, and from pro-albanian separatists, in order to propose independence of Kosovo and separation from Serbia.
Can you imagine if all mexicans in the US say that they have been in America for ages and that Texas belongs to them? What if they start bombing and killing, and then UN involves militarily, and finally takes Texas and gives it to the Mexicans? And this is because someone has been payed a great lot?
You don't believe in such things, don't you?

0

CoP: Cost of Production. Doesn't deal with performance except for indirectly.

About alternative sources: So far, no known combination of non-fossil, non-nuclear fuel sources can meet the energy needs of the modern infrastructure. Yes, wind, water, biomass, and muscle (horsepower, for example) were once utilized. But they aren't effecient enough to provide the energy we soak up on a daily basis. And, again, that's assuming we're allowed to go through with this legally; lawsuits against an alternative power supply (at the moment, hydro and wind are the ones I can think of that might come under fire) could easily cripple that system as well.

About batteries:
I'm still having trouble seeing a battery system charging a battery system. True, the system loses some power over time even in a normal car. But I'd expect a battery-powered one to go down much more rapidly. And trying to charge a second battery off of the dynamo still requires that the other battery put out a great deal more energy to power the moving parts of the dynamo, especially considering the friction in a belt-driven system.

About the car example: I think I understand what you're saying now, thank you for clarifying.

Given what I know of the state of Texas, not really. Some of our other states, perhaps, but I'm fairly sure that if the UN tried to force Texas to join Mexico they'd fight back. Or else they'd deal with the terroristic actions you just described on their own, meaning that Texas would probably come under UN sanctions of some sort for defending themselves, the same way Israel always seems to be.
Texas was once a nation in its own right, at least in their its own eyes, and I suspect the people there would go back if the US did let the UN reclaim them.

0

About Israel, I have no freakin idea who's right or wrong there - for me they're all wrong. In my opinion the things there started as a political war and ended up religiously. In my opinion both sides are right for their own, and peace there is impossible. I suspect that neither Israeli, nor Palestinians remember why and what they fight for. They have long time forgotten the story. Now only fear and hatred, fueled by constant murders keeps the war going. There will be no winner there - this war rages before I was born, and will continue like this till the end of time... This is the spot where no one else should involve, otherwise we will end up in WW3.

0

About Israel, I have no freakin idea who's right or wrong there - for me they're all wrong.

In my opinion they're right and their parents or grand-parents (at least on one side) are wrong. Nobody can be blamed for being born into a conflict.

0

I will tell you what's wrong with it.
I hope you will remember that I told you I am originally from Spain.
Over there that's what we have. Exactly like France.
You need to get in a schedule list to be considerate for an operation necesary for health and for you to function. You know how long do you have to wait for it. Think a year if you are lucky. Most people end up paying what we call `private' doctors to get attended correctly.
I know how terrible it is. And it boils my blood just to talk about it.

I understand this problem. But to me, I'd rather wait in line longer so that someone else, who would otherwise not have any healthcare, would be able to survive and/or get the necessary medical treatment without fear of not ever being able to afford it or ever receiving it at all.

0

I'm still not quite getting this. As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this), the point of a battery in a gas-powered car is to provide power to the electric components (lights, etc) and to provide the 'spark' that starts the engine off. (I want to say it's what ignites the fuel at the 'explosion' stage of the power cycle...again, please correct me if I'm wrong.) In an electric car, the battery would have to run everything, including the engine. I'm having trouble seeing how you're going to recharge the battery while it would seem to be continuously discharging, and I'm getting mental images of an attempt at a perpetual motion machine. Please explain to me where I'm going wrong in this.

I've seen comercials that advertise the battery being recharged everytime you press the brakes.

0

What is a terrorist anyway?

The definition of terrorism I generally work from:

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

The salient point is against civilians for me.

0

The salient point is against civilians for me.

so you wouldnt descrbe the attack on the pentagon as a terrorist attack?

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.