Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

who cares, the point is, it's capitalist, the market rules in the end.

Edward my brother, you're hilarious. Keep up the good fight. I like your responses to convoluted liberal rationalization that somehow government run health care will be cost effective and an improvement on existing health care.

gibberish I'm afraid I'm sure you thought that meant something

I'm trying to give you a complement. Lighten up Francis...

 

[Toronado3800]

too stupid Jobs picked the Iphone not Chinese big governemt!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow???

Think big picture Edward not slogans.

Unless you are saying the Chinese have less government involvement and more freedom in their "capitalism" than we do.

Maybe they do, do they?

who cares, the point is, it's capitalist, the market rules in the end.

The point is the Chinese system you are always saying is soo great is a fairly government controlled one. Is that what you like? Government controlled healthcare?

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay, then what is your alternative?

Instead of compelling people by law to either buy insurance or pay 1500 into federal exchange insurance coops,
give people the option to invest DIRECTLY in more medical school and health programs with internships to work off loans or course credits by serving in public clinics and facilities.

create sustainable health education and service programs instead of paying companies that profit off insurance which isn't providing the actual services or training actual providers.

gibberish nonsense!! you have to pay directly in cash in the real world or try to create a huge huge barter bureaucracy that would only add to the huge inefficiency that already exists. Please give that idea a rest forever.

WHAT?
When you set up a clinic or a school
you can still have people collecting payments
or using a credit system to cover the costs.
You can create jobs doing that part of the system.

When students do work-study, there is a still a job/management/work structure going on.

Why can't you do BOTH.
Why can't we have SUSTAINABLE systems like campuses
and replicate them in every community so they are equally accessible.
The most successful universities I know retain their autonomy by private self-funding,
and they WORK by the FREE ENTERPRISE system, Ed. The ones that fail get caught up bureaucracy from govt grants or stipulations
if these start imposing conflicts that interfere with good educational policy. So why not have both, why not operate by free enterprise and ALSO replicate it by teaching people how to form teams to set up their own community campus programs organized by dept?

Ed, I know a woman Deepa Willingham who uses her professional business experience to BUILD SCHOOLS in India and now in Mexico to create schools and safe jobs and opportunities in education to uplift poor communities to help women and children recover from poverty and trafficking.

We talked about setting up a sustainable system of training college interns to mentor through her PACE universal program, such as how Habitat for Humanity replicates its work in local communities, to HELP with a school first before a team learns to set one one from scratch. Why not? Why not organize campuses in every community so there are jobs, education and services accessible by all people who learn to manage themselves?

isn't this the natural progression?

human beings start out as children under our parents' households,
before we learn to live independently first by renting then owning
then some learn to manage and rent property to others on this same learning curve
of social development.

well the same for social and political development.
America started as colonial settlements under our parent country of Britain
and then we broke free and started on the learning curve of governing as an independent nation
and now we are learning how to sustain and replicate this model insetad of everyone
trying to depend on the parent or government! duh!

Gee whiz Ed what do you think humans are doing on the planet? all these years?
aren't we supposed to be learning and growing to figure out how to live sustainably?

isn't the campus system the best way to organize people, knowledge, resources and
management systems to accommodate the fact that people are groups in different classes and levels of development? how else do you expect to achieve equal justice for all.

you are the one who needs to get real.

this idea of organizing local democracies through the "school" system
IS the most realistic workable solution I have found
where the idea of working in "schools" is universally understood by people and which also
includes social and cultural, political and religious, and economic diversity so no one is left out.

Nobody I know disagrees with education
except the people freaked out by the idea of change happening that systematically, locally and globally at the same time.

If you have emotional barriers preventing your mind from connecting the local level of change to the global level of collective impact on society, that is probably what you are objecting to, Ed. you have run into a wall in your own mind, so that is yours to deal with.
You have a powerful, analytical mind Ed. I'm sure you will come up with a lot of good innovations and reforms by the
time you process this idea through, from beginning to end, with all the economic, social and spiritual implications it entails! yes!

Go for it, Ed. I will meet you at the finish line and we can share notes.
Your input is as much needed as a critical skeptic as people who already see this is happening so of course it's possible to multiply worldwide. there are plenty of nonprofits already doing similar work, and it just takes coordinating them in a global network.

 

[emilynghiem]

Think big picture Edward not slogans.

Unless you are saying the Chinese have less government involvement and more freedom in their "capitalism" than we do.

Maybe they do, do they?

who cares, the point is, it's capitalist, the market rules in the end.

The point is the Chinese system you are always saying is soo great is a fairly government controlled one. Is that what you like? Government controlled healthcare?

Not to worry. By the time the medical research gets out that proves the cost-effective benefits of "spiritual healing" on curing and reducing disease which medicine alone cannot, then it will be clear that govt cannot regulate the level of health care that is sustainable.
spiritual healing is based on forgiveness therapy which cannot be mandated, only chosen freely in order to work. even if you force someone to attend AA etc, it won't work if they don't freely choose to forgive and ask help to let go of past patterns of addiction or abuse. this part cannot be regulated by govt because it is spiritual and outside state authority.
the most govt could do is require that people who pose criminal threats due to dangerous levels of mental or criminal illness affecting public safety may be required to be detained while undergoing treatment or cure to manage their deadly addictions or conditions and not be allowed to roam free if this endangers others; but even that would have to be proven by medical tests so it is not an unfair judgment in violation of human rights and due process.

some of the sources I recommend for medical studies on spiritual healing:
Christian Healing Ministries
Francis MacNutt "Healing" edition 1999 or later (includes medical study on RA)
http://www.healingisyours.com Neurosurgeon Dr. Phillip Goldfedder
Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil"
Larry Dorsey and others who pursue scientific research of healing prayer and physical effects

 

[Underhill]

WHAT?
When you set up a clinic or a school
you can still have people collecting payments
or using a credit system to cover the costs.
You can create jobs doing that part of the system.

When students do work-study, there is a still a job/management/work structure going on.

Why can't you do BOTH.
Why can't we have SUSTAINABLE systems like campuses
and replicate them in every community so they are equally accessible.
The most successful universities I know retain their autonomy by private self-funding,
and they WORK by the FREE ENTERPRISE system, Ed. The ones that fail get caught up bureaucracy from govt grants or stipulations
if these start imposing conflicts that interfere with good educational policy. So why not have both, why not operate by free enterprise and ALSO replicate it by teaching people how to form teams to set up their own community campus programs organized by dept?

Ed, I know a woman Deepa Willingham who uses her professional business experience to BUILD SCHOOLS in India and now in Mexico to create schools and safe jobs and opportunities in education to uplift poor communities to help women and children recover from poverty and trafficking.

We talked about setting up a sustainable system of training college interns to mentor through her PACE universal program, such as how Habitat for Humanity replicates its work in local communities, to HELP with a school first before a team learns to set one one from scratch. Why not? Why not organize campuses in every community so there are jobs, education and services accessible by all people who learn to manage themselves?

isn't this the natural progression?

human beings start out as children under our parents' households,
before we learn to live independently first by renting then owning
then some learn to manage and rent property to others on this same learning curve
of social development.

well the same for social and political development.
America started as colonial settlements under our parent country of Britain
and then we broke free and started on the learning curve of governing as an independent nation
and now we are learning how to sustain and replicate this model insetad of everyone
trying to depend on the parent or government! duh!

Gee whiz Ed what do you think humans are doing on the planet? all these years?
aren't we supposed to be learning and growing to figure out how to live sustainably?

isn't the campus system the best way to organize people, knowledge, resources and
management systems to accommodate the fact that people are groups in different classes and levels of development? how else do you expect to achieve equal justice for all.

you are the one who needs to get real.

this idea of organizing local democracies through the "school" system
IS the most realistic workable solution I have found
where the idea of working in "schools" is universally understood by people and which also
includes social and cultural, political and religious, and economic diversity so no one is left out.

Nobody I know disagrees with education
except the people freaked out by the idea of change happening that systematically, locally and globally at the same time.

If you have emotional barriers preventing your mind from connecting the local level of change to the global level of collective impact on society, that is probably what you are objecting to, Ed. you have run into a wall in your own mind, so that is yours to deal with.
You have a powerful, analytical mind Ed. I'm sure you will come up with a lot of good innovations and reforms by the
time you process this idea through, from beginning to end, with all the economic, social and spiritual implications it entails! yes!

Go for it, Ed. I will meet you at the finish line and we can share notes.
Your input is as much needed as a critical skeptic as people who already see this is happening so of course it's possible to multiply worldwide. there are plenty of nonprofits already doing similar work, and it just takes coordinating them in a global network.

I don't know of any examples of such a system working on a large scale such as we are talking about. And never for anything so intricate as health care.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there are plenty of nonprofits already doing similar work,

Are you a commie pinko?? Profit is beauty and truth. Without profit we have no idea on earth where to invest our scarce resources.

Did you ever see what a soviet not for profit car looked like? Did you ever wonder why the Chinese not for profit economy slowly starved 60million to death, and why everyone suddenly got rich when they switched to for profit capitalism.

IF you lack the IQ to understand capitalism you lack the IQ to have an opinion. Sorry

 

[Underhill]

Did you ever see what a soviet not for profit car looked like? Did you ever wonder why the Chinese not for profit economy slowly starved 60million to death, and why everyone suddenly got rich when they switched to for profit capitalism.

You might be taken more seriously if you took the time to think before typing. The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care. As does virtually every rich, capitalist country in the world.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.

you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.

 

[expatriate]

The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.

you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.

sounds good, eh Ed?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.

you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.

sounds good, eh Ed?

typical liberal lacks IQ for substance

 

[expatriate]

you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.

sounds good, eh Ed?

typical liberal lacks IQ for substance

lol

I would bet you a lot of money that my IQ is bigger than yours. really.

And you failed to answer the question: you've been touting the new capitalist China for days now... why not just say how good their health care, especially when compared to countries like Canada and France, looks to you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why not just say how good their health care, especially when compared to countries like Canada and France, looks to you.

China is a very very poor country so I'm sure that is reflected in the health care system. And your point is???? If you know???

 

[Toronado3800]

you idiot liberal there is probably not a person in the west who would think of that as ideal!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??? What other conclusion is possible??

Ok......so you find what about this Chinese economic system that you are bragging on less than ideal?

Is it less government controlled than our economy? Or is the more government controlled system rising faster?

Be nice Edward. Your insults remind me of things a 12 year old girl says when she gets grounded.

So now you are not bragging on the Chinese big government folks? I thought you were talking about how great big government capitalism is? Ya know, with central plans and government picked winners? Kinda like in the time of Lincoln over here.

Any thoughts yet on this Ed?

 

[expatriate]

why not just say how good their health care, especially when compared to countries like Canada and France, looks to you.

China is a very very poor country so I'm sure that is reflected in the health care system. And your point is???? If you know???

very poor country? and here, just yesterday, you were crowing about how rich they had become once they turned capitalist and how everyone was buying cars. Can you make up your mind, or what? You are a mass of contradictions as you fail in your attempts to parrot right wing ideology... you clearly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground and your IQ is, I dare say, double digits only. And you STILL have yet to admit that you were completely wrong when you tried to claim that sick people were the preferred customers for health insurance companies. You are the classic example of the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

very poor country? and here, just yesterday, you were crowing about how rich they had become once they turned capitalist and how everyone was buying cars. Can you make up your mind, or what? :

dear, the per capita income in China ($5500)is very very public information. It is still a very very poor country after only 30 years of capitalism, but, at 7-10% Republican capitalist growth each year for 30 years now they are getting richer faster than any country in human history.

 

[Underhill]

The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.

you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.

Interesting timelines you gave there. Economic reform in China started in the 80's. The old system collapsed because of mass migrations and a dozen other factors. In 2003 China implemented new reforms... so the truth is these programs are now being strengthened by their new economic prosperity.

"The Chinese government still faces a mammoth task in trying to provide medical and welfare services adequate to meet the basic needs of the immense number of citizens spread over a vast area. Although China's overall affluence has grown dramatically since the mid-1980s — per capita income has increased many times over, and caloric intake has become comparable to that for western Europe — a great many of its people live at socioeconomic levels far below the national average. The medical system, moreover, labours under the tension of whether to stress quality of care or to spread scarce medical resources as widely as possible. In addition, there has been repeated debate over the relative balance that should be struck between the use of Western and traditional Chinese medicine. While the Cultural Revolution pushed the balance toward widespread minimum care with great attention paid to traditional medicine, policy after the late 1970s moved in the other direction on both issues; by the late 1980s the proportion of doctors of Western medicine had exceeded those of traditional practices.

The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) is a new 2003 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Nowadays the permanent urban population (except migrants) take out medical insurance.Many in the rural areas may struggle to afford with the new burden of healthcare fees, a result of the collapse of the old state-funded health system which existed before China's program of economic reforms in the 1980s.[1]"

What you call a "collapse" really happened because mass numbers of people and medical resources went to the city with the economic changes in the 80's and 90's.

But they have always had national health care. It was, and is, of poor quality but that is the way of things when you are a country filled with a billion people of very limited means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_reform_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.

you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.

Interesting timelines you gave there. Economic reform in China started in the 80's. The old system collapsed because of mass migrations and a dozen other factors. In 2003 China implemented new reforms... so the truth is these programs are now being strengthened by their new economic prosperity.

"The Chinese government still faces a mammoth task in trying to provide medical and welfare services adequate to meet the basic needs of the immense number of citizens spread over a vast area. Although China's overall affluence has grown dramatically since the mid-1980s — per capita income has increased many times over, and caloric intake has become comparable to that for western Europe — a great many of its people live at socioeconomic levels far below the national average. The medical system, moreover, labours under the tension of whether to stress quality of care or to spread scarce medical resources as widely as possible. In addition, there has been repeated debate over the relative balance that should be struck between the use of Western and traditional Chinese medicine. While the Cultural Revolution pushed the balance toward widespread minimum care with great attention paid to traditional medicine, policy after the late 1970s moved in the other direction on both issues; by the late 1980s the proportion of doctors of Western medicine had exceeded those of traditional practices.

The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) is a new 2003 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Nowadays the permanent urban population (except migrants) take out medical insurance.Many in the rural areas may struggle to afford with the new burden of healthcare fees, a result of the collapse of the old state-funded health system which existed before China's program of economic reforms in the 1980s.[1]"

What you call a "collapse" really happened because mass numbers of people and medical resources went to the city with the economic changes in the 80's and 90's.

But they have always had national health care. It was, and is, of poor quality but that is the way of things when you are a country filled with a billion people of very limited means.

Healthcare reform in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]

 

[Underhill]

you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.

Interesting timelines you gave there. Economic reform in China started in the 80's. The old system collapsed because of mass migrations and a dozen other factors. In 2003 China implemented new reforms... so the truth is these programs are now being strengthened by their new economic prosperity.

"The Chinese government still faces a mammoth task in trying to provide medical and welfare services adequate to meet the basic needs of the immense number of citizens spread over a vast area. Although China's overall affluence has grown dramatically since the mid-1980s — per capita income has increased many times over, and caloric intake has become comparable to that for western Europe — a great many of its people live at socioeconomic levels far below the national average. The medical system, moreover, labours under the tension of whether to stress quality of care or to spread scarce medical resources as widely as possible. In addition, there has been repeated debate over the relative balance that should be struck between the use of Western and traditional Chinese medicine. While the Cultural Revolution pushed the balance toward widespread minimum care with great attention paid to traditional medicine, policy after the late 1970s moved in the other direction on both issues; by the late 1980s the proportion of doctors of Western medicine had exceeded those of traditional practices.

The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) is a new 2003 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Nowadays the permanent urban population (except migrants) take out medical insurance.Many in the rural areas may struggle to afford with the new burden of healthcare fees, a result of the collapse of the old state-funded health system which existed before China's program of economic reforms in the 1980s.[1]"

What you call a "collapse" really happened because mass numbers of people and medical resources went to the city with the economic changes in the 80's and 90's.

But they have always had national health care. It was, and is, of poor quality but that is the way of things when you are a country filled with a billion people of very limited means.

Healthcare reform in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]

Yes, I know.

And when did China's economic boom begin? CMS was suffering because of lack of funds. The country was 3rd world. It still is in many regions.

But what does that have to do with anything? They still have national health care today, after their "capitalist boom".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They still have national health care today, after their "capitalist boom".

pretty stupid, right, when capitalism is ten 10 more efficient and leads to 100 times more innovation?

 

[jasonnfree]

you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.

sounds good, eh Ed?

typical liberal lacks IQ for substance

So whats the average IQ for a liberal? Links please.