Vegan Joe Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Can't help but worry what those bimboes in Washington are going to do for us ABC's John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Planhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg Edited August 22, 2009 by Vegan Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen_Horse Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 The pic isn't showing, but everything I have seen from John Stossel is wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I like Stossel more since he's turned against our foreign occupations. I saw him in 2002 or so during my undergrad and in my opinion his data derived conclusions concerning policy and people's perceptions made sense and seemed to inform his political leanings, however his hands off/limited gov approach did not jive with his pro-war stance at the time. That huge of an inconsistency turned me off, but he's since changed/recanted. He's not so bad on that end, but I hear he's a jerk in personal life. His book ( I think it was give me a break) was an autobiography of sorts. I found his experiences from his career in media to be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjs Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 The pic isn't showing, but everything I have seen from John Stossel is wrong...I find most of his stuff to right on target, especially his criticisms of the public education system and the postal service. What have you found to be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen_Horse Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 His right-wing conservatism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegan Joe Posted August 23, 2009 Author Share Posted August 23, 2009 His right-wing conservatism?Actually I believe he is labeled a Libertarian.But the real question is:are there any truths to the facts he presents.Better to be a cat in Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Stossel is on the right track as a libertarian, but he's still too strong of a statist as he does try to justify some state functions. Cutting back on regulation is all well and good but ridding ourselves of the military and police (which stossel defends) would be a big step in improving the lot of humanity. It would do far more good than government expansion into a market they already over-saturate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjs Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Stossel is on the right track as a libertarian, but he's still too strong of a statist as he does try to justify some state functions. Cutting back on regulation is all well and good but ridding ourselves of the military and police (which stossel defends) would be a big step in improving the lot of humanity. It would do far more good than government expansion into a market they already over-saturate.I'm not aware of his specific views of those, but I'd argue they are necessary in some form though they need a wholesale makeover. The biggest "problem" with the police, so to speak, are the gobs and gobs of stupid laws and ordinances that are to be enforced against the people. I know Stossel is definitely against prosecuting so-called consensual crimes. Anyway I don't want to come off as blindly supporting him, but I think he's got a point on a lot of what he covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I'm with you chris he makes great points and supports them with data instead of just being another talking head and yeah the police wouldn't seem so bad if there not stupid laws they had to enforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegan Joe Posted August 24, 2009 Author Share Posted August 24, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjohanx Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Don't know much about Obamas health care plan but I doubt it's good since Obama is a liberal. Seems better than what you guys have now though. Socialism would provide a better health care system for sure. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Naw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjs Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Don't know much about Obamas health care plan but I doubt it's good since Obama is a liberal. Seems better than what you guys have now though. Socialism would provide a better health care system for sure. Just saying.I respectfully disagree. I have since thought of a few things I don't agree with Stossel on: He doesn't believe in global warming or organic farming. He specifically mentions that if organic farming was so great, it would naturally win in the marketplace, but he's completely blind to the existing (non free market) government incentives that favor traditional ag, including tax breaks and not pricing the cost of pollution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinVegartin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I don't know about the health system in the US but I'm glad I live in the UK. We have a wonderful health service. But it could be better. One reason that it is not as good as it could be is that too many people clog up the system with unneccesary visits to their GPs. I know of many people who go to their physicians frequently - every time they feel an ache. Every time they have a cold. The NHS cannot cope with hypochondriacs like that. I have had my nose broken at least once and had a badly gashed face that has left a very noticeable scar. I didn't seek medical attention. I damaged both knees and my back many years ago. I didn't even think of going to the quack. If more people were more stoical we would have a better system. The trouble with a free service (free at the point of delivery) is that some people think it's their right to take advantage of it for the most trivial of conditions and don't care about those who are seriously ill, who they are effectively stealing from. I've never had to search around for a dentist. I have always been on the books of an NHS dentist. I think the present difficulty in some places is caused by changes in their funding and contracts. Too many dentists now refuse to see NHS patients who can't afford to go private. I don't know where the queue for dentists was that was shown in the video. If it was in Cumberland, the people were queuing to register as private patients after two surgeries announced they would no longer treat adults on the NHS. And, I believe, shortly after that a foreign dentist set up practice and gave NHS treatments. In some places there is a shortage of dentists, even entirely private ones. When a new dentist sets up shop there can be a rush by local people to get registered, even as private - non-NHS - patients. That's what most of the queues are about. In this country, the unemployed, the old and immigrants (legal or illegal) can get the best of free medical attention. I believe that in Europe some of the countries have an even better service. And another thing, the NHS was set up at a time when people were healthier. We had just fought a war, the country was almost bankrupt and rationing was still in place. Since then, despite a wider choice of food, certain diseases have been on the increase. Many - possibly most - people who go to their medics for non-accident cases will have contributed to their own disease by wrong living. They should be vegan and they should exercise. And shouldn't drink or smoke. That is, if they want to be healthy. A private medical service is all right for those who can afford it. I couldn't. I couldn't afford to pay for medical insurance. I believe all should have access to free (at the point of delivery) medical care. If some people want to spend extra money for private treatment that is their prerogative but they should still pay National Insurance contributions. As members of the same country we should be prepared to support each other's rights to basic services. Actually, many people believe that part of the problem with the lack of funding to the National Health Service - and other services - is caused by the Private Finance Initiative. This is where a private company builds, say, a hospital and then leases it back to the government or local authority. In the long run, the cost to the tax payer can be much higher than if the public sector had built the hospital. It is a swindle. The money to pay back the private companies has to come from somewhere. Often that means diverting money from the Health Service. We've seen recently where the greed and stupid short-sighted targets of the business world can lead us. We nearly had a meltdown in the world's economies. I don't trust big business, including insurance companies. Where big profits are possible, greed can blinker those who make the decisions. When the Labour Party was canvassing for votes before the 1997 General Election they promised to hold a Royal Commission into vivisection. Then a rich bloke from a supermarket family gave them a large donation and received a peerage and a job as science minister in their government. Eventually, he gave them a total of 11 million pounds. He had shares in companies that use vivisection and he is a supporter of that ing cruelty. There has been no Royal Commission, the numbers of vivisection victims have increased and that liar, Tony Blair, signed a petition in support of vivisection. Let big business run our health service and take complete control of vivisection and we can wave goodbye to any hope for the millions of victims of the vivisectors. They'll have little incentive to do proper scientific research, with the need to have new methods expensively validated and developed because the present, cruel, system does turn out a few new drugs each year which still make the drug companies milliards of pounds profit. And the tortured victims of the vivisectors are used to assure the ignorant public that every effort is made to make safe and effective drugs. We need a health service that is run by elected polititians - not those unelected ones who bung the government a few million quid so they can make more profit on their biotechnical shares - and who can be kicked out by the electorate if they prove to be useless or too corrupt. That's another thing - we have two or three main parties which have many corrupt members. We can't get rid of the corruption or uselessness because the next party will be just as bad. We need proper democracy but I don't know how or what form that would take. I'm not a capitalist nor a socialist. I believe that both, in their extreme forms, are dangerous. Both will invade other countries to further their own aims. And both care little for the individual once they get the scent of profit or more control in their nostrils. Good luck to you Americans with your system but long live the NHS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinVegartin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I don't know why there is a smilie in one of the lines. It must be some sort of censorship for offensive words. The offensive word, if that is what it's for, was 'd i s g u s t i n g'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen_Horse Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 It's just a smilie. For some reason you can just type (d i s g u s t) and it makes it. Great post by the way. Fsck the US system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinVegartin Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Thanks. If more people were vegan, there would be less strain on health services. We have to pay for prescriptions here, which I don't object to as it lightens the load on the NHS. Although people on on unemployment and invalidity benefits don't need to pay. We also pay for dental check ups. About £18 the last time I went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I have since thought of a few things I don't agree with Stossel on: He doesn't believe in global warming or organic farming. He specifically mentions that if organic farming was so great, it would naturally win in the marketplace, but he's completely blind to the existing (non free market) government incentives that favor traditional ag, including tax breaks and not pricing the cost of pollution. A convenient piece of information for knowing where to place John Stossel's (lack of) credibility . Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I'm sure he believes in organic farming (as in it does exist as a practice). By saying that it would win in a free market, and accepting we don't have a free market (which stossel does accept) I don't see how he's against organic farming. He's a pretty evidenced based guy and obviously there is a lack of evidence at this point as far as organics and the free market. However, walmart had to stop selling organic produce as the supply chains were not reliable so I think there is definitely a demand even despite the incentives to not go in that direction. I think a belief in global warming is as irrelevant as a belief in god. A belief in either are pretty worthless until you live your life more consistently with your beliefs. I see most believers want to make other people think as they do and I think forcing people to accept a specific belief system is barbaric. So to me a good judge of character is how someone reflects or acts upon their beliefs. Inconsistency, in belief and lifestyle makes someone much less credible as far as idealogues go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegan Joe Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 I think forcing people to accept a specific belief system is barbaric.Actually the lack of a belief system is what leads to barbarism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 No, not really. Actual barbarians had several belief systems. For the most part the belief systems don't bother me, but just like I was saying it's what you're doing with them that can be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 The epithet for John Stossel's (lack of) credibility: John Stossel leaves ABC News for Fox cable http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/09/john_stossel_fox_news_business.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now