|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 08 2016 01:16 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
KwarK, you're strawmanning here. I'm not arguing that the US health system needs improvements or that the it's somehow superior to the NHS. It would be ridiculous to think that (though I guess from the perspective of a billionaire the US is nice because you can have your own medical staff and access to cutting edge medicine). Do you really actually think poor billionaires in germany have somehow worse medical care than their counterparts in the US? The idea of universal healthcare is that it provides a reasonable/humane/dignified floor on treatment, not a ceiling. If you have more money to spend you can get a stay at your private luxurious treatment center in beautiful locations that even attracts despots and dictators from all over the world.
It was a joke. And the German billionaires fly to the US, because that's where the experimental drugs and procedures and the physicians/researchers that do them are.
|
I think we should reserve socialism for systems that publicly control the means of production. sanders is a new dealer, not a socialist. The word implies that this is somehow an ideological issue but it really isn't. Socialized healthcare is the only pragmatic solution for any modern state.
Also the Kasparov comment is slightly hilarious. Without the Soviet unions gargantuan efforts to fuel chess education he'd probably be in a very different situation now
|
United States44398 Posts
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that.
|
The fact that our hospitals advertise is the most comical thing in the US. Please have your life threatening illness treated at our high quality facility, not other places. Just us. We are the best, and by saying that we are claiming that all other facilities are worse than us.
|
On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that.
I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. Iliterally said I was cool with a nationalized system, just that implementation in the US is awfully hard.
On March 08 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:
The fact that our hospitals advertise is the most comical thing in the US. Please have your life threatening illness treated at our high quality facility, not other places. Just us. We are the best, and by saying that we are claiming that all other facilities are worse than us.
That's part of the free market, companies want your business. And if anything, it wouldn't change unless we fully nationalized the system like in the UK where hospitals and major centers are owned by the government (independent practices are still physician-owned IIRC). Nothing is wrong with competition, though price/quality/effectiveness transparency data available to consumers would be nice.
|
On March 08 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. I literally said I was cool with a nationalized system , just that implementation in the US is awfully hard.
Why not argue for a german system then? It seems much closer to your current one and has all the goodies of being universal and everyone with to much money can get whatever they want to pay for.
Since you seem to think only the US has cutting edge and everyone else lives in clay huts, one more link: en.wikipedia.org
|
On March 08 2016 01:44 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. I literally said I was cool with a nationalized system , just that implementation in the US is awfully hard. Why not argue for a german system then? It seems much closer to your current one and has all the goodies of being universal and everyone with to much money can get whatever they want to pay for. Since you seem to think only the US has cutting edge and everyone else lives in clay huts, one more link: en.wikipedia.org
I like the Swiss system. It's pretty similar to the German one.
I think you assume I'm some sort of healthcare ignoramus. I'm not. I'm perfectly aware that many nations have great medical research. The US just happens to have the best.
|
On March 08 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. I literally said I was cool with a nationalized system, just that implementation in the US is awfully hard. Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:
The fact that our hospitals advertise is the most comical thing in the US. Please have your life threatening illness treated at our high quality facility, not other places. Just us. We are the best, and by saying that we are claiming that all other facilities are worse than us. That's part of the free market, companies want your business. And if anything, it wouldn't change unless we fully nationalized the system like in the UK where hospitals and major centers are owned by the government (independent practices are still physician-owned IIRC). Nothing is wrong with competition, though price/quality/effectiveness transparency data available to consumers would be nice.
I am pretty sure that there is a problem with hospitals competing for business. NY state had to force theirs to stop buying new medical equipment and expending what they covered in treatment because they were getting into an arms race. Which drove up costs for everyone.
Also, that only works in a system where the consumer has reasonable information about cost and quality. Considering it is literally impossible to get a straight answer on costs from a hospital, the free market isn’t helping. It is weird to me that people think hospitals should be run under a free market system when nothing from the free market really applies to them. And the expanding coverage/facilities leads to inefficiency, because peoples need for medical treatment isn’t a predictable market.
|
Or the swiss one which is kinda ACA done right.
There are tons of diffrent Systems, some are pretty much ran by private insurers and hospitals. The one thing nearly all have in common is that they work better than the us System.
|
United States44398 Posts
On March 08 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. I literally said I was cool with a nationalized system, just that implementation in the US is awfully hard. Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:
The fact that our hospitals advertise is the most comical thing in the US. Please have your life threatening illness treated at our high quality facility, not other places. Just us. We are the best, and by saying that we are claiming that all other facilities are worse than us. That's part of the free market, companies want your business. And if anything, it wouldn't change unless we fully nationalized the system like in the UK where hospitals and major centers are owned by the government (independent practices are still physician-owned IIRC). Nothing is wrong with competition, though price/quality/effectiveness transparency data available to consumers would be nice.
I was not responding to you. You seemed to pretty much agree about US healthcare so I didn't see the point. It was more a general response to Kasparov.
|
On March 08 2016 01:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. I literally said I was cool with a nationalized system, just that implementation in the US is awfully hard. On March 08 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:
The fact that our hospitals advertise is the most comical thing in the US. Please have your life threatening illness treated at our high quality facility, not other places. Just us. We are the best, and by saying that we are claiming that all other facilities are worse than us. That's part of the free market, companies want your business. And if anything, it wouldn't change unless we fully nationalized the system like in the UK where hospitals and major centers are owned by the government (independent practices are still physician-owned IIRC). Nothing is wrong with competition, though price/quality/effectiveness transparency data available to consumers would be nice. I was not responding to you. You seemed to pretty much agree about US healthcare so I didn't see the point. It was more a general response to Kasparov.
We cool then <3
On March 08 2016 01:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. I literally said I was cool with a nationalized system, just that implementation in the US is awfully hard. On March 08 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:
The fact that our hospitals advertise is the most comical thing in the US. Please have your life threatening illness treated at our high quality facility, not other places. Just us. We are the best, and by saying that we are claiming that all other facilities are worse than us. That's part of the free market, companies want your business. And if anything, it wouldn't change unless we fully nationalized the system like in the UK where hospitals and major centers are owned by the government (independent practices are still physician-owned IIRC). Nothing is wrong with competition, though price/quality/effectiveness transparency data available to consumers would be nice. I am pretty sure that there is a problem with hospitals competing for business. NY state had to force theirs to stop buying new medical equipment and expending what they covered in treatment because they were getting into an arms race. Which drove up costs for everyone. Also, that only works in a system where the consumer has reasonable information about cost and quality. Considering it is literally impossible to get a straight answer on costs from a hospital, the free market isn’t helping. It is weird to me that people think hospitals should be run under a free market system when nothing from the free market really applies to them. And the expanding coverage/facilities leads to inefficiency, because peoples need for medical treatment isn’t a predictable market.
To be clear, I'm advocating healthy competition among different providers. What you've described with the arms race is unhealthy competition. I think that's something that can be fixed with transparency and proper incentives. My thesis is the US health system has a lot of good points, but incentives are so fucking bad that it twists everything up. I get how fee for service came to be, but JFC it is so bad.
Hospitals should be advertising the fact they have the best knee surgery outcomes, low rates of complications, shit like that.
|
On March 08 2016 01:48 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:44 puerk wrote:On March 08 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. I literally said I was cool with a nationalized system , just that implementation in the US is awfully hard. Why not argue for a german system then? It seems much closer to your current one and has all the goodies of being universal and everyone with to much money can get whatever they want to pay for. Since you seem to think only the US has cutting edge and everyone else lives in clay huts, one more link: en.wikipedia.org I like the Swiss system. It's pretty similar to the German one. I think you assume I'm some sort of healthcare ignoramus. I'm not. I'm perfectly aware that many nations have great medical research. The US just happens to have the best.
No you argue that a country of 320m people is "the best" because it has more medical research in volume than switzerland germany or france individually... thats a totally bogus method.
There are clusters of medical (and in general scientific and engineering) excellence all over the world, and no country is the best at it. There are just some larger and more prosperous ones that will have a higher number of excelling doctors and procedures, but the simple fact that the US does not lead in every medical advancement means your selfcongratulatory label came from a non normalized quantitative data point instead of a qualitative argument.
And yes thinking your (or for that matter any) country is the best in such a globalized and intercontected world actually looks a bit ignorant.
|
"If you don't lower your prices I won't have a heart attack in your ER next time."
This doesn't happen which is why competition doesn't really work.
Any massive overhaul in a core piece of the government structure is hard. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't work in the US - it just needs time and a better Congress.
|
On March 08 2016 01:58 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 01:44 puerk wrote:On March 08 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. I'll assume you're responding directly to me, and if that's the case stop strawmanning. I literally said I was cool with a nationalized system , just that implementation in the US is awfully hard. Why not argue for a german system then? It seems much closer to your current one and has all the goodies of being universal and everyone with to much money can get whatever they want to pay for. Since you seem to think only the US has cutting edge and everyone else lives in clay huts, one more link: en.wikipedia.org I like the Swiss system. It's pretty similar to the German one. I think you assume I'm some sort of healthcare ignoramus. I'm not. I'm perfectly aware that many nations have great medical research. The US just happens to have the best. No you argue that a country of 320m people is "the best" because it has more medical research in volume than switzerland germany or france individually... thats a totally bogus method. There are clusters of medical (and in general scientific and engineering) excellence all over the world, and no country is the best at it. There are just some larger and more prosperous ones that will have a higher number of excelling doctors and procedures, but the simple fact that the US does not lead in every medical advancement means your selfcongratulatory label came from a non normalized quantitative data point instead of a qualitative argument. And yes thinking your (or for that matter any) country is the best in such a globalized and intercontected world actually looks a bit ignorant.
You're basically saying "it's not a fair comparison" because the US is much larger. The US is larger. We put more money in. We get more innovation out. In this case, size does matter. The US is not using it to its maximum potential, but it's sort of a throw a few trillion dollars dollars at it and you get some real incomparable gems.
Even if you discount the volume of citations/publications coming out of the US, the amount of innovation in the US is staggering. The US has IBM Watson for health, NantHealth is building some insane shit for cancer and a ton other of public and private initiatives. I don't know of anything comparable in other countries.
|
On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that.
Guys. This has already been covered by the unassailable logic of iPlay.Nettles
On March 07 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
1.Socialism & communism caused far more deaths last century than capitalism.Nazis = National Socialists.
2.Obama bailing out the banks (700 billion), Bailing out the big automakers, huge Agri subsidies paid by the US and EU.This is all very uncapitalist.Capitalism lets failed businesses collapse so healthy companies take their place.The world becomes less capitalist each year, the debt of bad/"too big to fail" companies is taken on by Govt.Again, corruption not capitalism.
3."The goal of socialism is communism" - V.Lenin
Also too, Catholic Bishops were involved in the largest child molestation racket in history. Catholics = christians. So all christian endeavors lead ipso facto to a child molestor state guys. A Molestocracy I think it is.
|
Sensing an opportunity for an upset victory, Marco Rubio spent most of Friday in Kansas, where he picked up a series of high-profile endorsements that he hoped could help thrust him into contention.
Instead, he finished a disappointing third in the Saturday caucus in Kansas, repeating the same pattern as in some Super Tuesday states earlier last week: a big last-minute push, notable endorsements and a thud of a finish.
Those doing the endorsing, along with many other supporters, bemoaned the results, as well as the campaign that produced them.
“I felt I had a dog in the fight, and it hurt me personally when I thought we were going to win,” said Republican Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, another state where Rubio came in behind Cruz and Trump. “The thing is, when Rubio was there, the enthusiasm was so great, better than the others. He had a great reception. If everything had been equal in terms of appearances and organization, he would have won Oklahoma.”
Party leaders, donors and other supporters of Rubio portray a political operation that continues to come up short in its message, in its attention to the fundamentals of campaigning and in its use of a promising politician. The failures have all but doomed Rubio’s chances of securing the GOP nomination, leaving him far behind Trump and Cruz in both delegates and states won.
Many Rubio backers say they still believe Trump would be a political disaster but are worried that the freshman senator is not doing enough to make an effective case against the billionaire. Even with a strong win Sunday in Puerto Rico, Rubio has lost 18 of 20 nominating contests so far, and he faces grim odds in many of the states to come.
All of Rubio’s hopes now ride on his ability to win his home state’s 99 delegates. But even if he prevails in Florida’s winner-take-all contest, it will be difficult for him to secure enough delegates before the party convention in July, meaning he would have to try to win the nomination in an unpredictable floor fight.
Source
|
United Kingdom10017 Posts
On March 08 2016 02:06 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Ain't nobody ever arguing against a socialized military, police force or judiciary. But healthcare, suddenly that's a step too far.
It's presented as two absolutes, on the one side capitalism, on the other, socialism. But both the US and the Socialist Worker's Paradise of Europe are mixed economies with far more in common with each other than with either extreme. Not enough people see that. Guys. This has already been covered by the unassailable logic of iPlay.Nettles Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
1.Socialism & communism caused far more deaths last century than capitalism.Nazis = National Socialists.
2.Obama bailing out the banks (700 billion), Bailing out the big automakers, huge Agri subsidies paid by the US and EU.This is all very uncapitalist.Capitalism lets failed businesses collapse so healthy companies take their place.The world becomes less capitalist each year, the debt of bad/"too big to fail" companies is taken on by Govt.Again, corruption not capitalism.
3."The goal of socialism is communism" - V.Lenin Also too, Catholic Bishops were involved in the largest child molestation racket in history. Catholics = christians. So all christian endeavors lead ipso facto to a child molestor state guys. A Molestocracy I think it is.
I hope you aren't using sarcasm to insinuate that NettleS' logic is as mad as a bag of wasps.
|
The Supreme Court on Monday reversed an Alabama court’s decision refusing to acknowledge a same-sex couple’s adoption.
An unmarried lesbian couple, identified as “V.L.” and “E.L.” in court documents, were granted adoption rights in Georgia. But the Alabama Supreme Court in September ruled that the couple, which has since split up, had been mistakenly given joint custody.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling Monday in a six-page decision. The high court blocked the Alabama court’s decision last month, temporarily reinstating V.L's visitation rights.
Source
|
I am enjoying the Supreme Court slowly telling every state “No, gay couples get that right too. They get all the rights. The ones you have, they get those.” I expect the notorious RBG to just start flaming state attorneys from bench considering her last performance on Texas’s abortion law.
|
On March 08 2016 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Supreme Court on Monday reversed an Alabama court’s decision refusing to acknowledge a same-sex couple’s adoption.
An unmarried lesbian couple, identified as “V.L.” and “E.L.” in court documents, were granted adoption rights in Georgia. But the Alabama Supreme Court in September ruled that the couple, which has since split up, had been mistakenly given joint custody.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling Monday in a six-page decision. The high court blocked the Alabama court’s decision last month, temporarily reinstating V.L's visitation rights. Source
unanimous loooool
they should have put scalia as a lone dissenter for old times sake
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
