On November 30 2019 22:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I was going to write a long reply but deleted it all when I realised it was jimmyjraynor . Says it all really.
Also that Cymbalta advert. WTF, that kind of thing would be illegal in about 3 different ways here. Also at one point the subtitles on the screen says "tell your doctor if you are pregnant or nursing" but the voiceover is "tell your doctor right away if your depression worsens."
Boy oh boy, pulling the classic "I could of engaged intelligently but instead I realized that I have put x poster into a box that allows me to easily turn every one of their arguments into a strawman based on their assigned negative identity I've projected onto them."
Really is conducive to the discussion being had. Great stuff.
To be fair, his posts in this thread only may discourage many people from replying. On the other hand, I also think that the only way to deal with people like JJR is to try to engage them in a civil way, so I am disappointed that DMCD gave up on him. I don't think JJR is a bad person, he is just so deeply unwilling to see world from any other perspective than his own, which seems to be quite privileged one.
You're certainly not wrong that it's difficult to see the world in a different way than through the lens that your environment has given you. I suspect it's the source of so much of the conflict in the TL political sphere. I hadn't chimed into the discussion because I'm not particularly well informed on the extremely complex differences medical systems of the world. In my life, private health care has worked quickly, effectively, and been very human-centered. I feel like I am genuinely well cared for and treated well even though its a capitalistic system. Any experiences with governmental clinics have been far worse.
Of course, not everyone is as fortunate as me, so I don't go around saying "socialized medicine bad, private healthcare good get recked kids." I think if there could be a system where a robust social safety net provides free healthcare to the lower-income community, while a private healthcare system is allowed to flourish and compete for those who can afford it, The best of both systems could be combined. I appreciate the points that Jimmy was making because it adds another perspective to the disussion, maybe private healthcare has value in certain circumstances, but certainly not for the down and out population.
What is really frustrating to me is the behavior that people have which makes them think because they associate a certain poster with x views, they have a free pass to add low quality digs at them and even go the trouble to post " I was going to reply, but then I saw it was you ha!" which is just developed form of straw-manning.
I can see how your idea of the system makes perfect sense at first sight, but there is an important point that it really needs to work in the way that everyone must compulsorily pay for the public part, even if they don't plan on using it and yhe contribution needs to be a tax on your income, not flat fee. The problem is that if we don't want people dieing or getting bankrupt we need a huge amount of solidarity and redistribution. Simply said: the ill and the poor don't make collectively enough money to fund their healthcare. A working public system needs the healthy and the rich - if you allow them to "escape" in their own world, the heatlhcare of the rest collapses. If we just accept that the "health insurance" thing i makes no sense and stop pretending it's not a tax, then I can easily imagine privatr systems above it and this is actually what works in many places in Europe anyway.
Indeed, although the rich aren’t really doing the poor a favour it’s mutually beneficial and suits the abstract interests of the state too.
Healthcare expenditure isn’t a flat line across age demographics, it’s generally higher with infant care and also peaks sharply in old age when we get into the dementia risk zone.
The wealthy tend to live a fair bit longer into that zone by virtue of the other advantages of their wealth, but costs of care if one develops dementia and doesn’t die quickly are massive. Complicated further as they aren’t lucid enough to be in charge of their own financial affairs.
At least in the UK smokers actually save the NHS money because the sales tax on cigarettes is huge, but also they tend to die before the dementia risk zone much more often.
Which is just a factoid I thought I’d put in, because I’ve had the ‘Why should the NHS pay for your bad choices?’ argument thrown at me in the past so I think people’s understanding of the facts and costs of the system the frequently wrong.
As a (far too heavy) smoker I’m happy to pay that extra sales tax as it’s appropriate for a nationalised health service to recoup from me and a bad life choice.
Any attempts to tax booze or fatty foods are met with a load of complaining and whining which frustrates me. Booze adds both a lot of expense on to the NHS, but also has an associated societal cost with violence, traffic accidents etc too.
On November 30 2019 22:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I was going to write a long reply but deleted it all when I realised it was jimmyjraynor . Says it all really.
Also that Cymbalta advert. WTF, that kind of thing would be illegal in about 3 different ways here. Also at one point the subtitles on the screen says "tell your doctor if you are pregnant or nursing" but the voiceover is "tell your doctor right away if your depression worsens."
Boy oh boy, pulling the classic "I could of engaged intelligently but instead I realized that I have put x poster into a box that allows me to easily turn every one of their arguments into a strawman based on their assigned negative identity I've projected onto them."
Really is conducive to the discussion being had. Great stuff.
To be fair, his posts in this thread only may discourage many people from replying. On the other hand, I also think that the only way to deal with people like JJR is to try to engage them in a civil way, so I am disappointed that DMCD gave up on him. I don't think JJR is a bad person, he is just so deeply unwilling to see world from any other perspective than his own, which seems to be quite privileged one.
You're certainly not wrong that it's difficult to see the world in a different way than through the lens that your environment has given you. I suspect it's the source of so much of the conflict in the TL political sphere. I hadn't chimed into the discussion because I'm not particularly well informed on the extremely complex differences medical systems of the world. In my life, private health care has worked quickly, effectively, and been very human-centered. I feel like I am genuinely well cared for and treated well even though its a capitalistic system. Any experiences with governmental clinics have been far worse.
Of course, not everyone is as fortunate as me, so I don't go around saying "socialized medicine bad, private healthcare good get recked kids." I think if there could be a system where a robust social safety net provides free healthcare to the lower-income community, while a private healthcare system is allowed to flourish and compete for those who can afford it, The best of both systems could be combined. I appreciate the points that Jimmy was making because it adds another perspective to the disussion, maybe private healthcare has value in certain circumstances, but certainly not for the down and out population.
What is really frustrating to me is the behavior that people have which makes them think because they associate a certain poster with x views, they have a free pass to add low quality digs at them and even go the trouble to post " I was going to reply, but then I saw it was you ha!" which is just developed form of straw-manning.
Yes let’s engage earnestly with ‘if you make bad decisions you deserve to die’ rhetoric.
That system does exist in some form in a bunch of places, and despite my political leanings I think it’s a good blend when the mix is right.
Entirely free everything and people clog up the system with all sorts of bollocks that doesn’t need medical attention, because it’s free, and despite protestations from some that does bring a degree of entitlement and inefficient use of medical resources. Which ends up in waiting lists that impact those in need of said resources, this absolutely is an issue.
But one can make those points without phrasing it in a way that is profoundly insulting to people of varying circumstances.
Also not sure how we got here anyway, on a blog about American advertisements for said drugs, in a country with statistically measured widespread issues of abuse of said drugs to a discussion about the ills of socialised medicine.
I don't think free healthcare leads to excessive clogging, most people don't go to the doctor if they're fine, and being able to just go to the doctor when you feel unwell helps promote preventative care compared to the American way where we don't go to the doctor unless it's in an ambulance.
Most Canadians I know tell me if they need to see the doctor they just go, they don't wait in crazy lines or anything beyond the pale half hour wait or so sometimes.
People don't want to dick around at the doctor forever, theyd rather not go if they don't have to, if they're sick less and able to go for small easily treated stuff once in a while compared to going just the once for something that demands immediate and serious treatment money, time, lives all get saved.
The only version of US healthcare that's half decent is the rich people kind. Last time I had to go to the hospital I waited 3 hours for a doctor to show up. That's the kind of thing that proponents of US healthcare would say happens in OTHER countries where they spend less on healthcare.
The issue stems from the extremely short-sighted yet seemingly sensical idea that self-worth = your net worth.
Premise: I have more money than others because I am a better person (smarter, stronger, more savvy, etc.).
Premise: People deserve to have more than those they are better than.
Given: Universal health care disproportionately helps the poor over non-poor.
Given: Lack of private health care disables the ability to have ones money play a role in quality of health care.
Conclusion: If universal health care and removal of PHC are implemented, I am punished for being a better person, and those who are worse than me are rewarded. Due to premise 2, this is nonsensical.
Conclusion: The most just/fair system is one that is the most dependent on money/“finding good deals”, as this maximally rewards the person based on how good they are.
The trick is to address the two premises. JJR, not only is it conceivable but I’d argue highly probable that there exists an individual who is “better” than you in all qualities that you define the word, with the exception that they have less money than you.
EDIT-Wombat and GreenHorizons posts on page 1921 in US Politics thread touch on this as well.
EPT
