|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 164
2nd String
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 164 |
Interesting, I would like to see the dialogue between the two.
It all goes back to the bottom line. Labor outside the U.S is more profitable and the tax benefits are a significant factor as well. Healthcare benefits also play a major role.
A business's goal is to increase shareholder wealth however possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848 |
J/C -
All that bringing up "the other side" proves is that we ALL agree that Moore is an idiot. Anytime you go to "bash the other side" you are saying that the person we are talking about is a complete and utter moron "but I don't want to admit it." Michael Moore is an idiot and no good for the human rce. He is a terrorist plain and simple. Just watch Team America: World Police - they have him on tape in the act of terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1670
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1670 |
One problem with your theory Soup.................. I already said he was an idiot in this thread and agreed with DC on that very statement. (Why don't you try READING an entire thread before you comment?)  It's just frickin' funny as hell!  No matter if I DO admit Moore's an idiot,when you point out "He's not alone" everybody gets defensive as hell. You know,the one's who are so "fair and unbias"?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
He is a terrorist plain and simple.
How many people has he killed? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848 |
Quote:
Quote:
He is a terrorist plain and simple.
How many people has he killed?
Watch Team America.
terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially
as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"
n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
Terrorists don't have to kill anyone, they just have to instill terror - which is what the premise of every one of fat-boys films. He means to instill it for real (not like a horror film for entertainment). He tries to force people to change their thoughts and ways through lying to them in a "documentary." He, by definition, is a terrorist.
Last edited by Soup; 06/13/07 11:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1670
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1670 |
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
He is a terrorist plain and simple.
How many people has he killed?
Watch Team America.
terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially
as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"
n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
Terrorists don't have to kill anyone, they just have to instill terror - which is what the premise of every one of fat-boys films. He means to instill it for real (not like a horror film for entertainment). He tries to force people to change their thoughts and ways through lying to them in a "documentary." He, by definition, is a terrorist.
I'm sorry Soup, but I've watched his movies, documentaries, whatever...I felt a lot of things, terror wasn't one of them, nor anybody else I know.
I've listened to some of Bush's speeches...I must admit, I was a little terrified!
Also, he by definition would be a propagandist. I think that's a word...with a definition! 
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
He is a terrorist plain and simple.
How many people has he killed?
Watch Team America.
terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially
as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"
n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
Terrorists don't have to kill anyone, they just have to instill terror - which is what the premise of every one of fat-boys films. He means to instill it for real (not like a horror film for entertainment). He tries to force people to change their thoughts and ways through lying to them in a "documentary." He, by definition, is a terrorist.
Other terrorists include: Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Al Gore, Sean Penn, Rudy Guliani and the Dixie Chicks.
Throw 'em in Gitmo!
And if we're going by those standards, we may as well execute Bush, Cheney and Rice...as not only do they use lies to instill fear, but they also kill people! 
I think it's hilarious when people get so filled with rage they throw out these baseless statements in the heat of the moment and then have to stick by them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 844
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 844 |
Quote:
I'm afraid the problem will be: there won't be any debate. My guess is his new movie will basically say "american health care is terrible, and even worse for the poor. Look what you can get elsewhere" And many will say "oh, we need to get "x" countries health care", without realizing what it would do to the u.s. in financial terms.
Moore's view is predominantly "look what's wrong with ....." and never does he have solutions that will work......Blame blame blame, much like a few on this board. 
I'm at a loss as to why the U.S. can't have National Health Care? I've talked with a few ppl from other places and they have told me they pay a bit higher taxes and a bit more money for certain things, e.g. gas, so that they can have Health Care for everybody.
My confusion is this: if these Countries can do it then why can't the richest nation in the world do it??? (actually the middle east might be financially more secure than even the U.S. or at least close to it, as they own most all of the oil the world uses) Anyways, I can only draw one conclusion as to why it hasn't happened and may never happen; the A.M.A. and pharmecutical companies DO NOT want this as they would be the ones losing money. That would be a damn shame, since we know they jack the prices of medical procedures and medicine 4, 5, and more times higher than it should be.
Just remember, I'm no political guru and I don't claim to be.
![[Linked Image from i89.photobucket.com]](http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k233/marctheshark1969/thrandelelisafaggot.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,822 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,822 Likes: 516 |
I would be in favor of a national health care plan - as long as there is an "opt out" feature, and as long as those that opt out don't get taxed for it. Let those that want it pay for it.
Also, if you want national health care, then I would guess you think the gov't. can spend money more wisely than individuals can, or more wisely than companies can. Ever been to a license bureau? Get the gov't involved and you'll have 4 people doing the work of 1. What's that mean? More expensive health care, believe it or not. It also means "less" health care - even though everyone would theoretically be "covered". Once the red tape is cut through, you may get what you need - course, when you're sick 6 or 8 months of waiting for the red tape to be cut through isn't a very pleasant thought.
And please, don't tell me about the countries that have it and it works great - we're talking the u.s. here - not those other countries. You know full well the red tape would be disastrous and terrifying if you were sick.
What's wrong with it the way it is? Those that have health insurance are STILL paying for those that don't have it. Why do you think it costs so much? The doctors/hospitals need to soak the ones that have insurance in order to cover the costs of those that don't have insurance. Could the system be better? Yes, without a doubt. Will getting the gov't. involved make it better? No way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I would be in favor of a national health care plan - as long as there is an "opt out" feature, and as long as those that opt out don't get taxed for it. Let those that want it pay for it.
Should I be entitled to an 'opt out' feature for the school systems, since I don't have a kid? How about the mail service, as all of my correspondence and billing is done electronically? Can I opt out of paying for the war I've disagreed with since it's inception?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,822 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,822 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Quote:
I would be in favor of a national health care plan - as long as there is an "opt out" feature, and as long as those that opt out don't get taxed for it. Let those that want it pay for it.
Should I be entitled to an 'opt out' feature for the school systems, since I don't have a kid? How about the mail service, as all of my correspondence and billing is done electronically? Can I opt out of paying for the war I've disagreed with since it's inception?
Yea, once the national health care comes about, and I'm given an option to opt out, you should be able to. 
Our health care system needs attention, no doubt, but if anyone thinks getting gov't. in charge of it is the answer, they are just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Yea, once the national health care comes about, and I'm given an option to opt out, you should be able to.
Fair enough (although I wouldn't...except for maybe the war funding part, as I would probably be paying little or no taxes )
Quote:
Our health care system needs attention, no doubt, but if anyone thinks getting gov't. in charge of it is the answer, they are just wrong.
Perhaps...but by the same token, if anyone thinks trusting private companies is the answer, they are equally wrong. Catch-22.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,822 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,822 Likes: 516 |
As for your last point, perhaps. However, private companies providing health insurance - most of them do - not all.
Private companies doing the research to "cure" diseases? They are far and away better than the gov't. as far as results (and yes, these private companies I speak of are getting federal money as well, I know) "Private" companies (of which you can own stock if you so choose) spend billions yearly on research and development, and they have had much success in "treating" illnesses. And they do it because of the profit involved, make no mistake. If company "a" spends $100 million and finds/creates a drug that helps, I cannot and will not begrudge them their profit. With federal health care, I'm afraid you'd see that motive fade and then disappear. And then what?
Health care needs attention, but asking for the fed. gov't. to take over is a joke, in my opinion. It would, in THIS country, ruin health care quite rapidly. It sounds good on paper, but in reality, in this country, it will create more problems than one can imagine.
What's the answer? I don't know. I do know that asking the fed. gov't to come up with an answer would be the equivalent of burning your money in order to get heat, as opposed to spending your money to get heat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Private companies doing the research to "cure" diseases? They are far and away better than the gov't. as far as results (and yes, these private companies I speak of are getting federal money as well, I know)
Those private companies wouldn't stop doing their research once a government-based health care system was enacted. They may lose some of the funding they would've gotten from the government, so I see your point there...but think about this - let's say the government gives Company X $1 billion to find a cure for cancer. Let's say they find it...Company X will then in turn recieve all of the profits from this miracle cure. The government won't see a dime, and you bet your bottom dollar that Company X is going to charge a premium for that cure. So, in essence, you would have the government - i.e. you - paying to find a cure for cancer...and once it's found...where's your reward? Is Company X going to give you a reduced rate? This happens constantly in today's government...mainly in technology and defense.
I don't disagree with your burning/spending' analogy, but I think this is a facet of the counter argument where your analogy also applies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
The problem is Phil, the profit part of your post. First of all the government doesn't provide anywhere near all of the funding for medical research, companies provide the biggest chunk of it, and they do it in hopes of the payoff at the end... if the government starts regulating how much they can charge for their cures and procedures, that incentive could go away over time...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,130 Likes: 1050
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,130 Likes: 1050 |
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Michael Moore
|
|
