Healthcare rationing begins...

[StainlessSteelRat]

..and they haven't even passed the bill yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

[BAKehT]

Hah, you people are so silly.

[Slypieguy]

They aren't saying people aren't allowed to get mammograms as often, they are just saying people may not need to...

[Silverhandorder]

Brothers it is the collective consensus!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_go_co/us_ap_poll_health_care

How can you be selfish for standing up for your rgihts.

edit:

They aren't saying people aren't allowed to get mammograms as often, they are just saying people may not need to...

How often have you seen a government panel pick it's experts based on the policy they want to push.

[Slypieguy]

Brothers it is the collective consensus!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_go_co/us_ap_poll_health_care

How can you be selfish for standing up for your rgihts.



That's what happens when you take the mic and say "yea, healthcare for everyone, we got this dawg" and then plop down 1000+ pages of shit that you don't explain to anyone.

[Sqarak]

How often have you seen a government panel pick it's experts based on the policy they want to push.

It's quite amazing that they came to the same conclusion in Belgium way back in 2002 just so it would fit the new healthcare bill in the US in 2009. AMAZING, just AMAZING!!!!!

[Silverhandorder]

It's quite amazing that they came to the same conclusion in Belgium way back in 2002 just so it would fit the new healthcare bill in the US in 2009. AMAZING, just AMAZING!!!!!

You mean people touted by a socialized healthcare system might agree with socialization of US system. OMG! What a fucking coincidence.

[Sqarak]

You mean people touted by a socialized healthcare system might agree with socialization of US system. OMG! What a fucking coincidence.

You live in a country where they vaccinate as if they are handing out free candy. It might not have occurred to you but more does not necessarily mean better.

[Milo Hobgoblin]

I just dont get how ANYONE thinks we can give out healthcare to 50+ million Americans without raising taxes and premiums on the other 250+ million...

Many of you of DO realize that this 50 millions pay no taxes and pay NOTHING into supporting the social infrastructure?

[StainlessSteelRat]

They aren't saying people aren't allowed to get mammograms as often, they are just saying people may not need to...

Wow, how profound. The point is who will be paying for the mammograms. What do you think the guidelines will be for insurance reimbursement on mammograms? This is just a prelude of more rationing to come w/ Obamacare.

It's quite amazing that they came to the same conclusion in Belgium way back in 2002 just so it would fit the new healthcare bill in the US in 2009. AMAZING, just AMAZING!!!!!

And that's just one reason why breast cancer mortality numbers are better in the US than Belgium.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_bre_can_inc-health-breast-cancer-incidence

The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

In the United States, current view comes out to lend more weight to mammography screening and earlier diagnosis as the main cause for declining mortality rates

http://ezinearticles.com/?Assessing-Breast-Cancer-Mortality-Rate&id=2465030

Stephen Finan, senior director of policy for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS’ advocacy affiliate), explains that one of the differences between England and the U.S. is that there’s a higher level of detection of breast cancer here, which increases the survival rate. "We see more breast cancer, and that’s because we place much more emphasis on screening than the U.K. system." (The U.K.’s National Health Service invites women for screening every three years starting at age 50, while the ACS recommends a mammogram every year starting at age 40.) More cancers detected earlier increases survival rates, even if it doesn’t affect mortality rates.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/a-false-appeal-to-womens-fears/

And these people are citing this info in order to support Obamacare prior to this sudden change in policy.

[Sqarak]

And that's just one reason why breast cancer mortality numbers are better in the US than Belgium.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_bre_can_inc-health-breast-cancer-incidence

What do they mean with incidence? Does that mean the amount of women found to have breast cancer, the amount of women having been treated for breast cancer or the amount of women that have died of breast cancer?

[StainlessSteelRat]

What do they mean with incidence? Does that mean the amount of women found to have breast cancer, the amount of women having been treated for breast cancer or the amount of women that have died of breast cancer?

That particular one is 'diagnosed with'.

[Sqarak]

That particular one is 'diagnosed with'.

So actually more people are discovered having breast cancer in Belgium than they have in the US although people are commended to have fewer check ups...

So either people get for some reason more breast cancer in Iceland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium or does mean that more woman actually bother to have themselves checked up?

The reason I ask this is because I already knew of those statistics and they are in fact currently trying to figure out why there are such remarkable differences although medical standards are quite comparable in the most of the Western World.



Stephen Finan, senior director of policy for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS’ advocacy affiliate), explains that one of the differences between England and the U.S. is that there’s a higher level of detection of breast cancer here, which increases the survival rate. "We see more breast cancer, and that’s because we place much more emphasis on screening than the U.K. system."

But your first link to some statistics show the opposite. More women are apparently discovered in the UK that have breast cancer...
or is there a difference between detecting breast cancer and being diagnosed with breast cancer?

Also, at least in Belgium, women needed to get encouraged to actually go for a mammography. 10-15 years back most women couldn't even be bothered to do it at all. There is still a yearly campaign to increase awareness and understanding of breast cancer.
They are planning to do similar things for prostate cancer as well as it is still somewhat of a taboo.

[xpiher]

..and they haven't even passed the bill yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

idiot.

[Vessol]

idiot.

So eloquent.

[Silverhandorder]

So eloquent.

Give him a break he is a realist that supports the most failed system in the world.

[xpiher]

So eloquent.

Nothing else was needed for this craptasitc conspiracy/anti-government theory.

Give him a break he is a realist that supports the most failed system in the world.

And what system would that be? If you answer is socialism you should pay more attention. :bang:

[Vessol]

Nothing else was needed for this craptasitc conspiracy/anti-government theory.

So instead of actual questioning everything and reading up on things on your own, doing your own independent research on everything. You can only roll your eyes, ignore it and shout out a stupid remark?

And what system would that be? If you answer is socialism you should pay more attention. :bang:

No corporatism which goes hand-in-hand with a welfare state.

[xpiher]

So instead of actual questioning everything and reading up on things on your own, doing your own independent research on everything. You can only roll your eyes, ignore it and shout out a stupid remark?

I read the article, to think this has anything to do with health care legislation laughable.

No corporatism which goes hand-in-hand with a welfare state.

Learn to pay attention. I hate the current system.

[Vessol]

I read the article, to think this has anything to do with health care legislation laughable.


And there we go. Why not independently research the whole topic and then come to a conclusion? Not just read an article.

Learn to pay attention. I hate the current system.

You hate the welfare state? Yet you so strongly stand up to defend it.

[Silverhandorder]

Learn to pay attention. I hate the current system.

You such a realist tho you would take the exact same steps that led to the this system.

[xpiher]

You hate the welfare state? Yet you so strongly stand up to defend it.

Where do I defend the welfare state? The only thing I've said that may be misconstrued to defend that is that I believe if someone works, they should want of need. That's what the goal of a society should be and how capitalism and socialism fail.

You such a realist tho you would take the exact same steps that led to the this system.

I wouldn't of, but I couldn't guarantee that you or someone else wouldn't of lead us to this point. Seeing things spawn from human nature, which is why the US is at this point, is different than taking the same steps to ensure that it would happen. I would make the argument that our current system is a natural progression of a capitalist society.

[StainlessSteelRat]

So actually more people are discovered.....those statistics and they are in fact currently trying to figure out why there are such remarkable differences although medical standards are quite comparable in the most of the Western World.

I can't answer that for you. I also found it interesting which is why I included it.

But your first link to some statistics show the opposite. More women are apparently discovered in the UK that have breast cancer...
or is there a difference between detecting breast cancer and being diagnosed with breast cancer?

No, it doesn't show the opposite. It shows a different stat. Again, I have no idea why the 'incidence' figures are so high in certain countries.

Also, at least in Belgium, women needed to get encouraged to actually go for a mammography. 10-15 years back most women couldn't even be bothered to do it at all. There is still a yearly campaign to increase awareness and understanding of breast cancer.
They are planning to do similar things for prostate cancer as well as it is still somewhat of a taboo.

The same was true here. And that's my point. They spent years convincing women to get screening and it increased the US survivability rate. Increased screening is considered a key cause to this increased survivability according to the sources I cited. So why change the guidelines?

Nothing else was needed for this craptasitc conspiracy/anti-government theory.

Lol, the minute gov't starts doing exactly what we, who don't believe in public healthcare, said they were going to do; it's conspiracy theory..... Tell that to all the women diagnosed in their 40s who survived and tell it to all the women that will die by not being diagnosed.

[Silverhandorder]

Where do I defend the welfare state? The only thing I've said that may be misconstrued to defend that is that I believe if someone works, they should want of need. That's what the goal of a society should be and how capitalism and socialism fail.

Yeah you don't support socialism except in all imaginable instances. LOL you are truly clueless.

[xpiher]

Yeah you don't support socialism except in all imaginable instances. LOL you are truly clueless.

Not at all. Go re-read my reply which I've edited 2x. I don't support socialism, I support Social Justice theory, which is an extension of free-market theory, but with buffers to keep brutish and self-serving individuals and groups from fucking up society. What we have now is a natural progression of capitalism.

Edit: Universal health care isn't just a socialist idea and you can achieve universal health care without strict government. If the insurance companies weren't more concerned profits and didn't stop dropping people who had "pre-existing conditions," which was nothing more than a catch all, then government intervention wouldn't have been necessary.

I also don't support the current house bill for health care.

[Silverhandorder]

No you are a socialist. Social Justice proves it. There is nothing that is off limits to you. You are as collectivist as they come.

[xpiher]

No you are a socialist. Social Justice proves it. There is nothing that is off limits to you. You are as collectivist as they come.

Socialist and social justice theory aren't the same thing, they aren't even coming close to being the same thing. All social justice theory states in a nut shell is: if you are benefiting society, then you shouldn't want out of need. Basically, if you are working you shouldn't have to worry about having enough money for life necessities. All current social systems fail in this regard. Capitalism fails at it becuase the working poor are poor becuase they can't afford the life essentials, socialism fails at it because you don't have to work to pay for those. Social justice still uses free-market principals, still has private property, still allows for profit to be made, etc.

Maybe you should actually read the theory.

Edit: It would require a societal shift though, a shift in the direction of valuing labor and innovation over capital investment.

[Silverhandorder]

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-opposes-government-disregard-of-individual-lives/

Socialist and social justice theory aren't the same thing, they aren't even coming close to being the same thing. All social justice theory states in a nut shell is: if you are benefiting society, then you shouldn't want out of need. Basically, if you are working you shouldn't have to worry about having enough money for life necessities. All current social systems fail in this regard. Capitalism fails at it becuase the working poor are poor becuase they can't afford the life essentials, socialism fails at it because you don't have to work to pay for those. Social justice still uses free-market principals, still has private property, still allows for profit to be made, etc.

Maybe you should actually read the theory.

Edit: It would require a societal shift though, a shift in the direction of valuing labor and innovation over capital investment.

You are an idiot. The very first reason why you are an idiot is that you somehow think that social justice advocates do not simultaneously advocate socialism. I have yet to see a social justice advocate go door to door asking for charity donations. I have yet to see social justice advocate take the time out of their oh so busy day to go and actually volunteer. You have no moral high ground here. All you do is advocate socialist policies and justify them with BS belief that somehow you are ending the problems the state it self initiated.

I like how you are against corporotist state an effect of big government yet you support big government. Moronic at best.

And here you throw some gems that show your utter lack of education in economics. You cant seperate innovation from capital investment. It is like suggesting to walk across the bridge without a bridge being there.

[xpiher]

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-opposes-government-disregard-of-individual-lives/



You are an idiot. The very first reason why you are an idiot is that you somehow think that social justice advocates do not simultaneously advocate socialism. I have yet to see a social justice advocate go door to door asking for charity donations. I have yet to see social justice advocate take the time out of their oh so busy day to go and actually volunteer. You have no moral high ground here. All you do is advocate socialist policies and justify them with BS belief that somehow you are ending the problems the state it self initiated.

Social justice theory is a society structure, not a governement one. For it to work people would have to value others as much as they value themselves, which makes it impossible to implement because people are inherently self-centered. That doesn't mean some steps can't be taken to make it closer to the ideal of everyone who works doesn't have to worry about finding money for life essentials. Like I said, this is where capitalism and socialism/communism fail. Either people won't have to work to get life essentials, or they work and are still unable to afford them. Marxism fails in the regard that private property, and freedoms, are done away with for the "benefit" of society. All three fail.

I like how you are against corporotist state an effect of big government yet you support big government. Moronic at best.

You think that big government is the reason why the current system is flawed. I think its just corruption, human greed, human nature, power, etc. The corporotist state could easily come with a smaller government, no-government and just free-market polices, or just state governments. You see things as strictly black and white, I see things as multifaceted. You see a direct correlation, I see a myriad of things that create the problem

And here you throw some gems that show your utter lack of education in economics. You cant seperate innovation from capital investment. It is like suggesting to walk across the bridge without a bridge being there.

No, I simply said that innovation and creations should be valued more highly than capital investment. Currently the initial capital investment is valued more highly than either. You can easily see this by the fact that people who invest are able to reap more profit than those who create. Furthermore, profits are rarely shared among the work force that, in essence, created that profit.

Edit: On the collectivist topic: Would a collectivist agree with 95% of what objectivism supports? I think not. But for objectivism to work as a societal structure most people would have to be self-actualized.

[Silverhandorder]

Social justice theory is a society structure, not a governement one. For it to work people would have to value others as much as they value themselves, which makes it impossible to implement because people are inherently self-centered. That doesn't mean some steps can't be taken to make it closer to the ideal of everyone who works doesn't have to worry about finding money for life essentials. Like I said, this is where capitalism and socialism/communism fail. Either people won't have to work to get life essentials, or they work and are still unable to afford them. Marxism fails in the regard that private property, and freedoms, are done away with for the "benefit" of society. All three fail.

So Mr Realist is advocating something that can not work because it is not compatible with human nature? This is rich.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Free market aka voluntary association between people is responcible for absolutely everything you see here. Show me one example of where force produced better results then voluntary association.

Anyways as far as I am concerned you should move to some 3rd world hell hole and try and spread social justice there. They need you a lot more then we do. You main grumble is that a capitalist society does not provide enough nececities fails on it's face when compared to the systems you advocate.

We are witnessing a collapse of Social Justice systems of the world in order to be replaced by completely the opposite schemes. Asia is by no means a free market territory. However their economic freedom index is the highest in the world. How is it relevant to our lives? Asians are on track of eliminating poverty in the next 20 years.

Our government on the other hand grew 40 times since new deal levels and all it has done is increase the problems of education, healthcare and poverty. There is no metric you can use that will spin these negative results as positives.

You think that big government is the reason why the current system is flawed. I think its just corruption, human greed, human nature, power, etc. The corporotist state could easily come with a smaller government, no-government and just free-market polices, or just state governments. You see things as strictly black and white, I see things as multifaceted. You see a direct correlation, I see a myriad of things that create the problem
Corporatist state can not come in free market. It lacks the force required to enact laws. Economic power does not throw people in jail. The fact of the matter is that there is no incentive for good honest people to go into government. We get crazy idiots from time to time that would love to fight the corporations. These people sacrifice their lives to ultimately get nowhere. And incidentally they are most often free market people.

Same can not be said for social justice people. They make fundementaly wrong choices. Instead of spreading social justice like honest good working people they go for the gun. There is no integrity in that.


No, I simply said that innovation and creations should be valued more highly than capital investment. Currently the initial capital investment is valued more highly than either. You can easily see this by the fact that people who invest are able to reap more profit than those who create. Furthermore, profits are rarely shared among the work force that, in essence, created that profit.

Capital is sacrificing production in the present for greater production in the future. It takes form in people making tools that make them more productive. The idea that investment is highly valued is why you will never see a working mixed system. Mixed system perverts this relationship. It destroys the free market it wants to protect by knocking out the very basic foundation. Without enterpreneurs there can be no market. The more regulations you put the less enterpreneurs you get the slower the economic growth. There is not a single regulation that encourages enterpreneurs.

Edit: On the collectivist topic: Would a collectivist agree with 95% of what objectivism supports? I think not. But for objectivism to work as a societal structure most people would have to be self-actualized.
I am not a big fan of objectivism. There was a time when I did not know what it was and mistakenly started to arguing for objectivism thinking it meant voluntary society.

Incidentally if I was an objectivist I would say absolutely. They do not compromise on the last 5% no matter what.

Anyways I think to settle our debate we need to put some time aside and do some joint historical research.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I read the article, to think this has anything to do with health care legislation laughable.

Learn to pay attention. I hate the current system.

What does the article pertain to if not healthcare?

You hate the current system where private businesses do cost/benefit analyses of treatments and prevention treatment in order to determine what they will cover. But you don't think the gov't performing the same cost/benefit analyses on the eve of federal health care legislation is pertinent?

This is how rationing works. You compare the cost to the # of live saved and decide that the cost is too high.

You are deceiving yourself if you think this is just coincidence. And even if it is coincidence, this is exactly the type of cost/benefit analyses that companies do now which everyone demonizes whilst clamouring for Obamacare and this is exactly the type of analysis that gov't will use to determine what treatments get reimbursed in a fed run health program.

[xpiher]

So Mr Realist is advocating something that can not work because it is not compatible with human nature? This is rich.

Idealistic-realist that advocates free-market principles guided by regulations and some changes in the way society works in some regards.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Free market aka voluntary association between people is responsible for absolutely everything you see here. Show me one example of where force produced better results then voluntary association.

I'm not advocating force or violence. That gets society no where, at least no any where good.


Anyways as far as I am concerned you should move to some 3rd world hell hole and try and spread social justice there. They need you a lot more then we do. You main grumble is that a capitalist society does not provide enough nececities fails on it's face when compared to the systems you advocate.

Compared to the 3rd world? America compared to the rest of western world is failing, its why our hemeonomy is declining. Health care and education are two of the biggest reasons for that.

We are witnessing a collapse of Social Justice systems of the world in order to be replaced by completely the opposite schemes. Asia is by no means a free market territory. However their economic freedom index is the highest in the world. How is it relevant to our lives? Asians are on track of eliminating poverty in the next 20 years.

What social justice systems? I haven't seen any.

Our government on the other hand grew 40 times since new deal levels and all it has done is increase the problems of education, healthcare and poverty. There is no metric you can use that will spin these negative results as positives.

Social Justice doesn't necessitate big government.

Corporatist state can not come in free market. It lacks the force required to enact laws. Economic power does not throw people in jail. The fact of the matter is that there is no incentive for good honest people to go into government.

As I've said, what we have now is a natural progression of capitalistic society becuase of the laws of power. But its not just the fault of the government and its not becuase the government exist that the system has been "corrupted." You can't have an uncorrupted system thats also based and powered by greed.

Same can not be said for social justice people. They make fundementaly wrong choices. Instead of spreading social justice like honest good working people they go for the gun. There is no integrity in that.

Not sure what you mean by this


Capital is sacrificing production in the present for greater production in the future. It takes form in people making tools that make them more productive. The idea that investment is highly valued is why you will never see a working mixed system. Mixed system perverts this relationship. It destroys the free market it wants to protect by knocking out the very basic foundation. Without enterpreneurs there can be no market. The more regulations you put the less enterpreneurs you get the slower the economic growth. There is not a single regulation that encourages enterpreneurs.


I am not a big fan of objectivism. There was a time when I did not know what it was and mistakenly started to arguing for objectivism thinking it meant voluntary society.

Incidentally if I was an objectivist I would say absolutely. They do not compromise on the last 5% no matter what.[/quote]


Ayn Rand advocates voluntary association, not sure if her followers do.

Anyways I think to settle our debate we need to put some time aside and do some joint historical research.

Research on what I'm willing to.



You hate the current system where private businesses do cost/benefit analyses of treatments and prevention treatment in order to determine what they will cover.

If they actually did cost benefit analysis then they would pay for prevention treatments, regular check-ups, etc. They don't, they are only concered about profit: providing the least care possible. They refuse to cover ambulance trips to the emergency room becuase it wasn't in the network or it wasn't pre-apporved.

[PirateGlen]

You think that big government is the reason why the current system is flawed. I think its just corruption, human greed, human nature, power, etc. The corporotist state could easily come with a smaller government, no-government and just free-market polices, or just state governments. You see things as strictly black and white, I see things as multifaceted. You see a direct correlation, I see a myriad of things that create the problem

This is probably among the monst accurate descriptions of him I've seen. I saw it spring up earlier when he attempted to assert there to be no middle ground on capitalism. I've been saying for years: if libertarians can't compromise, they will never get anywhere in a political system where compromise is an essential component. Greenspan understood this reality.

This is also why he conflates all systems that are not his as the same thing.

[Strangia]

Something tells me that when doctors in the 1960s finally decided Cigarettes and Alcohol were bad for your health, most of the guys in this thread would be like "Damn communists, trying to steal mah cigarettes! Its all a pinko conspiracy I TELL YAH!!!"

[Gloomrender]

Socialism=Tax to provide for people.

"Social Justice Theory"=Tax to provide for people.

Difference?

[xpiher]

Socialism=Tax to provide for people.

"Social Justice Theory"=Tax to provide for people.

Difference?

We had this argument already gloom. Social Justice Theory isn't a government system, its a society system. Taxes wouldn't need to be involved.

Pretty sure you were the one who said most peopel wouldn't see a difference because their goals are similar. The execution is entirely different though.

[Gaal]

So actually more people are discovered having breast cancer in Belgium than they have in the US although people are commended to have fewer check ups...

So either people get for some reason more breast cancer in Iceland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium or does mean that more woman actually bother to have themselves checked up?



I think the only logical conclusion is that socialism causes cancer.

[Gloomrender]

We had this argument already gloom. Social Justice Theory isn't a government system, its a society system. Taxes wouldn't need to be involved.

Pretty sure you were the one who said most peopel wouldn't see a difference because their goals are similar. The execution is entirely different though.

No, I haven't been involved in this discussion.

I don't understand how taxes wouldn't be involved. How else would these people be provided for "by society"?

[SSguy]

So eloquent.

Its Stainless Rat O'Reily and Silver Beck Order. Eloquence not required.

Still trying to figure out who you are though.....Oh I know. Vessobuto.

[SSguy]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Free market aka voluntary association between people is responcible for absolutely everything you see here. Show me one example of where force produced better results then voluntary association.


Hate to interrupt your illogical braindead idealist rant about how capitalism is perfect and somehow works with human nature....But A lot of what we see today is from government grants enabling research. Free market plays its role in getting that research to consumers and improving it.....But the faults of the free market are currently responsible for a shittastic healthcare system and the fact we still use oil for cars.

As for better results, anything posted will just be skewed by you.
Its completly subjective.....and considering how you are a moral-less cumrag leeching off your parents, you'd be happy with letting good people die from other people's mistakes so long as it follows your idealistic garbage.

Why don't you get the hell out of your parents (government workers) socialist welfare basement and experience the real world before you preech against any form of government/market?

[lafayette]

They aren't saying people aren't allowed to get mammograms as often, they are just saying people may not need to...

Holyshit! how you been splypie?

[Incanam]

And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

Yup, government stopping women's self breast-exams to save on money. Damn you Government!

[Strangia]

Yup, government stopping women's self breast-exams to save on money. Damn you Government!

Its part of the NWO conspiracy to lower the population, that would explain all the FEMA coffins! They are for breast cancer victims! Swine flu was just a decoy, the real world-wide communist conspiracy is with breast cancer.


Which is why you shouldn't support socialized medicine.

[Sqarak]

Its part of the NWO conspiracy to lower the population, that would explain all the FEMA coffins! They are for breast cancer victims! Swine flu was just a decoy, the real world-wide communist conspiracy is with breast cancer.


Which is why you shouldn't support socialized medicine.

Palin get the fuck back into the kitchen!

[StainlessSteelRat]

Hate to interrupt your illogical braindead idealist rant about how capitalism is perfect and somehow works with human nature....But A lot of what we see today is from government grants enabling research. Free market plays its role in getting that research to consumers and improving it.....But the faults of the free market are currently responsible for a shittastic healthcare system and the fact we still use oil for cars.


Are you really that stupid?

Do you even know what a free market is?

Do you have any proof that lack of gov't grants would stimy research?

And you call someone else an 'illogical braindead idealist'....... Oh, the irony.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Yup, government stopping women's self breast-exams to save on money. Damn you Government!

What do you think happens when women do self-exams?

Can you really not see how the process would play out or do you just have your "I wanna post a good one-liner" blinders on?

[xpiher]

No, I haven't been involved in this discussion.

I don't understand how taxes wouldn't be involved. How else would these people be provided for "by society"?

The cost of those goods and services would be simply be cheaper becuase society sees them as necessary goods that shouldn't be denied to anyone. Since everyone would be using them. High demand and supply = low cost.

[StainlessSteelRat]

High demand and supply = low cost.

Just fyi, that's not exactly how it works. First, you want to say 'low price', not cost. But that's a bit of semantics. Second, the price still has to support the cost of the supplier or you will find supplies running short as it would not be profitable to produce the item. So high demand will be met by supply at equilibrium. Beyond that point (as the price drops), the suppliers will begin losing money on the product and stop producing etc etc

[Attau]

The cost of those goods and services would be simply be cheaper becuase society sees them as necessary goods that shouldn't be denied to anyone. Since everyone would be using them. High demand and supply = low cost.

I'm going to assume you were rushed when writing this because it is totally nonsense.

[Ziegler]

Has anyone else offered to step up to the plate and help out women?

I for one, am willing to give breast exams to most any good looking women who needs one.....just to do my part for society of course.

[Fugean]

xipher, why do you edit 90% of your posts?

[1998altima]

Has anyone else offered to step up to the plate and help out women?

I for one, am willing to give breast exams to most any good looking women who needs one.....just to do my part for society of course.

Actually I've been giving out free breast checkups for some time now. I don't understand why women give me weird looks on the street when I check them.

I mean I'm going out of my way to possibly save your life for nothing in return.

It's not like I'm asking them to check if I've got prostate cancer (although a few have tried).

[Gloomrender]

The cost of those goods and services would be simply be cheaper becuase society sees them as necessary goods that shouldn't be denied to anyone. Since everyone would be using them. High demand and supply = low cost.

This makes absolutely no sense man. If it was gonna be that way, it already would.

[Silverhandorder]

Just fyi, that's not exactly how it works. First, you want to say 'low price', not cost. But that's a bit of semantics. Second, the price still has to support the cost of the supplier or you will find supplies running short as it would not be profitable to produce the item. So high demand will be met by supply at equilibrium. Beyond that point (as the price drops), the suppliers will begin losing money on the product and stop producing etc etc

I'm going to assume you were rushed when writing this because it is totally nonsense.

This makes absolutely no sense man. If it was gonna be that way, it already would.

Guys the guy knows nothing about economics. This is self evident every time he argues his value system.

[xpiher]

Guys the guy knows nothing about economics. This is self evident every time he argues his value system.

Understanding how economics works and agreeing with how it works,as in that's the way it should work, are two different things. The basic element of supply demand theory is so simple that even most people in our failed public (inner city) education system know how it works. Of course there is an equilibrium, but usually perfect equilibrium results in lower cost, over all, than when its slanted on either side.

Looking at just health care, in a perfect economic system adequate health care (insurance) would be provided to every individual. Since insurance is nothing more than paying a little at a time to pay for future expensive, the more people the using the system, the cheaper the cost would be (since the profit threshold would be lower). The reason the profit threshold gets lower as more people sign up for insurance is because insurance companies make most of their profit off of just being middle men: we will guarantee X number of patients if you promise to charge us less with the benefit of you getting more money than you would other wise.

Why isn't the above the case in the current system? A number of reasons. One, the above doesn't yield as high profits as the current system because in the current system an insurance company can basically sell you nothing since they can legally, atm any ways, deny you coverage at the drop of the hat. Two, not everyone is able to get insurance due mainly to cost. Problem with the cost is that its, imo, artificially high due to regional disparities and monopolies, and the cost of education mainly debt. Less people being covered by insurance companies means that insurance companies are justified in charging more, and being able to drop coverage raises the net profit.

The way social justice would address this one issue is by: Removing the ability to deny converge, remove regional monopolies, remove regional scarcity, and attempt to lower the cost of education or at least debt. There are ways to do all those things without raising taxes or an overly intrusive government.

[Gloomrender]

The way social justice would address this one issue is by: Removing the ability to deny converge, remove regional monopolies, remove regional scarcity, and attempt to lower the cost of education or at least debt. There are ways to do all those things without raising taxes or an overly intrusive government.

All of those measures sound like government intrusion to me, and or wouldn't manifest out of nothing...and or are anti-capitalistic/wouldn't provide coverage. I just don't get it Xipher.

[xpiher]

All of those measures sound like government intrusion to me, and or wouldn't manifest out of nothing.

Society as a whole could address all these issues. The only government involvement that would be required would be the few laws that require insurance companies to not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and require insurance companies not to drop coverage at the drop of the hat. I could argue that what the insurance companies do is fraud.

Lets look at the debt equation, which is already started to be addressed without intrusive government involvement.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/news/economy/healthcare_medicalschool_free/index.htm

Long story short: The University of Florida new med school program is giving 40 student four years of medical school for free! How, through private members of the state of Florida pulling resources together. This is society seeing a issue and working together to solve it.

All 40 students of this charter class that begins Monday have received full scholarships totaling $7 million, donated entirely by members of the community -- including individuals, hospitals, banks and law firms.

Private loan institutions could go the same route by offering student loans at reduced, or no interest rates to "qualified" individuals. Without the debt, more people may be inclined to get into the medical field, more people in the field means more people competing for jobs, more competition reduces wages. However, since debt isn't in the equation, even though doctors may end up making less, their quality of living will likely no decrease, since they'll have more money in "pocket." Since DR cost are lower, then medical care cost will also be lower.

Competition in insurance companies can be addressed without government involvement. In fact, part of the reason why there are regional disparities and monopolies is due to direct government involvement, by both the states and the federal government. If the federal government reduced the complications that prevent insurance companies from selling across state line, then competition will increase and lower cost for the same reason already mentioned above. One way to this would be to allow insurance companies to apply for a federal licenses to sell insurance. To bring cost further down, since healthy individual makes a healthy society, tax break incentives can be given to individuals who get insurance and lead healthy life styles. Note, I don't say fines, just tax breaks. Incentive > negative reinforcement.

Get where I'm going with this?

[Silverhandorder]

Understanding how economics works and agreeing with how it works,as in that's the way it should work, are two different things. The basic element of supply demand theory is so simple that even most people in our failed public (inner city) education system know how it works. Of course there is an equilibrium, but usually perfect equilibrium results in lower cost, over all, than when its slanted on either side.

No there are many factors that effect price. One of the biggest factors is competition. And not the BS competition your buddies talk about. I am talking about competition with no government set guidelines on how product should be, no government licenses, no government protectionism

Another factor that controls prices is the scarcity of resources. Not everyone can have a a fucking mansion. Your socialist solution is not to have those houses. AKA soviet style. However this is how progress is made which you said you wanted.

But anyways so far you can't even get elementary economics down. Otherwise you would not say equilibrium results in lower prices. One can have a spike in supplies (housing market). In this case the equilibrium price is going to be higher.

Looking at just health care, in a perfect economic system adequate health care (insurance) would be provided to every individual. Since insurance is nothing more than paying a little at a time to pay for future expensive, the more people the using the system, the cheaper the cost would be (since the profit threshold would be lower). The reason the profit threshold gets lower as more people sign up for insurance is because insurance companies make most of their profit off of just being middle men: we will guarantee X number of patients if you promise to charge us less with the benefit of you getting more money than you would other wise.

Um no... You don't even know what insurance is. I am not surprised the meaning of it has been corrupted by media and politicians. Insurance is a risk hedge. You create a pool with other people for a low probability event. This way at any one time if you encounter this risk you can manage it by tapping into that pool.

Also to point out there are many types of insurance. There is insurance provided by middle managers like you suggested but there is also insurance that is run by the very people who pay into it.

The insurance we have today is the exact same one you are advocating for. You just want it provided for free. Now this type of insurance has low deductibles. Low deductibles make the cost of insurance higher. It would be exactly like getting home insurance for leaky pipes and clogged sinks. Does the economics of the insurance we have now sink in at all at this point?

So the market is trying to fix the problem. The way the market is solving this problem is that it is bringing these type of insurances out of business. What dems and reps are doing is trying to prevent that from happening. This is the stupidest thing they can do right now.

Why isn't the above the case in the current system? A number of reasons. One, the above doesn't yield as high profits as the current system because in the current system an insurance company can basically sell you nothing since they can legally, atm any ways, deny you coverage at the drop of the hat. Two, not everyone is able to get insurance due mainly to cost. Problem with the cost is that its, imo, artificially high due to regional disparities and monopolies, and the cost of education mainly debt. Less people being covered by insurance companies means that insurance companies are justified in charging more, and being able to drop coverage raises the net profit.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Unsavory business practices are eliminated in a free market (voluntary association between individuals). If anything you should put the blame on the government for making HMOs so big by providing them grants and pushing them on all of us.

I don't think you understand profits at all. They are 4.5%(somewhere around there). By comparison craft has 8% profit. Their profits are hardly out of ordinary.

You complaint about dropping people is unfounded. That is the job the insurance company. They have to eliminate risk from their pool. Hence why they offer 1 year contracts. If you were smart you would recognize if people are concerned they should negotiate for longer contracts. However when government allows one type of business to corner the entire market it is hard to right it right away.

Yes you have valid points about states setting up monopolies for companies in their region. But you would be surprised that I am with you on this one. I think government should come in and tell the states to suck on it.

The high prices are from over utilization. This means too many people go to the doctor. You don't need to go to the doctor every time you have a fucking runny nose. There are also various restrictions like licensing for doctors by only one organization. There is also protectionism that makes it impossible for qualified people like nurses to do simple procedures. I bet you would agree on reforming this too.

The way social justice would address this one issue is by: Removing the ability to deny converge, remove regional monopolies, remove regional scarcity, and attempt to lower the cost of education or at least debt. There are ways to do all those things without raising taxes or an overly intrusive government.

No most of those things would miserably fail.

Not being able to deny coverage will turn insurance into a prepaid service. Why the fuck should I pay someone to pay the doctor for me every month. I am just as capable of doing that my self. There is no discount on high risk events in case you did not figure it out yet. No matter how big your pool of customers is.

There is no such a thing as regional scarcity. Scarcity exists everywhere. I am not even sure you are using the correct term to describe what you consider to be the problem. Are you talking about the situation like where in Canada small towns are absolutely denied doctors? That's not regional scarcity that is government solutions at work.

Now knowing the way you approach problems attempting to reduce cost of education and debt could only end up a disaster. A real way to reduce cost of education is by allowing certification outside of government and medical schools. This way you will create a lot more doctors who are specialized in different services. This will lower prices and salaries but increase the number of quality doctors.

Same goes for debt. No one is going to go to a 40k per year medical school when they can shadow a doctor and self educate. Before AMA we had a lot of apprentice doctors. The medical schools will have to either close or lower prices.

Anyways none of what I said will have any influence on you. All you care is about redistributing wealth. You want to pay for the working poor. What you don't understand is that the way you go about it makes it economically impossible.

[xpiher]

Anyways none of what I said will have any influence on you. All you care is about redistributing wealth. You want to pay for the working poor. What you don't understand is that the way you go about it makes it economically impossible.

I don't want to pay for the working poor, I want the working poor to be able to pay for it themselves i.e. eliminate poverty.Poverty should only be be quantified by a lack of wants, not needs. It has nothing to do with redistributing wealth, I have no intention of taking your money and giving it to other people.

You complaint about dropping people is unfounded. That is the job the insurance company. They have to eliminate risk from their pool. Hence why they offer 1 year contracts. If you were smart you would recognize if people are concerned they should negotiate for longer contracts. However when government allows one type of business to corner the entire market it is hard to right it right away.

Its not invalid at all. A person gets sick, has paid for insurance their entire lives and is then dropped. This happens often.

There is no such a thing as regional scarcity. Scarcity exists everywhere. I am not even sure you are using the correct term to describe what you consider to be the problem. Are you talking about the situation like where in Canada small towns are absolutely denied doctors? That's not regional scarcity that is government solutions at work.

Regional scarcity in the sense that some states have 3+ insurance companies and a plethora of hospitals, while other states don't. Some of it is government created, some of it isn't.

Now knowing the way you approach problems attempting to reduce cost of education and debt could only end up a disaster. A real way to reduce cost of education is by allowing certification outside of government and medical schools. This way you will create a lot more doctors who are specialized in different services. This will lower prices and salaries but increase the number of quality doctors.

Assuming that is just as good or better than the current system. I don't know, I'm not a medical student. Both the folida example and what you suggest are ways to reduce cost.

I don't think you understand profits at all. They are 4.5%(somewhere around there). By comparison craft has 8% profit. Their profits are hardly out of ordinary.

Do those figures include the multi-million salaries that are paid to the top? Like I said thought, profits rarely trickle down, money always flows upward.

Yes you have valid points about states setting up monopolies for companies in their region. But you would be surprised that I am with you on this one. I think government should come in and tell the states to suck on it.


No surprised at all, its sensible.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Unsavory business practices are eliminated in a free market (voluntary association between individuals). If anything you should put the blame on the government for making HMOs so big by providing them grants and pushing them on all of us.


I blame Nixon and Kissinger for it specifically so yes I agree with you.

The high prices are from over utilization. This means too many people go to the doctor. You don't need to go to the doctor every time you have a fucking runny nose. There are also various restrictions like licensing for doctors by only one organization. There is also protectionism that makes it impossible for qualified people like nurses to do simple procedures. I bet you would agree on reforming this too.

I'd say that medical practices are screwed up in general on this end. Yes, a RPN can handle a lot of the common cases that doctors get called to do becuase its industry standard. However, I wouldn't say that people in US are overly concerned about their health, Japan on the other hand :lmao: Case in point, most people don't go to the doctor for simple pain in the wrist or for the flu.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I don't want to pay for the working poor, I want the working poor to be able to pay for it themselves i.e. elimiate poverty. Poverty shouldn't include needs. Provety should only be about wants, not needs. It has nothing to do with redistrubting wealth, I have no intention of taking your money and giving it to other people.

Don't most 'poor' people in the US own their own homes? Have cars? Cable TV?

[xpiher]

Don't most 'poor' people in the US own their own homes? Have cars? Cable TV?

No. Most poor people rent everything. Cable TV is probably the only luxury that most poor people have. Oh, and in some areas owning a car isn't a luxury, its a necessity because there isn't any other way to get to and from work at least not reliably.

PS: Read my edit lol

[BAKehT]

No. Most poor people rent everything. Cable TV is probably the only luxury that most poor people have. Oh, and in some areas owning a car isn't a luxury, its a necessity because there isn't any other way to get to and from work at least not reliably.

PS: Read my edit lol

So seriously... why do you edit nearly every single one of your posts? Do you feel some urge to post as soon as possible and then add more info the your post later on or do you simply see some grammar or spelling mistakes and want to fix them?

[xpiher]

So seriously... why do you edit nearly every single one of your posts? Do you feel some urge to post as soon as possible and then add more info the your post later on or do you simply see some grammar or spelling mistakes and want to fix them?

A little bit of both. Something I post an argument and then see 3 replies were made while I was posting, or I re-read a post I was quoting and change my mind.

[Silverhandorder]

No. Most poor people rent everything. Cable TV is probably the only luxury that most poor people have. Oh, and in some areas owning a car isn't a luxury, its a necessity because there isn't any other way to get to and from work at least not reliably.

PS: Read my edit lol

Renting is not a problem. Many people rent because it is cheaper then owning.

Anyways here educate your self a bit.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm

Speaking about charity it does more for the poor then government does.

[StainlessSteelRat]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm

I was looking for that but couldn't find it.

[Vessol]

Seriously. Even if you are homeless, it's not hard to get a meal or two a day. It's not hard to get a job and work yourself up. I've done it once myself and my mother has done it 3 times.

[xpiher]

Renting is not a problem. Many people rent because it is cheaper then owning.

Anyways here educate your self a bit.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm

Speaking about charity it does more for the poor then government does.

My family has been poor my entire life. I know what being poor is like. Hell I'm poor now becuase I have two useless degrees (B.A.s) and can't go back to school and a huge amount of debt (a little over 60k). Even though what you say is true, there are still huge gaps between the poor and the rich and its mostly seen in education and health and an indirect affect on real opportunity.

I hope that in the next 8-10years someone seriously tries to fix the education problem the US has.

Edit: Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

I would change that. "Poor" typically don't own a home unless they inherited it. That's what happened what indirectly happened with my family (money was left)

Seriously. Even if you are homeless, it's not hard to get a meal or two a day. It's not hard to get a job and work yourself up. I've done it once myself and my mother has done it 3 times.

Again, you are the exception to the rule. Your mother had meaningful work experience, and probably a collage degree. In order to get a job you need a few things: an address, a phone, experience (at least in this economy), and generally help. Most homeless people don't meet any of those, and a lot of poor people don't have experience or an education.

Edit: About my own poverty: 1 meal a day isn't enough to eat, having your heat turned off in the middle of winter isn't getting by, etc.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I would change that. "Poor" typically don't own a home unless they inherited it. That's what happened what indirectly happened with my family (money was left)

You can't simply 'change' that. And whether inherited or purchased isn't really relevant. That 43% of 'poor' people probably have a larger net worth than my 'lower middle class' ass.

It's not exactly poor.

[xpiher]

You can't simply 'change' that. And whether inherited or purchased isn't really relevant. That 43% of 'poor' people probably have a larger net worth than my 'lower middle class' ass.

It's not exactly poor.

Which is why the census is misleading. They are lower middle class. My family is poor, they own their own house becuase of inheritance but like I said, 1 meal a day, having your heat turned off in the winter, kraft and chilly dinners (the kind of food that's bad for you and is the leading cause of obesity), and no medical coverage (expect what was provided for by the state), isn't exactly getting by now is it?

Oh, and some poor people would say 1 meal a day is enough food. Well... is it?

[StainlessSteelRat]

Which is why the census is misleading. They are lower middle class. My family is poor, they own their own house becuase of inheritance but like I said, 1 meal a day, having your heat turned off in the winter, kraft and chilly dinners (the kind of food that's bad for you and is the leading cause of obesity), and no medical coverage (expect what was provided for by the state), isn't exactly getting by now is it?

Oh, and some poor people would say 1 meal a day is enough food. Well... is it?

Hehe, I'm losing track of which posts are in which threads fyi. You'll understand when you see my reply in the other thread or vice versa.

Maybe you are the exception and not Vessol? (rhetorical due to the anecdotal nature of both your stories). I don't want to delve into the details of your situation but when you take into account all the info in that link, those poor families are either eating or they have their spending priorities fucked up. Obviously, no all are eating but the majority are or fall into the fucked up priorities category. People are responsible for their own choices.

EDIT - if by misleading you mean the 'poor' benchmark is too high; sure. But they do that on purpose in order to generate false need for more and more social spending. Imagine what all that social spending money could do for the truly poor if the 'not really poor' were excluded.

[Silverhandorder]

My family has been poor my entire life. I know what being poor is like. Hell I'm poor now becuase I have two useless degrees (B.A.s) and can't go back to school and a huge amount of debt (a little over 60k). Even though what you say is true, there are still huge gaps between the poor and the rich and its mostly seen in education and health and an indirect affect on real opportunity.

I hope that in the next 8-10years someone seriously tries to fix the education problem the US has.

What the hell were you thinking when you were getting your self into such debt? No what is even more puzzling is how you can set here and defend the system that got you into such debt. This is your bs social justice that has you in debt right now. Think about it if we had no government backing the loans no one would give you a student loan for a BA that can make you no money. Right now you would either not be in debt or have a meaningful BA.


I would change that. "Poor" typically don't own a home unless they inherited it. That's what happened what indirectly happened with my family (money was left)


No it means what it means.

Again, you are the exception to the rule. Your mother had meaningful work experience, and probably a collage degree. In order to get a job you need a few things: an address, a phone, experience (at least in this economy), and generally help. Most homeless people don't meet any of those, and a lot of poor people don't have experience or an education.

How is he an exception to the rule? Look around. Come up to any bum and ask him why he is on the street when there are homeless shelters that are empty all over the city. Right now you are defending those people. And in case you did not know there are plenty of places hiring where they would not mind taking people who list a homeless shelter as an address.

Edit: About my own poverty: 1 meal a day isn't enough to eat, having your heat turned off in the middle of winter isn't getting by, etc.

I think Vessol said 2. And in any case it all depends on the meal. In America portions are huge. I think we went over meals last time it came up. There is no hunger in America period.

Getting heat turned off is not the worst that can happen. I am not trying to be little your position. There was a time when we just came here where my entire family lived in a tiny studio. That

[Silverhandorder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfGjqmG47cU <--- Schiff on senate bill.

[Gloomrender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfGjqmG47cU <--- Schiff on senate bill.

That link is GG for social justice theory. If you can't deny based on pre-existing conditions, insurance dies.

[xpiher]

What the hell were you thinking when you were getting your self into such debt? No what is even more puzzling is how you can set here and defend the system that got you into such debt. This is your bs social justice that has you in debt right now. Think about it if we had no government backing the loans no one would give you a student loan for a BA that can make you no money. Right now you would either not be in debt or have a meaningful BA.

The reason my degrees are useless is becuase people with masters degree are applying for the same jobs that I qualify for (entry level, paid 2year internships, or G5) when they should be going after jobs that require a higher level of education (G6+ about a 20-30k a year difference in pay). They aren't useless, they just are right now due to a shirty economy. And social justice didn't put me in the situation I'm in now, making somewhat of a bad choice did (school choice mainly). However, without those loans, I wouldn't have been able to attend school period. By your example, I would have been stuck with a degree(s) and job potential that I wouldn't be able to stand.


How is he an exception to the rule? Look around. Come up to any bum and ask him why he is on the street when there are homeless shelters that are empty all over the city. Right now you are defending those people. And in case you did not know there are plenty of places hiring where they would not mind taking people who list a homeless shelter as an address.

Most homeless people suffer from some form of mental defect. And I have no idea were you live, but homeless shelters are never empty, they are usually filled to capacity. In most major cities, they actually have an over flow.

I think Vessol said 2. And in any case it all depends on the meal. In America portions are huge. I think we went over meals last time it came up. There is no hunger in America period.

Whatever you say

That link is GG for social justice theory. If you can't deny based on pre-existing conditions, insurance dies.

I don't know the exact language of the bill, but isn't the spirit of it that you can't drop people who have already been approved for pre-existing conditions and that you can't deny them coverage, but you can charge them more. The former should happen regardless imo, but if the latter isn't the case that's something that should be changed.

[Gloomrender]

No, It's you can't deny for pre-existing conditions. So I have no health insurance, I get sick, no problem, I buy it from the state, they can't deny me. Bye private health insurance.

[xpiher]

No, It's you can't deny for pre-existing conditions. So I have no health insurance, I get sick, no problem, I buy it from the state, they can't deny me. Bye private health insurance.

Yes, they can't deny you. But can they charge you more. If they can charage you more, then whats the problem?

[Gloomrender]

Yes, they can't deny you. But can they charge you more. If they can charage you more, then whats the problem?

Nope, the penalty is nothing. It's 100 bucks right now.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Hah, you people are so silly.

It's quite amazing that they came to the same conclusion in Belgium way back in 2002 just so it would fit the new healthcare bill in the US in 2009. AMAZING, just AMAZING!!!!!

idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr6fgDs3jDo&feature=ytn%3Amptnews

Second half of interview. 3:05 on.

[Gloomrender]

Watch the damn video Xipher, please, if you haven't (the one with Peter Schiff).

[xpiher]

Watch the damn video Xipher, please, if you haven't (the one with Peter Schiff).

can you re-link it

[Gloomrender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfGjqmG47cU <--- Schiff on senate bill.

^

[StainlessSteelRat]

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/health&id=7129084

.....

Obama hates women.

[Sqarak]

The fun will only begin when they start rationing prosthetics.

[Silverhandorder]

The fun will only begin when they start rationing prosthetics.

What are you talking about it you don't need these plastic things. You got perfectly fine stubs you can run on.