|
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 September 21 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. The problem with your position is the knowledge that other countries (and the US itself) have tried to let the free market solve healthcare. And it has never worked. The Netherlands tried it if you want an example. Premiums went up, care quality did not improve, waiting lists did not improve. The free market does not solve Healthcare. The US hasn't had free market healthcare in 74 years. Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:52 ChristianS wrote:On September 21 2017 05:41 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:34 mustaju wrote:On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. So instead of answering his question, that I think a lot of us have, you choose to attack the person? It's a fairly common argument that UHC has justified itself worldwide. "I choose to believe differently" is not exactly a compelling argument. You should really read my original post. You show an absolute lack of understanding to what launched Kwark to respond. I have limited time here and don't want to waste anybody's time when people go on the ever-popular "What does Danglars think about X bill." I've spent maybe two or three days of accumulated time in past pages of this thread to why I think what I think. Maybe if the trolling and shitposting calms down, we can return to long posts that contain statistics and understanding of the other's arguments. Kwark personally has a bit of history on this forum, you can look that up too. Does it bother you when I do this? I do it a fair amount, but I can stop if you want. One of my main reasons for reading this thread is to get other people's perspectives on politics, and I especially want the conservative POV because I have a harder time understanding it, and it's a little harder for me to find. Most people are pretty happy to talk about their opinions when asked so I assumed you wouldn't mind, but I can try to do it less if you want. I'm perfectly willing to give it, did you see my post? It's just the usual sources demand a defense or express incredulity that people don't like UHC. The last three times (perhaps more, its been a few years), nobody even rose to understanding the other side ... preferring to ignore, and deflect, and do the demagogue schtick. So lesson learned. The new here deserve a little disclaimer, since they might not have read 10292 pages of liberals vs conservatives and right vs left. in this forum.
It is because being against universal healthcare just sounds utterly insane to someone in a country with universal healthcare, especially in combination of all of the problems americans always have with their healthcare system which would be solved by having universal healthcare, and the complete lack of any advantage that the US system has over the universal healthcare systems in basically any country that has one.
To me and other people in my situation, defending the US healthcare system can basically only be explained either via ignorance of other countries healthcare systems, or through some weird stockholms syndrome alike effect.
And "If only the market were more free, all of the problems would magically disappear" sounds even weirder. There are 0 examples of a totally free healthcare market actually providing good results. There are a lot of common sense arguments as to why a totally free market healthcare system would lead to results that are abhorrent to most people (But we don't actually see them in praxis, because people don't go all the way to free market healthcare due to the problems being so obvious and not something they are capable of tolerating). There are a lot of examples of universal healthcare providing far better results than the US system, which is probably closer to free market healthcare than any of developed nations healthcare system. So either the free market at some of freeness, due to some paradoxical reaction, solves all problems, or universal healthcare is just better.
And this makes the whole fight against universal healthcare utterly incomprehensible, which is why people keep prodding you about it. They think that you are either uninformed or insane, and hope that they will find out that it is just uninformed.
|
|
|
On September 21 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:In fairness they decided to call a country Namibia after Zambia already existed. That's not Trump's fault, that's Africa's.
I am still bummed no one has asked him how he feels about Wakanda's place now that it wants to join the UN. If we are going to have him talk about fake countries, lets shoot the moon.
|
On September 21 2017 06:44 Gahlo wrote:
I don't care, I'll say it, I agree with Ex-Google Stooge on this one. In a world where the KKK never existed, Grand Wizard would be a dope title. But they ruined it. Just like Hitler ruined Chaplin's stache.
It's still just a really dumb thing to say when a lot of people already think you are a sexist tech bro. "Hey I know you all think I find women genetically inferior, but let me tell you about how cool the KKK is"
It doesn't really lend uh any credibility to the guy's previous argument that he's savvy enough to talk about the nuance of gender equality in the workplace.
|
Aww, come on... he obviously meant Vietnambia, the best of the African countries! It's true!
|
On September 21 2017 06:46 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 06:44 Gahlo wrote:
I don't care, I'll say it, I agree with Ex-Google Stooge on this one. In a world where the KKK never existed, Grand Wizard would be a dope title. But they ruined it. Just like Hitler ruined Chaplin's stache. It's still just a really dumb thing to say when a lot of people already think you are a sexist tech bro. "Hey I know you all think I find women genetically inferior, but let me tell you about how cool the KKK is"
Whoa there, that isn't what is well crafted memo said. It walks right up to the point where he calls women genetically inferior coders and stops. It just heavily implies they are inferior.
|
On September 21 2017 06:46 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 06:44 Gahlo wrote:
I don't care, I'll say it, I agree with Ex-Google Stooge on this one. In a world where the KKK never existed, Grand Wizard would be a dope title. But they ruined it. Just like Hitler ruined Chaplin's stache. It's still just a really dumb thing to say when a lot of people already think you are a sexist tech bro. "Hey I know you all think I find women genetically inferior, but let me tell you about how cool the KKK is" It doesn't really lend uh any credibility to the guy's previous argument that he's savvy enough to talk about the nuance of gender equality in the workplace.
Also, Grand Wizard is only a dope title if you are either Gandalf or Harry Potter. For actual people in a real world setting, it is supremely silly. I am utterly confused as to why the KKK would ever choose such a silly title if they want people to take them seriously.
|
On September 21 2017 06:37 Wulfey_LA wrote:
So who the hell is in on Cassidycare then? I checked out the PRO case and it was junk. I was thinking maybe you (Danglars) would be in on it, but you aren't. That's good because this bill is bad. Bringing back shit tier insurance that doesn't cover anything, lifetime caps, maternal care taxes, and pre-existing condition bans on a state by state basis in the name of FEDERALISM is pure villainy.
The CBO score is going to devastating btw. Cassidycare block grants medicaid and has targeted funding cuts to states that expanded medicaid because LIBRUL TEARS are actual conservative policy now.
Who the hell is in on Cassidycare?
Republicans who want to say "Look guys, it's repealed" (it isn't, please don't vote us out of office)
Republicans who want Trump supporters off their back for not sending a bill to Trump (give him a bill, any bill)
Conservatives who think the federalist reforms are the best they're going to get in a passed bill (everybody lied on repeal, just get with the new landscape!)
Moderates who got bought out by getting their states more funds and power (ACA cornhusker kickback, but shittier)
Moderates who just like consensus on any bill with a GOP stamp (it's our duty to follow the majority leader/pres!)
|
On September 21 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 06:46 Logo wrote:On September 21 2017 06:44 Gahlo wrote:
I don't care, I'll say it, I agree with Ex-Google Stooge on this one. In a world where the KKK never existed, Grand Wizard would be a dope title. But they ruined it. Just like Hitler ruined Chaplin's stache. It's still just a really dumb thing to say when a lot of people already think you are a sexist tech bro. "Hey I know you all think I find women genetically inferior, but let me tell you about how cool the KKK is" It doesn't really lend uh any credibility to the guy's previous argument that he's savvy enough to talk about the nuance of gender equality in the workplace. Also, Grand Wizard is only a dope title if you are either Gandalf or Harry Potter. For actual people in a real world setting, it is supremely silly. I am utterly confused as to why the KKK would ever choose such a silly title if they want people to take them seriously.
Looking at it from the lens that assumes KKK members already live in an alternate reality, it's a lot easier to reconcile the silliness of the title.
|
On September 21 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 06:46 Logo wrote:On September 21 2017 06:44 Gahlo wrote:
I don't care, I'll say it, I agree with Ex-Google Stooge on this one. In a world where the KKK never existed, Grand Wizard would be a dope title. But they ruined it. Just like Hitler ruined Chaplin's stache. It's still just a really dumb thing to say when a lot of people already think you are a sexist tech bro. "Hey I know you all think I find women genetically inferior, but let me tell you about how cool the KKK is" It doesn't really lend uh any credibility to the guy's previous argument that he's savvy enough to talk about the nuance of gender equality in the workplace. Also, Grand Wizard is only a dope title if you are either Gandalf or Harry Potter. For actual people in a real world setting, it is supremely silly. I am utterly confused as to why the KKK would ever choose such a silly title if they want people to take them seriously.
I think you are missing the point. Gamore is a dual class Edgelord-9 / Redpill-6 and has identified yet more words that Libs/SJWs/LameProfessors have taken from the white man. Because the dread forces of Political Correctness say the KKK is bad, fun words that the KKK use are stolen once again from virtuous Edgelords and Redpillers. Why should a long history of racist terror/torture/murder be the basis for taking away fun words?
|
On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
For the good, you might get enough federalist-style state discretion to let competent states make regulatory plans that work for their citizens (though right now the state elements are being used to buy off states). You might get a mandate repeal. Block grant reform to Medicaid is a good idea, though this implementation is off. Those are the only lights at the end of the tunnel if a future bill goes this way. I'm all for more power on health policy to be directed out of Washington. This current bill doesn't do enough but it's a start.
You want low social services in exchange for low taxation? Maybe Texas is your destination. Are you willing to pay a huge tax burden but want higher social services? New York.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system.
This logic can be extended to other countries. A secure border and deportations are a prerequisite for socialized healthcare or else the poor and sick in other countries will move in.
|
On September 21 2017 06:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:
How can you describe advocacy of a single payer system as being close to a religious belief? There are plenty of countries around the world which have single payer systems which are demonstrably highly effective with an irrefutable body of evidence confirming that.
If you wouldn't say that cartographers have a near religious belief in the existence of New Zealand then you shouldn't say that social democrats have a near religious belief in the viability of single payer healthcare. Faith isn't a part of either equation. You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. The problem with your position is the knowledge that other countries (and the US itself) have tried to let the free market solve healthcare. And it has never worked. The Netherlands tried it if you want an example. Premiums went up, care quality did not improve, waiting lists did not improve. The free market does not solve Healthcare. The US hasn't had free market healthcare in 74 years. On September 21 2017 05:52 ChristianS wrote:On September 21 2017 05:41 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:34 mustaju wrote:On September 21 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You're missing a few words in the comparison I used. You're also missing my point at bringing it up. You compared supporting a well sourced, evidence based approach to healthcare to religious dogma. Do cartographers have a dogmatic belief in New Zealand? The implication of your argument was that single payer advocates were ideologues who couldn't be reasoned with. That couldn't be further from the truth. Yes. I'd just as soon argue you into believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet than argue you into believing that single-payer is unworkable and catastrophic in the US. I say this as a standard response to people that want to dive in and persuade me that I'm into killing people or making everyone lose their insurance or whatever we're into these days. I comment on the future of Republican efforts to change health policy somehow, people ask me my thoughts on bills on the table, and I give them. If you came from a land where Allah was chilling out with his followers, violating the rules of physics as we understand them and granting wishes then I could see why you'd argue that Allah was a God. Given that I come from a land where we spend half of what Americans spend per capita on healthcare and achieve better healthcare results can you see why I might believe in the effectiveness of single payer? Either accept my position or don't. I've had enough experience in this forum that all your overtures of magnanimity fall on deaf ears. If you're truly interested in a new health care or supernatural religion, I'll contact some people to send to your door. I believe I'm on the only person on this forum that believes in free market health insurance, tax reforms, and regulatory reforms to lower cost and improve outcomes, and you're just not worth it. You have a history of dishing out one-liners when you get tired of alleging people are ignoring all your points. So if you're done, this is becoming a distraction, and you can take it to PMs or the website feedback thread. So instead of answering his question, that I think a lot of us have, you choose to attack the person? It's a fairly common argument that UHC has justified itself worldwide. "I choose to believe differently" is not exactly a compelling argument. You should really read my original post. You show an absolute lack of understanding to what launched Kwark to respond. I have limited time here and don't want to waste anybody's time when people go on the ever-popular "What does Danglars think about X bill." I've spent maybe two or three days of accumulated time in past pages of this thread to why I think what I think. Maybe if the trolling and shitposting calms down, we can return to long posts that contain statistics and understanding of the other's arguments. Kwark personally has a bit of history on this forum, you can look that up too. Does it bother you when I do this? I do it a fair amount, but I can stop if you want. One of my main reasons for reading this thread is to get other people's perspectives on politics, and I especially want the conservative POV because I have a harder time understanding it, and it's a little harder for me to find. Most people are pretty happy to talk about their opinions when asked so I assumed you wouldn't mind, but I can try to do it less if you want. I'm perfectly willing to give it, did you see my post? It's just the usual sources demand a defense or express incredulity that people don't like UHC. The last three times (perhaps more, its been a few years), nobody even rose to understanding the other side ... preferring to ignore, and deflect, and do the demagogue schtick. So lesson learned. The new here deserve a little disclaimer, since they might not have read 10292 pages of liberals vs conservatives and right vs left. in this forum. It is because being against universal healthcare just sounds utterly insane to someone in a country with universal healthcare, especially in combination of all of the problems americans always have with their healthcare system which would be solved by having universal healthcare, and the complete lack of any advantage that the US system has over the universal healthcare systems in basically any country that has one. To me and other people in my situation, defending the US healthcare system can basically only be explained either via ignorance of other countries healthcare systems, or through some weird stockholms syndrome alike effect. And "If only the market were more free, all of the problems would magically disappear" sounds even weirder. There are 0 examples of a totally free healthcare market actually providing good results. There are a lot of common sense arguments as to why a totally free market healthcare system would lead to results that are abhorrent to most people (But we don't actually see them in praxis, because people don't go all the way to free market healthcare due to the problems being so obvious and not something they are capable of tolerating). There are a lot of examples of universal healthcare providing far better results than the US system, which is probably closer to free market healthcare than any of developed nations healthcare system. So either the free market at some of freeness, due to some paradoxical reaction, solves all problems, or universal healthcare is just better. And this makes the whole fight against universal healthcare utterly incomprehensible, which is why people keep prodding you about it. They think that you are either uninformed or insane, and hope that they will find out that it is just uninformed.
So give 10,000 pages of thread to people who think you're utterly insane, and you just get tired of arguing and let them think as they'd like. When your confessed predominant viewpoint is that everything you've ever known or learnt tells you that I'm either blindingly ignorant or literally insane, these discussions get off topic real quick and blur into insults. I think there's still plenty of political debate to be had on other topics without such entrenched positions and I'm still here.
|
On September 21 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:In fairness they decided to call a country Namibia after Zambia already existed. That's not Trump's fault, that's Africa's.
I'm genuinely impressed at how this is the guy who challenged Obama's academic credentials (after his whole birther delusion).
|
On September 21 2017 07:02 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
For the good, you might get enough federalist-style state discretion to let competent states make regulatory plans that work for their citizens (though right now the state elements are being used to buy off states). You might get a mandate repeal. Block grant reform to Medicaid is a good idea, though this implementation is off. Those are the only lights at the end of the tunnel if a future bill goes this way. I'm all for more power on health policy to be directed out of Washington. This current bill doesn't do enough but it's a start.
You want low social services in exchange for low taxation? Maybe Texas is your destination. Are you willing to pay a huge tax burden but want higher social services? New York.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system. This logic can be extended to other countries. A secure border and deportations are a prerequisite for socialized healthcare or else the poor and sick in other countries will move in.
We have deportations and a reasonably secure boarder. We even approved money for more security. So this isn't a big problem.
On September 21 2017 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:In fairness they decided to call a country Namibia after Zambia already existed. That's not Trump's fault, that's Africa's. I'm genuinely impressed at how this is the guy who challenged Obama's academic credentials (after his whole birther delusion).
Well Obama was black, so that made it pretty easy.
|
On September 21 2017 07:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 07:02 meadbert wrote:On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
For the good, you might get enough federalist-style state discretion to let competent states make regulatory plans that work for their citizens (though right now the state elements are being used to buy off states). You might get a mandate repeal. Block grant reform to Medicaid is a good idea, though this implementation is off. Those are the only lights at the end of the tunnel if a future bill goes this way. I'm all for more power on health policy to be directed out of Washington. This current bill doesn't do enough but it's a start.
You want low social services in exchange for low taxation? Maybe Texas is your destination. Are you willing to pay a huge tax burden but want higher social services? New York.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system. This logic can be extended to other countries. A secure border and deportations are a prerequisite for socialized healthcare or else the poor and sick in other countries will move in. We have deportations and a reasonably secure boarder. We even approved money for more security. So this isn't a big problem.
Besides, this ain't a one way street.
On almost any weekday afternoon, silver-haired Americans, often with mouths still numb from Novocain, line up at the U.S. port of entry between Nogales, Mexico, and Nogales, Ariz., according to Caitlin Dickson of Yahoo News.
Because Medicare offers virtually no coverage for dental work, Mexican border towns like Nogales have become go-to destinations for affordable, quality dental care among seniors and snowbirds from southern Arizona, California, and Texas. Less than 10 miles from the popular retirement hub of Yuma, Ariz., more than 350 dentists have set up shop in the small Mexican town of Los Algodones — earning it the nickname “Molar City.”
In recent years, rising medical costs compounded by the introduction of stingy federal exchange plans under the Affordable Care Act have begun to force more Americans to follow the path forged by snowbirds and migrate south of the border in search of affordable health care.
As a result, Mexico has quickly emerged as a world leader in medical tourism, luring an estimated 1 million patients each year, many of them from the U.S. — not just with cheap pharmaceuticals and dental services but also a range of procedures, from heart surgeries to in vitro fertilization and cancer treatments. They can receive care by specialists at high-quality hospitals and clinics for a fraction of the cost in the States.
Source
|
On September 21 2017 06:44 Gahlo wrote:
I don't care, I'll say it, I agree with Ex-Google Stooge on this one. In a world where the KKK never existed, Grand Wizard would be a dope title. But they ruined it. Just like Hitler ruined Chaplin's stache.
It's not an accident. The KKK always used the cloak-and-dagger mystique and fancy titles to make it seem cool; that was a lot of the appeal to its members. And when society criticized them as a secret evil organization, that just added to their mystique.
The more effective tactic was to convince people they weren't that cool. So someone infiltrated the klan, learned a bunch of their secret rituals and codewords, and fed them to the producers of the Superman radio show to use for writing their villainous organization, "the Clan of the Fiery Cross." Once they were laid bare to the public, the rituals and code words weren't as cool anymore, and membership dwindled.
In other words, saying the KKK is evil but kinda cool sometimes isn't just weird and tone-deaf, it helps the KKK recruit new members. Kinda like saying smoking is bad for you but it looks cool tends to encourage people to smoke.
Edit: fixed the Wikipedia link.
Edit2: radio=/=TV, thanks Sermo
|
On September 21 2017 07:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 07:11 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 07:02 meadbert wrote:On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
For the good, you might get enough federalist-style state discretion to let competent states make regulatory plans that work for their citizens (though right now the state elements are being used to buy off states). You might get a mandate repeal. Block grant reform to Medicaid is a good idea, though this implementation is off. Those are the only lights at the end of the tunnel if a future bill goes this way. I'm all for more power on health policy to be directed out of Washington. This current bill doesn't do enough but it's a start.
You want low social services in exchange for low taxation? Maybe Texas is your destination. Are you willing to pay a huge tax burden but want higher social services? New York.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system. This logic can be extended to other countries. A secure border and deportations are a prerequisite for socialized healthcare or else the poor and sick in other countries will move in. We have deportations and a reasonably secure boarder. We even approved money for more security. So this isn't a big problem. Besides, this ain't a one way street. Show nested quote +On almost any weekday afternoon, silver-haired Americans, often with mouths still numb from Novocain, line up at the U.S. port of entry between Nogales, Mexico, and Nogales, Ariz., according to Caitlin Dickson of Yahoo News.
Because Medicare offers virtually no coverage for dental work, Mexican border towns like Nogales have become go-to destinations for affordable, quality dental care among seniors and snowbirds from southern Arizona, California, and Texas. Less than 10 miles from the popular retirement hub of Yuma, Ariz., more than 350 dentists have set up shop in the small Mexican town of Los Algodones — earning it the nickname “Molar City.”
In recent years, rising medical costs compounded by the introduction of stingy federal exchange plans under the Affordable Care Act have begun to force more Americans to follow the path forged by snowbirds and migrate south of the border in search of affordable health care.
As a result, Mexico has quickly emerged as a world leader in medical tourism, luring an estimated 1 million patients each year, many of them from the U.S. — not just with cheap pharmaceuticals and dental services but also a range of procedures, from heart surgeries to in vitro fertilization and cancer treatments. They can receive care by specialists at high-quality hospitals and clinics for a fraction of the cost in the States. Source
The free market finds a way. And by finds a way, I means a better healthcare system attracts US citizens.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I have heard some rather unfortunate stories about going to Mexico for medical procedures. Wouldn't recommend it.
|
On September 21 2017 07:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 07:14 farvacola wrote:On September 21 2017 07:11 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 07:02 meadbert wrote:On September 21 2017 05:13 Simberto wrote:On September 21 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
For the good, you might get enough federalist-style state discretion to let competent states make regulatory plans that work for their citizens (though right now the state elements are being used to buy off states). You might get a mandate repeal. Block grant reform to Medicaid is a good idea, though this implementation is off. Those are the only lights at the end of the tunnel if a future bill goes this way. I'm all for more power on health policy to be directed out of Washington. This current bill doesn't do enough but it's a start.
You want low social services in exchange for low taxation? Maybe Texas is your destination. Are you willing to pay a huge tax burden but want higher social services? New York.
The big and obvious problem with this is that people will stay in Texas and pay low taxes until they get sick or need the social services in another way. And then they move to New York and rake in the higher services once they need them. Which obviously doesn't work, as New York won't be able to pay for the healthcare of all the sick Texans while all of the healthy people are in Texas contributing to their system. This logic can be extended to other countries. A secure border and deportations are a prerequisite for socialized healthcare or else the poor and sick in other countries will move in. We have deportations and a reasonably secure boarder. We even approved money for more security. So this isn't a big problem. Besides, this ain't a one way street. On almost any weekday afternoon, silver-haired Americans, often with mouths still numb from Novocain, line up at the U.S. port of entry between Nogales, Mexico, and Nogales, Ariz., according to Caitlin Dickson of Yahoo News.
Because Medicare offers virtually no coverage for dental work, Mexican border towns like Nogales have become go-to destinations for affordable, quality dental care among seniors and snowbirds from southern Arizona, California, and Texas. Less than 10 miles from the popular retirement hub of Yuma, Ariz., more than 350 dentists have set up shop in the small Mexican town of Los Algodones — earning it the nickname “Molar City.”
In recent years, rising medical costs compounded by the introduction of stingy federal exchange plans under the Affordable Care Act have begun to force more Americans to follow the path forged by snowbirds and migrate south of the border in search of affordable health care.
As a result, Mexico has quickly emerged as a world leader in medical tourism, luring an estimated 1 million patients each year, many of them from the U.S. — not just with cheap pharmaceuticals and dental services but also a range of procedures, from heart surgeries to in vitro fertilization and cancer treatments. They can receive care by specialists at high-quality hospitals and clinics for a fraction of the cost in the States. Source The free market finds a way. And by finds a way, I means a better healthcare system attracts US citizens.
I've lived in 3 different countries for the last 2 years, I'm living in Switzerland right now, which is not a cheap place to live in and I'm not even paying half as much for medical expenses, than I used to in the U.S.
The medical–industrial complex has been inflating prices for decades, I'm still quite sceptical when it comes to "free markets" and the medical sector....
|
On September 21 2017 07:15 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 06:44 Gahlo wrote:
I don't care, I'll say it, I agree with Ex-Google Stooge on this one. In a world where the KKK never existed, Grand Wizard would be a dope title. But they ruined it. Just like Hitler ruined Chaplin's stache. It's not an accident. The KKK always used the cloak-and-dagger mystique and fancy titles to make it seem cool; that was a lot of the appeal to its members. And when society criticized them as a secret evil organization, that just added to their mystique. The more effective tactic was to convince people they weren't that cool. So someone infiltrated the klan, learned a bunch of their secret rituals and codewords, and fed them to the producers of the Superman TV show to use for writing their villainous organization, "the Clan of the Fiery Cross." Once they were laid bare to the public, the rituals and code words weren't as cool anymore, and membership dwindled. In other words, saying the KKK is evil but kinda cool sometimes isn't just weird and tone-deaf, it helps the KKK recruit new members. Kinda like saying smoking is bad for you but it looks cool tends to encourage people to smoke. Edit: fixed the Wikipedia link.
quoteing your post to respond your link is to the radio superman show not the TV show But thats halarious thanks for posting that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
