Forum Thread

Nolin River Lake Topics

(Nolin River Lake Specific)

2 messages

Updated 6/24/2009 2:03:36 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,606 messages

Updated 4/30/2024 9:09:31 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Nolin River Lake Fishing

(Nolin River Lake Specific)

1 messages

Updated 2/18/2007 6:33:51 PM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	National Catastrophe
Date:	3/14/2011 9:56:19 PM

Looters everywhere in New Orleans after Katrina - No evidence of looters in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami. I wonder why!!

School buses under water in NO even with days warnings by the National Weather Service - Orderly evacuations in Japan.

Bush was to blame for Katrina - Who's to blame in Japan?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	National Catastrophe
Date:	3/15/2011 7:01:01 AM

The culture. I don't think anyone blames Bush for Katrina -- just for the "you've doing a helluva job, Brownie". The blame for the country's response for Katrina is a mile long starting with the state and local government.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	National Catastrophe
Date:	3/15/2011 7:48:03 AM

You are right that it is the culture ... there is not the "entitlement" mentality as there was in New Orleans. Take care of me government ... there was a natural disaster so I should get a new free house even though i had no insurance. And when police can not catch me, I think I will go steal what I can.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	National Catastrophe
Date:	3/15/2011 1:31:09 PM

and no Obama is not to blame for the entitilement mentality that continues to grow over time as the government adds more and more programs to "take care" of people. This has grown over time from liberal thinking that wealth is evil and society needs to take care of people in need ... when they do not need to be taken care of, they need opportunities and jobs. When the liberals and dems wake up and realize that businesses (private sector) create jobs and low tax rates stimulate and grow the economy ... and that together creates opportunities for people to take care of themself ... then we will start to eliminate poverty and put the country back on sound footing. I know it is easy to feel sorry for people, but giving them a helping hand, not a hand out, goes much further in reversing a growing trend of more and more people expecting the government to take care of them. Let the rich pay for me. But we are running out of the rich to take from and people are getting sick of working harder and harder for someone else. How did we get here that success has become a bad thing and if you don't want to pay more in taxes and support more socialist entitlement programs, you are a bad greedy person.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Hey...guess what WW
Date:	3/16/2011 8:15:29 PM

Japan has "socialized medicine!!!" For profit medical care is against the law. Oh the horror of it all!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Archie wrong again....redundant I know
Date:	3/17/2011 9:40:57 AM

Archie, first of all "medicine" in Japan is not socialized but health insurance is (i.e., everyone is required to buy health insurance). For example, 90% of the hospitals in Japan are privately owned and are allowed to make a profit. Doctors do not work for the government, they are in private practice like in the U.S. and are allowed to make a profit (although because the government sets prices through their control of insurance companies it is not a great career to pursue). Only the insurance companies operate as non-profit but all that means is when they make a profit they don't distribute the excess earnings they plow it into reduced rates the next year. Secondly, Japan has all the same problems that European countries have with regard to medical care, rationing and a lack of an adequate number of medical doctors. Finally, taxes that cover the cost of health insurance, pension insurance and unemployment insurance costs 25% of every dollar of income. So a person earning between $42,000 and $87,000 losing 45% of their income to taxes. Given the cost of living in Japan that is a huge chunk out of their earning potential. Finally, Japan's average economic growth from 2007 to today has been -0.3% while over the same period the U.S. has been positive.

So Archie I have once again proven you wrong with facts and logic.........keep em coming.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Archie goes AWOL again
Date:	3/17/2011 4:53:10 PM

Isn't it funny that Archie drives by.......makes a post......and then when he is proven to be wrong again and again and again.....he just disappears back into his hole. I guess that's why we call it drive by comments........

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Archie goes AWOL my fanny
Date:	3/17/2011 9:31:48 PM

I work for a living and prefer not to spend my productive hours following your right wing diatribes. You should try it sometime.

1/   Hospitals in Japan are all non-profit whether or not they are private or government owned.
2/   Japanese citizens are required by the government to have health insurance. Another way to say that MM, is
  "government mandate"
3/   When you give your "profit" back to your clients in the form of lower costs it means you do not make a profit.
This is another "government mandate" on the insurance carriers which are private but pay to clients thtough
  the government health service.
4/   All citizens are covered by insurance as "mandated" by the government.
5/   All citizens are required (There's that "mandate" again) to pay 30% of the cost for office visits, wellness services
and most outpatient procedures.
6/   The Japanese system is somewhere between the UK (most hospitals and Dr's work for the National Health
  Service and the government is the single payer of most medical costs) and the Canadian ( Each province
sets up its own system meeting minimum national standards, for profit private supplimental insurance is
available and most medical providers are not public employees).

Now, MM I would think you would be the first person in line to call the above SOCIALIZED MEDECINE if it was proposed for the US. Now WW made some correct observations about the character and self reliance of the Japanese people. My point was it is they demonstrate it is in fact possible for hard working and self reliant people to support a universal healthcare system guaranteed by the elected government. Sorry you disagree.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Archie needs some more education....sadly
Date:	3/17/2011 10:07:04 PM

Archie:

The point you made was there was no profit allowed in medicine and on that note you are completely and absolutely wrong, just like most of the posts you type up furiously in your angry mode. Both Japanese hospitals and Japanese doctors can make profits although because the government sets prices too low many of them do struggle to make a profit so in that regard you are half right but for all the wrong reasons (I'm sure they would love to make a profit if they could charge what was fair). Doctors likewise struggle but some can and do run profitable practices and groups. Look it up dude because my source was an NPR story from 2008. Even in the story NPR, not exactly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, says and I quote, " It's a model of social insurance that is used in many wealthy countries. But it's definitely not "socialized medicine." Eighty percent of Japan's hospitals are privately owned — more than in the United States — and almost every doctor's office is a private business."

On the issue of whether or not it is socialized medicine let me educate you on the classic definition of socialism because you obviously did not learn that in the government school you attended although somehow the folks at NPR did which in itself proves that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then......all of them except you.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

I specifically refer you to the term "ownership and administration". As I documented, and it is 100% true and accurate, the Japanese government neither owns nor administers private hospitals and the doctors do not work for the government and therefore it is not socialized medicine. In fact, the government doesn't even own the insurance companies. They mandate that everyone has to buy insurance and that the insurance companies must be non-profit just like many insurance companies in the U.S. are non-profit.

Don't you ever grow tired of just being wrong? Liberals.......... its not that they are ignorant, its just that they believe so much that isn't so. Facts....those stubborn things....

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Again...
Date:	3/18/2011 8:01:13 PM

If the Japanese system of government mandated public/private healthcare you and/or I described was instituted in the USA, would you call it "Socialized Medecine" regardless of what Mr. Webster says? If not, what would you call it?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Again...
Date:	3/19/2011 8:55:19 AM

Well Hob, I have no idea of the percentage of people on the welfare rolls, but I do know most of them, along with most of the better off uninsured, get healthcare for free now. If they go to an emergency room at a private hospital they are treated for free and the cost is passed to you and me through higher insurance premiums. It they go to a public hospital the taxpayers pick up part of the tab and the insured the rest. Any way you look at it, you and I pay it. The part of "Obamacare" that makes the most sense is similar part of the Japanese system as described by MM... MANDATED private insurance even if the government has to pick up part of the bill for the true needy cases. Most of the people who do not have insurance now could pay for insurance but simply choose not to. Yet, this "mandate" is the thing that the conservative AG's are screaming loudest about. I have no clue whether a mandate is constitutional but I sure think it makes a lot of sense if we ever expect to get costs under even a semblance of control. The interesting thing is that I think I remember both MM and WW saying some nice things about a mandate in the run up to the healthcare vote a couple of years ago. Wonder what they have to say about it now?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Again...
Date:	3/19/2011 3:29:50 PM

First of all Archie thank you for asking an excellent and civil question. I think a big problem we have in the area of discourse is the imprecise use of language (a bipartisan problem for sure) and that's why I believe we should stick with the actual definition of words. What I would call a Japanese style social insurance system (were it enacted in the U.S.) is three things: unconstitutional; a first step toward the utopian dream of socialized medicine; and a definite step in the wrong direction in terms of the quality of care in the U.S.

All three of these are my opinion and you can of course disagree. The first is based on the actual words in the Constitution and the writings of our founders, not to mention the government's tenuous argument about the commerce clause. This will be sorted out by the Supreme Court and not you or I.

The second is based on the words of those that passed the law about this just being a step toward a single payer system which means quite frankly that it is that much closer to socialized medicine.

And finally, we only need to look at the quality of care in European countries and the rationing to know there is a better way to go. But Dems recognize that the way to eternal reelection is to have everyone dependent on some form of government-controlled access to health insurance be it single payer or true socialized medicine.

Again Archie, all these are my opinion from a fiscal conservative viewpoint. I suspect you see it differently and that's OK with me....as long as you promise never to vote again. :-)

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Again...
Date:	3/20/2011 7:47:21 PM

archie ... we will still pay for it. If you mandate something on people that are already on the government handout ... it just means more handouts. What are you going to do ... put them in jail?

And why is Obama exempting unions and Muslims or others that that claim it is against their religion?

You see ... people have to have freedom of choice and then address the lack of coverage through penalties. garnish wages, you can seize property, deport illegals, community service, etc. and if all else fails, put them in jail.

You do not need a government run program for that.

I am all for not allow insurance companies to drop someone for an illness. But I am not in favor of requiring an insurance company insure someone that has not been carrying insurance and then they get an illness.

I have stated before, the government should require all insurance companies carry 4 basic policies. Allow people to buy across state lines to have companies compete. The insurance companies can offer and market "enhanced" policies ... but can never be less than the basic policies.

Allow competition to work. Part of the problem has been companies can not compete across state lines and even Obamacare does not address that.

Government does not run anything well ... the do not belong running healthcare.

Quick Links
Nolin River Lake News
Nolin River Lake Photos
Nolin River Lake Videos