• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Romney praises socialised medicine

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Some people in this thread seem to want the government to provide unlimited healthcare to absolutely everyone with no rationing based on cost, priority or qualification. I can't see any problems with this.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Some people in this thread seem to want the government to provide unlimited healthcare to absolutely everyone with no rationing based on cost, priority or qualification. I can't see any problems with this.
Basically, yes. And when this gets mentioned, conservatives act like it's suggesting offering unicorns and fairy dust, instead of something that's worked for decades for many other countries who spend less as % of GDP than we do on health care, have much much better statistics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.) than we do, and report much higher satisfaction with that care.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Basically, yes. And when this gets mentioned, conservatives act like it's suggesting offering unicorns and fairy dust, instead of something that's worked for decades for many other countries who spend less as % of GDP than we do on health care, have much much better statistics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.) than we do, and report much higher satisfaction with that care.
What's interesting is that those who mock unicorns use what happens in different countries with different demographic, who do not understand why mortality stats are what they are, appeal to the "magic missile" spell of other nations.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Basically, yes. And when this gets mentioned, conservatives act like it's suggesting offering unicorns and fairy dust, instead of something that's worked for decades for many other countries who spend less as % of GDP than we do on health care, have much much better statistics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.) than we do, and report much higher satisfaction with that care.
Except the problem is that half of health care spending is by the government, which means that the government is already spending as much on health care in the US as in other countries, but is failing to provide health care to the majority of the population.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,109
14,303
136
Some people in this thread seem to want the government to provide unlimited healthcare to absolutely everyone with no rationing based on cost, priority or qualification. I can't see any problems with this.
You're smarter than that. Resorting to strawmen isn't your style.

It's the "qualification" part we have problems with more than anything else, particularly if our resident misogynist's standards are applied. Our own inefficient system stands alone among first world nations, and not in a good way. I thought conservatives were all about "efficiency", but apparently that doesn't apply to anything other than pumping money to the top o' the heap...

What Mitt's remarks show, in general, and in particular wrt Israeli healthcare is that he's mostly clueless outside the realm of looting american companies for profit & offshoring his money.

He's an idiot savant weasel of sorts, with great hair & fabulous connections who'll say anything to get what he wants. The notion that he has any sort of scruples beyond the firm belief that the Rich should get richer is foolish.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,109
14,303
136
What's interesting is that those who mock unicorns use what happens in different countries with different demographic, who do not understand why mortality stats are what they are, appeal to the "magic missile" spell of other nations.
Pray tell- educate us.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
Except the problem is that half of health care spending is by the government, which means that the government is already spending as much on health care in the US as in other countries, but is failing to provide health care to the majority of the population.
I've seen that number before (I believe the estimate is 45-51 % for Government spending) but further research indicates 30% of that is comprised of the tax breaks the government gives for various health care related items, such as employer sponsored health care. I think another 16% is the VA. Given the recent wars that number should rise.
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,039
0
76
I listed several things we should expect people to do to minimize their chances of become burdens to the state previously:



Add in surcharges for those who smoke and are obese and you are probably doing pretty well.
1) What about problems that have begun before the graduation of high school?
2) What does this have to do with, well, anything?
3) What about addiction to prescribed drugs? And does the theft of a minor article (for example, shoplifting a t-shirt when you were 15) justify the decision to deny you the kidney transplant you need when you are 50?

And this is without going into the actual reason I bought the issue up - people I think are deserving, but you don't, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY