Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
At this stage in the game we could still beat China after you dems are in power a few years they'll have us beat.
As for most free nation name any nation in the world you think has more freedom than us?
Edit-I see exdeath already did a great job arguing this point. I don?t know who you are exdeath but I think we are on the same page.
So the economy being possibly the strongest it's ever been and unemployment being lower than it has been for years is not helping you, how about the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack since sept 11th, more americans could die in a single terrorist attack then in the entire Iraq war.
What is it exactly that you want? Let me give you some advice that might help you 1)Stop sitting around waiting for handouts and start doing something for yourself 2)Stop believing everything the democrats tell you.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
oh, that's rich... coming from the dude whose posting history consist mostly of "yeah dude" "right on, your right...." and "lolol."
I wouldn't call using manic logic and selective quoting "substance."
Unfortunately most people here are missing the point. This debate is about national policy. As far as NATIONAL policy goes, ie. the one that the people in Washington should be going for, socialized medicine is a no brainer. It doesn't matter if individual people here and there could get better care under a different system. That will ALWAYS be true regardless of what system you put in place. What's funny is that people here don't seem to notice that this will save them their Hard Earned Cash in the long run.
Socialized medicine has been proven time and time and time again by dozens of other countries to simply be better, more efficient, and provide a better standard of health to the population as a whole. Since the purpose of a health care system is to maintain the health of the population, this is by definition better. Again, policy no brainer for any responsible politician.
Honestly, it really doesn't matter what the right wingers think anyway. Our current system is rapidly heading towards collapse... so whether they like it or not they will be encountering a socialized system in the near future.
Also, I don't know why people refer to the "free market" when talking about the mega corporations that make up the oil, gas, pharmacutical, HMO, etc. industries. There is nothing free about those markets. There hasn't been for a long time. When the government is subsidizing multi billion dollar corporations with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds... those corporations lose the ability to claim that their markets are free.
Socialized medicine has been proven time and time and time again by dozens of other countries to simply be better, more efficient, and provide a better standard of health to the population as a whole. Since the purpose of a health care system is to maintain the health of the population, this is by definition better. Again, policy no brainer for any responsible politician.
Honestly, it really doesn't matter what the right wingers think anyway. Our current system is rapidly heading towards collapse... so whether they like it or not they will be encountering a socialized system in the near future.
Also, I don't know why people refer to the "free market" when talking about the mega corporations that make up the oil, gas, pharmacutical, HMO, etc. industries. There is nothing free about those markets. There hasn't been for a long time. When the government is subsidizing multi billion dollar corporations with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds... those corporations lose the ability to claim that their markets are free.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Socialized medicine+USA's large population=disaster
- loss of motivation for medical innovations... why would medical practitioners and companies continue to try to outperform eachother? What would be their new motivation?
- The rates for the best available treatments will skyrocket because they will only be available in "private clinics" that would most likely be located offshore somewhere... the best treatments won't be available in standard hospitals because the Dr's who know how to perform them will never choose to work for peanuts compared to what they could make "offshore"... They'll take the latest and greatest treatments with them when they bail!
- Our large population will require huge tax hikes to support a socialized system. This will not be noticed by those who are poor.. it will most certainly be a tax on the middle class and the wealthy who already have a company that pays for most of their insurance! Do you honestly believe that employers would raise salaries because they no longer have to pay for medical coverage!? YEAH RIGHT! socialized medicine will drill a hole straight through our wallets into our gut!
- Do you really want to have to wait months on end for a standard eye exam or physical!? With our population, I cannot imagine the wait times... just look at Canada and others who have to wait 3-6 months for some very basic medical care! screw that! you are now jeopardizing the health of MY family just because we are middle class and can afford our own health care... swell.
What motivation do we have now???
The only drugs realeased are for profit making only.
Real research is being suppressed under the guise of Religion to protect said profits.
Disgusting and those that support this are Un-American.
Since when was profit *not* motivation?
It typically works that way for us normal people, Dave.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
I think that Dave fails to understand the basic premise of market-driven innovation. He probably thinks that the leading edge of medical science exists because the Dr's and research scientists just like what they do... because they just love to "help people"... HA!
Dave, please re-read my last post.. I edited and spelled everything out a bit.
I saw a bit on TV this morning about a new procedure that has been approved, a uterus transplant . They are going to take the uterus from a dead donor and put it in someone who has a damaged uterus and can't get pregnant.
That's really cool, but I have to ask myself if this is a medical innovation that will benifit the society at large? If anything this is more of a totally unnessecary life threatening procedure, especially since there are so many orphans in this world that need adopted.
If everyone was getting the health care treatment they actually need, I would be all for this but when we can't afford to give treatment to all the people we have that need treatment, this seems a little over the top to me. A waste of resources.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Are you a woman with a damaged uterus who would really love to have your own children? no? then what right do you have to eliminate the treatment with some sort of government-defined list of treatments that "they actually need"?!
The motivations which led to that brilliant medical breakthrough will virtually disappear if we move to socialized medicine; thus, you will be limiting MY options, and those available to MY family... all for the sake of taking care of people who cant take care of themselves?
bah.. what crap.
My sister and her husband went through this, they even asked my wife to be the surrogate mother for them. We/she said no, too dangerous. They went ahead and adopted and now have two great kids and are very happy.
You've already stated that your selfish and only care about the "lives and health" of yourself and your family, so don't give me this bleeding heart, song and dance act about the poor, childless women of thisa country/world. You are such a phoney, trying to act like you have are for some noble cause when you don't care about people who need help they can't afford, even though they are working. The fact is, you are only thinking of yourself. Well get over yourself already, your not that hot.
You are the one full of crap..... again. Your begining to sound as trollish as ProfJohn. You need to wake up and read the handwriting on the wall. There are almost 50 million unisured in this country and that number is growing at an alarming rate. I askled you previously and you never bothered to address it, what good does a medical breathrough do for someone who can't afford it?? They could invent a pill that gives you immortality, but if you can't afford it, it's worthless to you.
Actually, I really don't care if you answer, or attempt to answer. I've been on this forum too long and have gotten to the point where I can see right through phoney, BS slinging, heartless creeps like you and really don't give a damn what you think.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
you missed my point. I'm absolutely NOT attempting to portray myself as a bleeding heart in this case. Quite the opposite in fact. I asked you why people who CAN afford the advanced treatments, such as your example, should suffer from some sort of government-defined list of available treatments? Who are you or they to decide what others can/cannot have available to them in terms of leading edge medical treatments?!
I also pointed out that if you remove the monetary motivation from medical research and practice, then the US will no longer remain the leader in terms of innovative treatments and breakthroughs. the Dr's who can perform such research and treatments will go where they can make $, thus limiting the options available for those who can currently obtain those treatments.
You'll basically be punishing those who CAN get the treatments now by forcing us to support those who cannot. I see that as detrimental to my family's well-being since we've worked hard enough to afford the services on our own without government assistance.
It would hurt the middle and upper class, but hey, I think that's your goal, isnt it? you really don't believe in personal achievement and responsibility, do you? Well I do, and I've worked very hard for what I have... you and the government have no right to take away or limit our medical options.
ps: this has nothing to do with the wonderful aspects of adoption, so try to stay on-topic, k?
I didn't miss your point, your just so wrapped up in yourself you don't/won't see mine.
You think your the only one who works hard? I've know several smart, educated people who had there own business, but lost everything and went bankrupt because they couldn't afford insurance. They worked just as hard their whole lives as you or anyone else and probably harder then most.
The purpose of insurance is to make health insurance affordable to everyone, not just a select few that think they are better and more deserving then everyone else.
Possibly true, but this is why a "single-payer system" would be better than both.
Under a single-payer system, those doctors need to see patients in order to get any money. No patients, no money.
Not likely. It's true that out-of-pocket costs may climb, but the overall cost is still subject to supply and demand. Again, a single-payer system wouldn't have this problem because the doctors would have to negotiate prices with the government, just like they do with medical insurers now.
Completely bogus here. Tax corps the average that all companies pay towards health care (some would have to pay more, others less). Then, tax the average premiums that workers are currently paying (again, some will have to pay more, others less). Remove all of the administration overhead the medical insurers incur and lower the prices (because doctors wouldn't have to pass costs associated with non-payers on to those that do pay) and you probably have the costs pretty well covered. I'm not completely sure if this would cover the costs 100%, but I'd be willing to bet that it's close.
OK. When was the last time you were able to get in for a teeth cleaning at your dentist within a month? With a single-payer system, or even a socialized system, you'd just have to use some of your "personal responibility" and plan these things out a little. Or are you the kind of person that gets snide with the nurse just because you can't get your teeth cleaned tomorrow?
-red
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Are you seriously telling me that you've known people who "lost everything" because of expensive health insurance?! What kind of business did they run that they could not afford $300/mo for health insurance to cover their families? a lemonade stand?
You continue to ignore my comments on innovation and superior practitioners because I believe that you know what will happen, in that regard, if we move to socialized medicine.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Dr's will see it as: more patients, less money.
the government will never give the doctors the prices they charge insurance companies now. therefore less money = less motivation.
I do not agree; and, since you admit that you really do not know the numbers either, I'd have to say that our "guesses" could each be correct. agree to disagree?
I have never waited longer than a month for any medical appointment.. I suggest you look into Canada's system wherein some appointments take 3 to 6 months of waiting, and then, when they DO finally get in there for their appointment, their Dr's are subpar because all of the superior Dr's are in the U.S. making more $... so your apindectomy, which is normally an easy operation, is now being done by a Dr. who graduated in the lower half of his class...
bah... no way.
This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. The profit-loving hospitals may see it this way, but I doubt that the doctors and nurses (who are already being pushed to maximize turnover) will.
What are you basing your belief on here? Why would the government be less willing to pay fair prices compared to insurance companies that have their own bean counters?
I have admitted that I don't know the exact numbers, but I'll agree to your truce on this one point. At least until I can find some concrete numbers
You are creating a strawman here. My original point was about the timing under our current system compared to a single-payer system and you stumbled off into timing and quality of care under a socialized system. When I first started going to my current dentist (actually the dental hygenist in his office), I had to wait three months to get in. Now I make appointments six months in advance. Since I don't have a problem with this situation now, I don't see how I'll be unhappy under a single-payer system.
-red
Sorry but I have friends who can't get their Children insured due to various ailments. Not welfare kids but children of professionals.
I am all for Nationalized medicine. If you can afford better you should have the right to pay to upgrade your services, but everyone should have access to medical professionals.
You can either pay for it via having to fund Hospitals due to emergency rooms or you can just deal with Socialized medicine.
I am all for Nationalized medicine. If you can afford better you should have the right to pay to upgrade your services, but everyone should have access to medical professionals.
You can either pay for it via having to fund Hospitals due to emergency rooms or you can just deal with Socialized medicine.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter