Image of the day

Captured by
Dominic Schepis

They Cygnus Wall

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Joe Bergeron

August 2, 2008 10:14 PM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

"So, erecting a "public" system, does indeed give entitlement to *our* money. Where do you think the money comes from?"

What I meant was that this "entitlement" is not a right bestowed upon us from above or anything like that. As I said, it would be a choice made advisedly and by mutual consent. Not universal consent, of course. It would be nice if people like you could opt out of contributing to (and benefiting from) such a system since you find it so disturbing. Of course, then all the rich people with actual money to contribute and their own medical staffs on call would opt out too, and it could not be funded.

"Conservatives? Claims? So in other words, I, as a "conservative" (in your eyes)just lie and say I'll, or have helped, others? That's on the edge of being an insult."

Give me a break. You're just looking for a reason to be offended here. I don't keep track of your good deeds or those of anyone else, so I said "claims". And are you saying you're not a conservative? Just about everything you've said in this thread indicates that you are. Maybe you don't like political pigeonholing? In that case, you might reciprocate by refraining from referring to people as liberals.

"Because this "conservative" does not make "false claims"."

Who are you quoting here?

Me: -Yet what are people in duress supposed to do? They get sick, or are lying beside a road -with a broken body. Are they supposed to first scrounge around to discover which -individual or which private charity deems them worthy of assistance? No. They should know -where to go, confident that they will receive the care they need without being judged.

You: If anybody has been outright *refused* medical treatment and care from a *publicly* funded hospital, you let me know. I'll stand right beside you on that one! ALL "publicly funded" hospitals are required to treat *anyone* who comes into their emergency rooms regardless of who, what, and "how much". Here in Pennsylvania, there is nobody, I mean NOBODY, that is ever refused treatment by a publicly funded medical facility. Have you ever heard of St. Jude's Childrens's Hospital? It is entirely funded by donations! And NO child is ever turned away, Period! I even donate to them with my meager wages! Why? Because this "conservative" does not make "false claims". I do it by choice, not because some bureaucrat takes my money (calls it taxes) and gives "part" of it where "they" feel it should go. I know where, and how to spend *my* money, thank you."

You didn't address my point at all. My point was, that someone in trouble shouldn't have to hunt around to figure out who is willing to help him. It should be clear and consistent for all citizens.

By the way, do you feel you should be completely untaxed? If so, what would you do, decide how much you think the military is worth to you, send them a check, send a buck to NASA, tear up any pleas arriving from HEW, send a few bucks for highway maintenance, burn any solicitations from Medicaid, and so forth? How much would you send to pay the interest on the national debt?

I am aware that hospitals are required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. If they're poor, good luck to them in getting out of it with any of whatever assets they might have remaining. That's the part I mentioned about people who are uncovered being beggared by their encounter with American medicine. It happens often enough even with people who do have some form of coverage but which nevertheless is insufficient to cover their needs.

Also, I trust you realize that people without coverage often go without common screenings and exams. That means that serious conditions can go unnoticed until too late. That means these people either die, or receive emergency treatment which is many times more expensive to all of us than simple preventive care would have been.

St Jude's: no doubt they do many great things, but I think you're oversimplifying their admission policy just a little. If it were a case of "No child is ever turned away, period!" they wouldn't need the eligibility requirements detailed on their web site.

"Come on Joe, I actually thought you were smarter than that. Do I have to hold your hand and spoon-feed that publicly, and widely available information to you? How about *you* NOT take *my* word for it, and actually go and find out for *yourself*. I'm not going to hand feed you anything, but I will give you a clue.. Claude Castonguay "

Okay, please do stow your snotty patronization. When someone refers to something in writing, it is not uncommon to go so far as to actually supply the name of the person to whom you refer. Now that I've read about Mr. Castonguay, I see that he wants to amend the Canadian system in various ways, not demolish it. You see that their system is imperfect, and therefore it must be inferior to ours, which is also highly imperfect, but evidently in a manner which is less personally offensive to you. You keep talking about all these foreigners who have the means and the desire to come here for medical treatment which is unavailable in their backward lands. What about all the average citizens of these lands who are in fact treated successfully in their own countries by their own system? Are they dropping like flies? Why do you discount the obvious benefit which people like them, who in many cases would not be able to afford any insurance if they lived here, receive from these systems? Do you deny there is any value provided to them at all? I would prefer to see everyone having access to basic medical care than to have millions who have to struggle for that while a few avail themselves of extremely expensive and exotic treatments. Until everyone has basic access, those partaking of the medical cutting edge are giving off a real Marie Antoinette vibe.

Also, would you expect the government to take over hospitals and medical practices, which is what "government run" would mean? I think that's far from clear. The government would be paying them, not operating them. It's called "single payer", not "single operator." Any plan which is likely to be adopted will probably involve leaving the actual health care providers in private hands.

Okay, I'm tired of this.

August 2, 2008 08:50 PM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

Um, the United Kingdom is also a monarchy. In reality, the monarchs of both countries are figureheads who have little or nothing to do with making decisions or running the government.

August 2, 2008 08:44 PM Forum: Polls

August 3, 2008 11:34 AM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

I was trying to say that the technically "monarchical" form of their governments makes little difference in the way they are run, you sarcastic nincompoop. They're basically there because the people like them.

I've had enough of you. Go call me a fascist because I find you so unpleasant to deal with.

August 7, 2008 06:58 PM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

[QUOTE]Chris Provost said:

What do you think Reagan would have done if our troops where being killed and dragged through the streets?


I dunno...maybe the same thing he did when that Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by terroriists...withdraw?

August 8, 2008 07:49 PM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

Do you remember back in 2005 when oil hit $50/barrel for the first time ever, after climbing since 2002, and what a shock that was? Now it's still over twice that, a price which would have had us all reeling in dread a few years ago, and you're acting like it's a bargain. Holy cow, it doesn't take much to convince you the birds are singing again. What do you expect to happen now? Will it drop down to even that unprecedented $50 level again? I doubt it. Not surprisingly, the strong and steady rise since 2002 comes with temporary reverses. It will stabilize at around (not exactly) $100/barrel and then begin to climb again. See if it doesn't, all you rightist ostriches.

Of course, the numbers involved with the potential results of offshore drilling clearly show no chance of its ever having any serious impact on energy prices. I realize though that mere math can never trump ideology in some people's minds.

August 10, 2008 07:35 AM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

Just in case anyone is taken in by this "China drilling right off our shores" nonsense...

August 10, 2008 07:30 AM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

Please don't patronize me by suggesting that only by agreeing with you may I use my intelligence. The fact is that after the bombing of that poorly defended Marine compound, Reagan withdrew all forces from Lebanon within four months. I haven't said a word about what might have motivated this withdrawal. I'm sorry if these facts make you uncomfortable.

August 11, 2008 09:18 AM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

You can always delete it, or edit it, you know.

August 17, 2008 05:54 PM Forum: Polls

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Joe Bergeron

I'm sorry, but there's no way the little bit of oil we might get starting in 5 or 10 years from offshore drilling is going to free us from being at the mercy of foreign oil. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke. And is 5 or 10 years the "near future?"

We could drain every drop of oil from our land and still not be free of the need for foreign imports. And you seem to think high consumption is good, to provide tax revenue? That can't go on forever. Or even for much longer.

Will Obama weaken the military the way Bush has. by exhausting it and squandering its resources on a pointless war against a country that didn't threaten us? I bet McCain would. He seems quite eager to have at it. IF Russia really prefers Obama, maybe it's because they don't want some reckless hotheaded warmonger in office. Nor do they appear to be daunted in their current barbarism by the reckless warmonger currently in office. Bush's chiding words don't seem to be having much effect on them.