|
On August 16 2009 13:13 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 12:38 IntoTheWow wrote:On August 16 2009 12:14 Aegraen wrote:
Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards? Source for this please. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108045.phphttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-01-medicaid_x.htmSummation: We have 50+ Trillion UNFUNDED liabilities covering Medicaid, Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare accounts for approximately 1/3 of the countries 300+ million people. Now, you want to increase that, at least doubling it according to Cato at least 88 million will be shifted onto the socialized medical plan. If you think doubling the amount of people on the Government dole is economically feasible when the numbers do not support this thesis, and that by adding more people onto the Government plan that coverage will suddenly become more accessible (This means, not having longer waiting lines, access to current medical technology, no cost benefit:analysis ratio, etc. even though Obama's top healthcare advisor Ezekial Emmanuel is a proponent of the worst of worst things in UHC). Furthermore, its highly documentated how horrendous the VA system is, which is a UHC system. It doesn't take much googling or asking veterans what they think about the VA to find this out. You are in for far worse with this bill, or any incarnation that places Government solutions at the forefront. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfA quick excerpt: The complete lives system discriminates against older
people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation
by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through diff erent life
stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is
65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-yearolds
differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would
be ageist; treating them differently because they have
already had more life-years is not.Yes, who wouldn't want such a benevolent person heading the push for nationalized healthcare? This is the man who is the top advisor to Obama regarding this "healthcare reformation" and is why I said all people 45-50+ should be against this insidious plan.
Ok. I will make an exception. Just because I am a Math major, and what you have just quoted is a complete contradiction in terms.
To spell it out to you:
a) "Age-based allocation is ageism".
b) "Treating 65-yearolds different because of sterotypes or falsehood would be ageist; treating them differently because they have had more life-years is not"
Now, I'm sure you can gather by yourself that only one of these statements can be true, but not both. a) is stating that if you treat people by age its ageism, and b) is stating that it is not.
Your source is unreliable.
p.s. Please. For the love of god. Watch the video! Currently all you do is find when people criticize you, and go off and find reasons why they are wrong. Please, give us a chance. We have brains and valid sources as well...
edit:
However, to illustrate why age SHOULD matter, you must understand that is not peoples age that is of concern here. It is the fact that they are sick. Now the reason you treat them all the same, is because most suffer from similar illnesses not because they are on the pension or w/e.
Currently old people take up the most percentage of those who use the public hospital. This is because when we grow old, our bodies degenerate and bones become less strong, and so you break them easier.
Also: I agree with you that an aged based system is putting emphasis in the wrong places. It is the 'life at all costs' mentality that is dragging the healthcare system through the mud. It happens everywhere. Somehow we feel justified in keeping someone in a substandard (in some cases vegative) state on life support. These machines cost ALOT of money. Although this is a highly ethical decision. And surprisingly enough, people don't have a problem with humans stopping death, and yet have a problem with creating life.
I have placed both videos in the spoiler for your convenience 
+ Show Spoiler +This explains how universal health care is being implemented in Rwanda: This explains why taking a 'capitalist' approach is a bad idea:
|
Why do you fear something so bad that works everywhere else in the world aegraen?
Are you the kind of guy who thinks everything should be privatized? Should police and fire departments also be privatized? Maybe privatize the court system while your at it?
Having the government run some of the basic things that is needed in society is crucial, health care should also be one of those things and I think this is a step in the right direction for the US.
|
On August 16 2009 13:30 Tyraz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 13:13 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 12:38 IntoTheWow wrote:On August 16 2009 12:14 Aegraen wrote:
Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards? Source for this please. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108045.phphttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-01-medicaid_x.htmSummation: We have 50+ Trillion UNFUNDED liabilities covering Medicaid, Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare accounts for approximately 1/3 of the countries 300+ million people. Now, you want to increase that, at least doubling it according to Cato at least 88 million will be shifted onto the socialized medical plan. If you think doubling the amount of people on the Government dole is economically feasible when the numbers do not support this thesis, and that by adding more people onto the Government plan that coverage will suddenly become more accessible (This means, not having longer waiting lines, access to current medical technology, no cost benefit:analysis ratio, etc. even though Obama's top healthcare advisor Ezekial Emmanuel is a proponent of the worst of worst things in UHC). Furthermore, its highly documentated how horrendous the VA system is, which is a UHC system. It doesn't take much googling or asking veterans what they think about the VA to find this out. You are in for far worse with this bill, or any incarnation that places Government solutions at the forefront. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfA quick excerpt: The complete lives system discriminates against older
people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation
by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through diff erent life
stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is
65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-yearolds
differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would
be ageist; treating them differently because they have
already had more life-years is not.Yes, who wouldn't want such a benevolent person heading the push for nationalized healthcare? This is the man who is the top advisor to Obama regarding this "healthcare reformation" and is why I said all people 45-50+ should be against this insidious plan. Ok. I will make an exception. Just because I am a Math major, and what you have just quoted is a complete contradiction in terms. To spell it out to you: a) "Age-based allocation is ageism". b) "Treating 65-yearolds different because of sterotypes or falsehood would be ageist; treating them differently because they have had more life-years is not" Now, I'm sure you can gather by yourself that only one of these statements can be true, but not both. a) is stating that if you treat people by age its ageism, and b) is stating that it is not. Your source is unreliable. p.s. Please. For the love of god. Watch the video! Currently all you do is find when people criticize you, and go off and find reasons why they are wrong. Please, give us a chance. We have brains and valid sources as well... I have placed both videos in the spoiler for your convenience + Show Spoiler +
My source is Emmanuels OWN PAPER. How is this not reliable? Everything in that paper is his, or his associates written words. Look at the authors at the top of the paper. You just showed the dichotomy and idiocy of the people in charge. They don't think its ageism because you received treatment when you were 25. It's completely retarded reasoning and morally indefensible.
Secondly, you didn't address my first points, with clearly cited statistics showing how the US cannot even afford the current socialized medicine system we have, but yet they want to expand it and act as if it will create better access and quality. This is insane!
Lastly, I'm at work. I cannot view youtube videos. I'll check them out when I get home.
|
On August 16 2009 10:10 Aegraen wrote:
Can you name one, two, or even three Government services that provide a better service than the private market equivalent?
So... if you feel this way why are you opposed to health care reform? By your logic, the public plan will suck, only people who have to will use it, and private insurance will survive, even if they have to become a little more competitive to do it. In reality, btw, the CBO estimates that only 10 million people would initially enroll in the public option: the vast majority of americans will keep their private insurance. It'll be like ups and fedex and dhl all coexisting with usps, except the gov't will likely have even less market share.
Also, you still haven't admitted that your copypasta arguments about "nuggets from the health care bill" have been proven false.
|
On August 16 2009 13:33 Oystein wrote:
Why do you fear something so bad that works everywhere else in the world aegraen?
Are you the kind of guy who thinks everything should be privatized? Should police and fire departments also be privatized? Maybe privatize the court system while your at it?
Having the government run some of the basic things that is needed in society is crucial, health care should also be one of those things and I think this is a step in the right direction for the US.
saying it "works" everywhere else it a bit delusional on your part.
i wont give an opinion on the health care bill because I'm not educated enough to do so -- but from what I've seen growing up, people really don't like the health care here in the U.S. (price wise).
but now a lot of people are saying it's great? so i'm a bit confused...
|
please refute my points k thx
|
On August 16 2009 13:40 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 13:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 13:13 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 12:38 IntoTheWow wrote:On August 16 2009 12:14 Aegraen wrote:
Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards? Source for this please. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108045.phphttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-01-medicaid_x.htmSummation: We have 50+ Trillion UNFUNDED liabilities covering Medicaid, Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare accounts for approximately 1/3 of the countries 300+ million people. Now, you want to increase that, at least doubling it according to Cato at least 88 million will be shifted onto the socialized medical plan. If you think doubling the amount of people on the Government dole is economically feasible when the numbers do not support this thesis, and that by adding more people onto the Government plan that coverage will suddenly become more accessible (This means, not having longer waiting lines, access to current medical technology, no cost benefit:analysis ratio, etc. even though Obama's top healthcare advisor Ezekial Emmanuel is a proponent of the worst of worst things in UHC). Furthermore, its highly documentated how horrendous the VA system is, which is a UHC system. It doesn't take much googling or asking veterans what they think about the VA to find this out. You are in for far worse with this bill, or any incarnation that places Government solutions at the forefront. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfA quick excerpt: The complete lives system discriminates against older
people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation
by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through diff erent life
stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is
65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-yearolds
differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would
be ageist; treating them differently because they have
already had more life-years is not.Yes, who wouldn't want such a benevolent person heading the push for nationalized healthcare? This is the man who is the top advisor to Obama regarding this "healthcare reformation" and is why I said all people 45-50+ should be against this insidious plan. Ok. I will make an exception. Just because I am a Math major, and what you have just quoted is a complete contradiction in terms. To spell it out to you: a) "Age-based allocation is ageism". b) "Treating 65-yearolds different because of sterotypes or falsehood would be ageist; treating them differently because they have had more life-years is not" Now, I'm sure you can gather by yourself that only one of these statements can be true, but not both. a) is stating that if you treat people by age its ageism, and b) is stating that it is not. Your source is unreliable. p.s. Please. For the love of god. Watch the video! Currently all you do is find when people criticize you, and go off and find reasons why they are wrong. Please, give us a chance. We have brains and valid sources as well... I have placed both videos in the spoiler for your convenience + Show Spoiler + My source is Emmanuels OWN PAPER. How is this not reliable? Everything in that paper is his, or his associates written words. Look at the authors at the top of the paper. You just showed the dichotomy and idiocy of the people in charge. They don't think its ageism because you received treatment when you were 25. It's completely retarded reasoning and morally indefensible. Secondly, you didn't address my first points, with clearly cited statistics showing how the US cannot even afford the current socialized medicine system we have, but yet they want to expand it and act as if it will create better access and quality. This is insane! Lastly, I'm at work. I cannot view youtube videos. I'll check them out when I get home.
Ok. Dude. Fuck. Its a logical contradiction! Did you read what i said at all?
I even spelt it out and everything! Is he saying 'ageism IS when you discriminate against the old because of their age' or 'ageism is when you discriminate against people with stereotype and falsehood and NOT about age'?
It is not his 'information' that makes it unreliable. It is his logic.
|
On August 16 2009 13:42 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 13:33 Oystein wrote:
Why do you fear something so bad that works everywhere else in the world aegraen?
Are you the kind of guy who thinks everything should be privatized? Should police and fire departments also be privatized? Maybe privatize the court system while your at it?
Having the government run some of the basic things that is needed in society is crucial, health care should also be one of those things and I think this is a step in the right direction for the US. saying it "works" everywhere else it a bit delusional on your part. i wont give an opinion on the health care bill because I'm not educated enough to do so -- but from what I've seen growing up, people really don't like the health care here in the U.S. (price wise). but now a lot of people are saying it's great? so i'm a bit confused...
No. Nobody thinks the current system is great. There is just alot of debate as to how to fix it. The neo-cons want to fix it by deregulating everything and making the entire system private. And the liberals want to make it a national healthcare system where there is a flat rate charge, and it is free to all.
The problem the neo-cons see with a universal public healthcare system is that they think it will cost an arm and a leg to provide. (you can make up your mind as to whether this is true or not by looking at the Rwanda example i gave you)
And the liberals think that privatizing the entire system is a really bad idea because they think charging people for health care is the protracted equivalent of putting a gun to someones head and saying 'if you wanna live, pay up'. Which obviously means market forces don't work as normal. People will pay as much as they can, because it is their lives at stake.
|
On August 16 2009 13:42 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 13:33 Oystein wrote:
Why do you fear something so bad that works everywhere else in the world aegraen?
Are you the kind of guy who thinks everything should be privatized? Should police and fire departments also be privatized? Maybe privatize the court system while your at it?
Having the government run some of the basic things that is needed in society is crucial, health care should also be one of those things and I think this is a step in the right direction for the US. saying it "works" everywhere else it a bit delusional on your part. i wont give an opinion on the health care bill because I'm not educated enough to do so -- but from what I've seen growing up, people really don't like the health care here in the U.S. (price wise). but now a lot of people are saying it's great? so i'm a bit confused...
It works in the sense that everyone gets the medical care they need, not just critical help like with your system. Sure its not perfect and things can be improved, but if you can`t wait for the operation or want something different you can go to a private hospital and pay for it anyways. But having an equal medical safety for everyone is something that works and is pretty much considered a human right in most modern countries.
|
On August 16 2009 13:33 Oystein wrote:
Why do you fear something so bad that works everywhere else in the world aegraen?
Are you the kind of guy who thinks everything should be privatized? Should police and fire departments also be privatized? Maybe privatize the court system while your at it?
Having the government run some of the basic things that is needed in society is crucial, health care should also be one of those things and I think this is a step in the right direction for the US.
It doesn't work everyone else in the world.
My belief system on government is more in line with Anti-Federalism. I have no problem with a state such as Oregon or Mass. who have socialized medicine. Let them do what they want as it has no effect on me whatsoever. Don't make me subsidize it by having my tax dollars transferred from the Federal Govt to states to pay for it, have them pay for it themselves. People in the US are free to move around to where they choose. This mobility and choice is a great thing. However, we can't move outside the US, so we are forced into this abyssmal system.
We can at the local levels influence our representatives and have communicable relationships that you cannot have with the Federal Government. Transparency and accountability is much more readily locally, where as Federally its pretty much non-existent.
So do I oppose police and fire departments (Many fire departments are all volunteer), at local levels? Nope. If they tried to nationalize police and fire departments to where we had a centralized planned police and fire department, then no I'd oppose it strongly.
I guess people in Europe is hard to comprehend the system of Government and its foundation in the States. In Europe you don't have strong local government, states, that have differentiating powers than that Federal Government. Europe is for all intents and purposes mostly made up of centralized governments. Always has been. We run things differently in America. You can't transpose a European system and expect it to run the same.
When you say Government, many Americans see this as two competing entities. States and Federal. So, hopefully I can get this across to Europeans. Both Americans and Europeans when talking about Government in America should differentiate in debates when talking about it and specifically point out what they are talking about. Yes, Government should have its hand in a few things, but we believe it should be local and state decided, NOT Federal Government. You can't impose a tyranny when your constituents are free to move about the country at their whim. You also can't enact totally bogus shit and expect it to fly, and you also can't spend beyond your means because you don't hold the printing press for money.
The only place healthcare should be is in the private concerns of the individual with their doctor. Period. Insurance companies should be there to only negotiate the policy to which they uphold and to abide by its contractually obligated duties. The problem with a Federal system is that they have to ration to save on costs because its not economically feasible to provide everything for everyone with sufficient access and quality that Americans have come to expect. In order to do that you have to ration healthcare. They base this on a variety of factors. Each of which intrudes into patient doctor confidentiality.
The solution to increase quality and access and reduce cost is to slap the hand of Government so it takes it paws out of Healthcare and to provide greater competitive incentive (For instance: allow across state competition). Free-market provides every other service with great quality, despite Government intervention. Why you don't believe it can provide this same service with Healthcare when it provides it for every other service is bewildering. I suppose people think this because they have the false perception that American healthcare is privatized. I have showed earlier that 100+ million Americans use Government run healthcare systems. It's a bastardization of a system. Reform is in order, however the solution is in Free-Market principles.
|
On August 16 2009 13:49 Tyraz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 13:40 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 13:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 13:13 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 12:38 IntoTheWow wrote:On August 16 2009 12:14 Aegraen wrote:
Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards? Source for this please. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108045.phphttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-01-medicaid_x.htmSummation: We have 50+ Trillion UNFUNDED liabilities covering Medicaid, Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare accounts for approximately 1/3 of the countries 300+ million people. Now, you want to increase that, at least doubling it according to Cato at least 88 million will be shifted onto the socialized medical plan. If you think doubling the amount of people on the Government dole is economically feasible when the numbers do not support this thesis, and that by adding more people onto the Government plan that coverage will suddenly become more accessible (This means, not having longer waiting lines, access to current medical technology, no cost benefit:analysis ratio, etc. even though Obama's top healthcare advisor Ezekial Emmanuel is a proponent of the worst of worst things in UHC). Furthermore, its highly documentated how horrendous the VA system is, which is a UHC system. It doesn't take much googling or asking veterans what they think about the VA to find this out. You are in for far worse with this bill, or any incarnation that places Government solutions at the forefront. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfA quick excerpt: The complete lives system discriminates against older
people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation
by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through diff erent life
stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is
65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-yearolds
differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would
be ageist; treating them differently because they have
already had more life-years is not.Yes, who wouldn't want such a benevolent person heading the push for nationalized healthcare? This is the man who is the top advisor to Obama regarding this "healthcare reformation" and is why I said all people 45-50+ should be against this insidious plan. Ok. I will make an exception. Just because I am a Math major, and what you have just quoted is a complete contradiction in terms. To spell it out to you: a) "Age-based allocation is ageism". b) "Treating 65-yearolds different because of sterotypes or falsehood would be ageist; treating them differently because they have had more life-years is not" Now, I'm sure you can gather by yourself that only one of these statements can be true, but not both. a) is stating that if you treat people by age its ageism, and b) is stating that it is not. Your source is unreliable. p.s. Please. For the love of god. Watch the video! Currently all you do is find when people criticize you, and go off and find reasons why they are wrong. Please, give us a chance. We have brains and valid sources as well... I have placed both videos in the spoiler for your convenience + Show Spoiler + My source is Emmanuels OWN PAPER. How is this not reliable? Everything in that paper is his, or his associates written words. Look at the authors at the top of the paper. You just showed the dichotomy and idiocy of the people in charge. They don't think its ageism because you received treatment when you were 25. It's completely retarded reasoning and morally indefensible. Secondly, you didn't address my first points, with clearly cited statistics showing how the US cannot even afford the current socialized medicine system we have, but yet they want to expand it and act as if it will create better access and quality. This is insane! Lastly, I'm at work. I cannot view youtube videos. I'll check them out when I get home. Ok. Dude. Fuck. Its a logical contradiction! Did you read what i said at all? I even spelt it out and everything! Is he saying 'ageism IS when you discriminate against the old because of their age' or 'ageism is when you discriminate against people with stereotype and falsehood and NOT about age'? It is not his 'information' that makes it unreliable. It is his logic.
I didn't disagree with the assessment. In any event its morally reprehensible to tell old people to shove it because you were once young. You are not defending this position are you? I thought socialized medicine was supposed to increase access and quality...I suppose only for those in the prime of their lives.
In any event, you still haven't addressed my primary points to why a socialized healthcare system is not economically feasible either in short, or especially long-term. Our Government has lost sight of long-term, and instead looks at short-term gains so they can go back to their constituents and say "See, look what I did!" even though the long-term effects are devastating. It's a shame really.
|
On August 16 2009 13:40 talismania wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 10:10 Aegraen wrote:
Can you name one, two, or even three Government services that provide a better service than the private market equivalent?
So... if you feel this way why are you opposed to health care reform? By your logic, the public plan will suck, only people who have to will use it, and private insurance will survive, even if they have to become a little more competitive to do it. In reality, btw, the CBO estimates that only 10 million people would initially enroll in the public option: the vast majority of americans will keep their private insurance. It'll be like ups and fedex and dhl all coexisting with usps, except the gov't will likely have even less market share. Also, you still haven't admitted that your copypasta arguments about "nuggets from the health care bill" have been proven false.
I'm not opposed to healthcare reform. I'm opposed to any reform that puts the solution in the hands of Government.
Yes, the public plan will suck, it will also massively increase taxes as we have seen in the bills (Ranging from 2-5% and with talk of an added VAT). This means that people have even less money to spend. Secondly, this is a pipe-line bill that will suffocate private insurers with insane demands and greater regulation. It will shrink the private market, and since you are all ready paying for the public option, you think people aren't going to join it in droves? It's going to suffocate any private market competition.
Government will have less market share? The Government all ready owns nearly HALF of the current enrollees in the healthcare system! I don't think the USPS is a good analogy to use, as they are losing 7 billion a year and provide vastly inferior service compared to the private market equivalents. Why would you advocate the shit ass company (USPS), over the better quality services like DHL. It would go in line, that you would rather choose DHL and FedEx over USPS no? ... ._.
The logic dictates that because Medicare and Medicaid provide inadequate service for extremely high prices that are not sustainable, so therefore we must nationalize more of the system rather than reverse the trend and privatize more of the system. The logic does not follow. You don't follow on the road that is all ready disastrous. You reverse course.
Also, since people claim that "47" million are uninsured (A lie), you think ONLY 10 million of these people are going to join the public option? Wait, do you, or do you not believe this 47 million number. If you do, then if the public option doesn't cover these people then why do it in the first place?!!!
Argh, logic be damned.
|
On August 16 2009 14:08 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 13:49 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 13:40 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 13:30 Tyraz wrote:On August 16 2009 13:13 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 12:38 IntoTheWow wrote:On August 16 2009 12:14 Aegraen wrote:
Edit: Of course cheap national healthcare is possible, but the quality and access of care would be on the order of magnitudes 50 worse than what we currently have. Isn't the goal to improve the system, not to take 10 steps backwards? Source for this please. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108045.phphttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-01-medicaid_x.htmSummation: We have 50+ Trillion UNFUNDED liabilities covering Medicaid, Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare accounts for approximately 1/3 of the countries 300+ million people. Now, you want to increase that, at least doubling it according to Cato at least 88 million will be shifted onto the socialized medical plan. If you think doubling the amount of people on the Government dole is economically feasible when the numbers do not support this thesis, and that by adding more people onto the Government plan that coverage will suddenly become more accessible (This means, not having longer waiting lines, access to current medical technology, no cost benefit:analysis ratio, etc. even though Obama's top healthcare advisor Ezekial Emmanuel is a proponent of the worst of worst things in UHC). Furthermore, its highly documentated how horrendous the VA system is, which is a UHC system. It doesn't take much googling or asking veterans what they think about the VA to find this out. You are in for far worse with this bill, or any incarnation that places Government solutions at the forefront. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfA quick excerpt: The complete lives system discriminates against older
people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation
by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through diff erent life
stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is
65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-yearolds
differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would
be ageist; treating them differently because they have
already had more life-years is not.Yes, who wouldn't want such a benevolent person heading the push for nationalized healthcare? This is the man who is the top advisor to Obama regarding this "healthcare reformation" and is why I said all people 45-50+ should be against this insidious plan. Ok. I will make an exception. Just because I am a Math major, and what you have just quoted is a complete contradiction in terms. To spell it out to you: a) "Age-based allocation is ageism". b) "Treating 65-yearolds different because of sterotypes or falsehood would be ageist; treating them differently because they have had more life-years is not" Now, I'm sure you can gather by yourself that only one of these statements can be true, but not both. a) is stating that if you treat people by age its ageism, and b) is stating that it is not. Your source is unreliable. p.s. Please. For the love of god. Watch the video! Currently all you do is find when people criticize you, and go off and find reasons why they are wrong. Please, give us a chance. We have brains and valid sources as well... I have placed both videos in the spoiler for your convenience + Show Spoiler + My source is Emmanuels OWN PAPER. How is this not reliable? Everything in that paper is his, or his associates written words. Look at the authors at the top of the paper. You just showed the dichotomy and idiocy of the people in charge. They don't think its ageism because you received treatment when you were 25. It's completely retarded reasoning and morally indefensible. Secondly, you didn't address my first points, with clearly cited statistics showing how the US cannot even afford the current socialized medicine system we have, but yet they want to expand it and act as if it will create better access and quality. This is insane! Lastly, I'm at work. I cannot view youtube videos. I'll check them out when I get home. Ok. Dude. Fuck. Its a logical contradiction! Did you read what i said at all? I even spelt it out and everything! Is he saying 'ageism IS when you discriminate against the old because of their age' or 'ageism is when you discriminate against people with stereotype and falsehood and NOT about age'? It is not his 'information' that makes it unreliable. It is his logic. I didn't disagree with the assessment. In any event its morally reprehensible to tell old people to shove it because you were once young. You are not defending this position are you? I thought socialized medicine was supposed to increase access and quality...I suppose only for those in the prime of their lives. In any event, you still haven't addressed my primary points to why a socialized healthcare system is not economically feasible either in short, or especially long-term. Our Government has lost sight of long-term, and instead looks at short-term gains so they can go back to their constituents and say "See, look what I did!" even though the long-term effects are devastating. It's a shame really.
Yes i did. Its in the edit, first post at the top.
If you want facts, and statistics about the so-called 'devastating effects' on economy. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Universal healthcare usually has positive effects on the economy, which i think runs contrary to what your trying to insinuate. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Also: I hope your not anti-abortion, because thats half the reason most 3rd world countries get out of the poverty.
Let us hope your love of statistics and quotes extends beyond your beliefs
If you wish to see what the effect of universal coverage is, then feel free to visit this website and find out for yourself Don't worry, it is supported by the UN, and uses the offical national statistics of each country.
http://www.gapminder.org/
|
On August 15 2009 22:49 sdpgposd wrote:
fox news is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies so dont listen to a word they say
edit: on pretty much anything actually.
This is very funny and "informed" post considering that the pharmaceuticals are in favor of Obama's plan while the GOP (and probably FoxNews) are against it.
Read more pls.
+ Show Spoiler +
Oh, and BTW, Pharma mostly donated $$$ to Democrats recently, not so much to Republicans. Are you surprised that Obama changed his stance on the 3 key pharmaceutical stances he had in order to mirror exactly what Pharma wanted?
Its the democrats' turn to be bought by Pharma now.
|
On August 16 2009 13:58 Tyraz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 13:42 eMbrace wrote:On August 16 2009 13:33 Oystein wrote:
Why do you fear something so bad that works everywhere else in the world aegraen?
Are you the kind of guy who thinks everything should be privatized? Should police and fire departments also be privatized? Maybe privatize the court system while your at it?
Having the government run some of the basic things that is needed in society is crucial, health care should also be one of those things and I think this is a step in the right direction for the US. saying it "works" everywhere else it a bit delusional on your part. i wont give an opinion on the health care bill because I'm not educated enough to do so -- but from what I've seen growing up, people really don't like the health care here in the U.S. (price wise). but now a lot of people are saying it's great? so i'm a bit confused... No. Nobody thinks the current system is great. There is just alot of debate as to how to fix it. The neo-cons want to fix it by deregulating everything and making the entire system private. And the liberals want to make it a national healthcare system where there is a flat rate charge, and it is free to all. The problem the neo-cons see with a universal public healthcare system is that they think it will cost an arm and a leg to provide. (you can make up your mind as to whether this is true or not by looking at the Rwanda example i gave you) And the liberals think that privatizing the entire system is a really bad idea because they think charging people for health care is the protracted equivalent of putting a gun to someones head and saying 'if you wanna live, pay up'. Which obviously means market forces don't work as normal. People will pay as much as they can, because it is their lives at stake.
Eh.
There are basic necessities to life. Water, Food, Shelter. You need each in order to live. Market forces seem to do just fine there, wouldn't you say? What makes healthcare any different? It doesn't.
Actually, Neo-Cons want a UHC system. Bush advocated Medicare part D. Neo-Cons are not opposed to an expansive Federal Government, in fact they are also in the same boat as Liberals.
Libertarians, Conservatives, Constitutionalists all want an Austrian/Chicago - Laissez Faire approach to healthcare, in which its painfully obvious that the current system is more socialized than it is privatized and it creates this system run amok.
People who think its going to cost a lot, have the facts on their side. I just showed you that Medicare alone has UNFUNDED costs exceeding 30 trillion dollars. By adding more people into a socialized system (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, et al is all socialized system), you increase costs, not decrease them. Therefore you can see how economical infeasible this whole charade is. Liberals railed against deficits under the bush years, but what happens when they get into office? They TRIPLE THEM! Then they advocate an even more debt laden system on top of the tripling done all ready. Geeze. Boot them out, boot the RINOS out, boot the neo-cons out, boot them all out who aren't fiscally conservative!
"If you wanna live and have that food pay up"... Why not nationalize food? Shit, we kind of all ready do with the subsidies given to farms in which its been known especially in the past for the Government to tell the farmes to burn their crops. Awesome!
|
United States43187 Posts
Healthcare simply isn't a business. A business wishes to maximise its turnover by maximising the number of people it treats and by the individual profit on each one. This is an impractical way to go about it and doesn't make sense economically because healthcare doesn't produce anything as a service, it's like digging holes and filling them in again. The free market will naturally try and expand the digging holes and filling them in market while trying to become the most efficient hole digger it can be whereas as a nationalised system tries to stop digging holes.
Take an overweight middle aged man with good insurance. He can go into the doctors complaining of trouble breathing and the doctor will be 90% sure it's because he's just fat and getting older but will happily order a stream of expensive tests just in case. The man will agree to them because they're covered by his insurance and he thinks it's about time he got something back from that. The tests come back negative and the insurance company increases the premiums for his demographic. Yes, he got a very good level of service. He also just burned thousands of dollars. Not in the way that if he'd bought a new car but rather the way if he'd just paid some guy to dig a hole and fill it back in again. This is why you spend the most money per person on health and still fail on every main marker of healthcare. Not only do you spend the money really inefficiently but there is actually less accountability towards spending in this than in a socialised system, amazingly enough. Doctor can say "you probably don't need this scan but it's covered by the insurance and we just want to be safe", after all, his job is to sell the service he provides and make money for his hospital. Insurance doesn't give a fuck, if people start claiming more the premiums go up and stealth tax the whole demographic on that plan. And even if you know about this you're not going to limit your insurance use just because you'll end up charging it to your entire demographic, more like "their shit goes on my insurance premiums, fuck that, i'm gonna beat the system and have more expensive shit done".
Take the same example in Britain. If he's worried he can phone up the free NHS advice line and have a qualified advisor tell him it's probably nothing. That same money can then be spent giving the vulnerable demographic free flu vaccines each winter.
Or take vaccines as an example. Public healthcare programs like that are the absolute opposite of what a business aims to do. It's spending money to decrease the market for their service. Ideally what a healthcare business wants to happen is for you to get into serious trouble, be rushed to hospital, have your life saved by their highly trained staff, be extremely grateful and be productive enough to pay their fees until it happens again. Doing so burns thousands of dollars but you did get an excellent level of service. Whereas the public model just gives you a free vaccine because you're statistically at risk and decreases its patient turnover for $2.
|
hey guys, imabossdude again. Don't disagree with the liberal admins too much, they will BAN you for it.
Also, Aegraen don't try to persuade any of these guys, it won't work. They have been brainwashed by public schools/liberal media their whole lives, you must excuse them.
Fuck Team Liquid. They hate freedom of speech.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On August 16 2009 14:32 banthistoo wrote:
hey guys, imabossdude again. Don't disagree with the liberal admins too much, they will BAN you for it.
Also, Aegraen don't try to persuade any of these guys, it won't work. They have been brainwashed by public schools/liberal media their whole lives, you must excuse them.
Fuck Team Liquid. They hate freedom of speech.
lol.
|
United States43187 Posts
On August 16 2009 14:32 banthistoo wrote:
hey guys, imabossdude again. Don't disagree with the liberal admins too much, they will BAN you for it.
Also, Aegraen don't try to persuade any of these guys, it won't work. They have been brainwashed by public schools/liberal media their whole lives, you must excuse them.
Fuck Team Liquid. They hate freedom of speech.
You got banned for being an asshole. Aegraen's beliefs are personally offensive to me and I suspect many of the mods but because he doesn't post in the same way as you he's not been banned for months. Don't try and associate with him because you're nothing alike. You were wrong, but also a complete dick about being wrong. He's just wrong. Dicks get banned.
|
Why I am against Obama's "Reform" (at least read until the line, but read it all if you actually want to understand this is a bad plan)
There are 2 aspects of the American medical system that are unique to us and contribute greatly to the reason that our medical care costs more than care does elsewhere. The 2 problems are:
1. Employer based health insurance
2. Our litigation-based national persona leading to defensive medical practices by doctors.
Obama "reform" completely ignores these 2 problems. He doesn't even touch either one of them. If you are going to do reform, why leave these 2 out? Its a waste of a plan. This doesn't even deserve to be called reform because all it does it spend more $$$ in the same way we have always been spending it. No change in tort reform, no change in selectively subsidizing employer based insurance. All it merely is is spending more money in the same way we always have. The 1 new aspect that his plan has that we haven't already been doing is the "public option" which I also have a problem with as i will explain later. But for now, let me expand on the 2 main problems in our system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Employer based heath insurance-->We all know by now that it was never meant to be this way and that it was an artifact of WW2. The problem with this is that it protects insurance companies from the market power of individuals. It inhibits competitive market forces because people do not actually get to choose their plan. Their employer chooses the plan and it is not easy to change.
How many of you feel like you are being price gouged by your car insurance? Is it hard to get car insurance? If you are unhappy with your car insurance, how easy is it to change plans? It is INCREDIBLY easy! That is why the car insurance market works so well. It is cheap, it works well and it is efficient. The same is true of EVERY other kind of insurance in the USA. Only health insurance doesn't work well and that is because ONLY health insurance is mostly employer based. Obama ignores this and does not plan to stop subsidizing employer based insurance. This is why his plan is bad. It does not address the main problems of our system.
The other problem with health insurance, is that it is heavily regulated by the government which makes it harder to function properly.
There are more problems with employer based heath care. When you get your insurance through your company, it lower the labor mobility of the country and that is an economic inefficiency that slows down the economy. For example, someone who has a job with insurance may find a job that better fits his skills with better pay and overall a better match, but if he changes, he loses his insurance. Therefore, he often stays in the worse job and never takes the better job. If all health insurance was privately purchased, you could change jobs all you want and it would not affect your health insurance. The labor force would not have this hurdle keeping them from taking better jobs that fit them better and the economy would run more smoothly.
But Obama has ignored all of this in his plan and just decides to spend more money in the same weird half government/half highly regulated employer based insurace system that we have that is so messed up. And then he calls this "reform".
2. The other problem is out litigation society. Many people feel that if doctors did now have to pay so much in malpractice insurance premiums, they would charge less for procedures. This may be true but I think the cost savings would be pretty small. The MAIN benefit of real tort reform is that it allows doctor's to just do what they think is medically indicated and not order extra tests/procedures (that can each costs up to thousands of dollars per person per test). Doctor's are not free of outside influence and the threat of being sued for multimillion dollar payments WILL affect doctor's behavior and make the whole system run badly. Recent studies show that 5/6 doctors admit to practicing defensive medicine and it is estimated that the defensive medicine aspect is 25% of the costs of the care they give. That is a LOT of money.
But again, there is not a single word about addressing this problem in Obama's plan. There probably never will be any word on tort reform from any democrat-controlled cnogress because....who benefits the most if there is no tort reform? Think for a second....of course it is the lawyers themselves. Well, it turns out that a HUGE percentage of all the money democrats raise comes from lawyers and law firms. Republicans have a similar problem with other industries (like oil), but the truth is that congressional democrats are huge invested in making sure their lawyer constituency is taken care of. So no "reform" there.
These are just a couple of my thoughts on the issue. This is not a good reform bill. It does nothing to lower the cost of drugs (see my post on Pharma and Obama), nothing to control defensive medicine costs, and nothing to address the problem of employer based insurance.
The truth is that health insurance COULD run just as well as any other type of insurance (and all other types really do work very well). The only reason health insurance is not doing a good job right now is because of government intervention. Government single handedly is responsible for the inefficiency of our current system and Obama's response is "well, the market isn't working so well...lets add some more regulation and see if that fixes it".
It is simply a bad plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
