I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore - Page 11

 

What most other countries call health care, we wouldn't call health care. If you hurt your knee here, people want an MRI and surgical repair if necessary. They don't want crutches, some pain pills, a waiting list for several months just for the MRI, and surgery scheduled if someone can get around to it, or can be argued that it is important enough.

 

Also it is not proper to say people in the U.S. lack health care. Everyone gets health care if they wander into an emergency room. If you walk into an emergency room right now with a broken leg and aren't a citizen, you will walk out with a cast and a bill that will be transferred to others when no one pays it.

 

What people lack isn't health care but health insurance. They don't buy health insurance because they declare they don't need it (often young) or they can't afford it (poor). Obama has declared he will solve our problems by mandating people not be those things and give us all more money for the system. Chaoulli v. Quebec recognized that access to a wait list in not the same as access to health care. It deemed Canada's wait lists to be human rights violations since private care was outlawed and public care denied via wait lists.

 

I disagree with this generalization. I spent 30 years living in a European country with free health care - and while some non-urgent procedures are certainly easier to get quickly in the US, the picture that you paint is not accurate.

 

 

 

What is perhaps more pertinent to the discussion is what happens if a citizen walks in with a broken leg and has no insurance or means to pay. It will get fixed, no doubt, but the financial consequences will likely be severe.

I see. Because how someone runs their personal finances is not at ALL related to what they think about fair tax policy and what policies they will pursue.

But who someone met with or even expressed respect for (gasp!) will TOTALLY affect how they will govern.

Face it. If Romney had released all of his tax returns, and there was no funny business involved (like amnesty granted on evasion charges, or even legally paying 0% for a few years) then he would have won this election.

He withheld his returns because he had something to hide.

Obama has withheld nothing about his past associations.

Not sure why people keep bothering to respond to SDW, he's proven to be a brick wall when it comes to accepting facts, practises extreme cognitive dissonance, and relies on strawmen, and questionable, irrelevent, discredited, and just plain ridiculous assertions to push his narrative. But hey, let me try yet again.

 

SDW, the Benghazi incident you included in your initial post, as well as almost every post after that,  to push your narrative that the President is a liar and along with his administration, deliberately misled the American people for political gain. It's been one of your central arguments for attacking the president, even though it had not been confirmed and not based on any real evidence. 

 

As an example: "I do blame him for the White House deliberately pushing a false narrative about the attack a few weeks prior the election."

The in the past few days, all reports that have come out have confirmed that the whitehouse DID NOT change Susan Rice's talking points. Even McCain has backed down, conceding he was wrong to accuse the Whitehouse of changing the talking points and other conspiracy theories, since the evidence has come out to prove otherwise. It was done by the intelligence community, with absolutely no alteration, input, or influence from the whitehouse. 

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cia-benghazi-20121121,0,2805477.story

http://www.examiner.com/article/conspiracy-debunked-intelligence-community-changed-benghazi-talking-points

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-cia-fbi-signed-off/

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/268901-official-intelligence-community-altered-benghazi-talking-points

 

So my question to you, is if you have enough integrity to admit you were wrong, apologize, and acknowledge the facts, considering you drummed on this issue so heavily? Or will you choose to continue to be in denial and ignore the facts, and dive deeper into your conspiracy theories, as no doubt many ring wing blogs will? Maybe this will also make you question all your other 'matter-of-fact' statements, which again, are based on your 'confirmation bias' than any real world evidence. So, what will it be? What do you have to say about Benghazi now, after everything you've said so confidently about it on the past 11 pages has been shown to be complete false, and pure drivel? Many people here advised you to wait for the facts to come out before jumping to conclusions (as the GOP did, who of course you don't parrot at all) but no, you knew better of course. How despicable it is, that the GOP cynically pushed this lie so heavily to try to sway the election, and it's now been exposed like everything else they've pushed during the entirety of Obama's Presidency. Maybe you should re-evaluate the rest of your views, to make sure they're not pure fiction like this one? Who am I kidding.

Edited by Slurpy - 11/20/12 at 11:45pm

I predict...

 

• Liberal media
• Obama lied
• Communism
• Bill Ayers
• Liberal Media

Good luck. He never said a word about being so wrong about WMD.

He's like Donald Trump, without the money. Or the good looks.

At least he has the Philadelphia Eagles so he can feel like supports a winner somewhere.  

 

 

 

 

Whoops.

 

Really?  An odd point of view?  You don't understand that deductions that are available only to those at the highest income levels are "gifts"?  It's why a corporation like GE can pay no taxes on billions in income and why Romney can take a deduction on a rich man's folly like dressage.  Paying "millions" in taxes says nothing unless you look at what is being taxed.  If he's paying at a 13% rate then the remaining taxpayers shoulder a heavier burden.

 

The odd point of view here is your defending a multimillionaire who could give a rat's ass about you or me.

Well, I expect a lot of countries not friends with the USA agree that Ron Paul/Romney would have been a better winner... for them.

 

Well alrighty then! Most things can be made to look worse than they actually are. Perspective, context and spin being key to everything...

 

First, can I ask you a simple question? Is being "liberal" or believing in "Socialism" or even "Communism" somehow and automatically "Anti-American" or "Anti-American Constitution" in your eyes?

 

Second, when you preface a description with the fully-loaded right-wing/Fox 'news' frame of "Card carrying member of <insert any organization here>…" you reveal a lot. Your common sources, for one, and a rather built-in prejudice for "all things not like me" as another.

 

For example: a "communist mentor"…? And what? Is there something wrong with that, and if so why…? Has that mentor advocated that we abolish the Constitution or something? Has Obama, aside from admiring the advice and intellect of the man, espoused a core belief in the Communist system? Well, no. We can't say that he has...

 

I have had two "communist mentors" in my lifetime. Great thinkers, both British as it turns out, and both teaching at University in Paris… one teaching political science, and the other lecturing on political history. That they were Communists (of the French political variety, not remotely Stalinists or even Marxist purists) didn't make them dark, sinister or conspiratorial. They just believed in a system that is not purely capitalistic. Actually, their form of Communism was probably closer to our modern definition of social-democracy, but that's another discussion.

 

In short, my point is there is no harm in having great mentors. Even those who may advocate differently than your own beliefs. I'm neither a Communist nor do I advocate for the system it espouses. And yet I learned much from those 'mentors'. I fail to derive anything negative or "sinister" in that association.

 

When you talk about Bell, and then call him "another mentor" of Obama's, I begin to question your application of the term "mentor". Simply studying the writings of people who think, who develop theories, and present them…. is not the same as being "mentored".  That Obama might find AMONG those ideas some of great merit is not surprising. Bell is a fairly prolific social philosopher. One who has actually disagreed with himself over time. Much as the great scientist Stephen Hawking has done too, I might add… I don't recall seeing Obama promoting or even embracing the Critical Race Theory. One can praise a great thinker even if one doesn't always agree with everything they espouse. Obama has run in intellectual circles. That's just how they roll.He obvioulsy has a more open and curious mind than you do… I'm glad for it, as I think it makes him a better President than some of the more narrow-minded we've had recently (*cough* Bush/Cheney *cough*)...

 

And then we come to the highly-decorated-with-right-wing-labels, the former "terrorist" and "leftist radical" Mr. Ayers...

 

Yes, Mr. Ayers was something of a loose cannon in his youth… you know, about the same time our President was in his politically formative years…. in diapers?

 

By the time our President first met Mr. Ayers, he had become the "pretty much completely reformed former terrorist and leftist radical"… who prefaced many conversation with the disclaimer that much of what he was most famous for he was wrong about, and yet……. leave it Fox et al to seize on 50 year-old history and try to imply that no-one ever evolves, grows or matures….. and perhaps it's true of THEM… you can only preach what you know, right?

 

So, I can only conclude that you're trying to arrive at some sinister conclusion because the man who is our President ran around with thought-provoking intellectuals and former radical (keyword being 'former')… as if that mind and perspective-broadening experience could be construed as a bad thing…? Only if he's trying to subvert the Constitution and replace with Mein Kampf… or a Marxist state. which he clearly is not.

 

You know what I say to your clearly Fox-brewed spin here? Bah, humbug!  (That last word has a definition… you should look it up).

 

No, sorry, you cannot "put North Korea at the top of that list".

 

The USA is #1 in incarcerations per capita… Over half of those incarcerations are drug-related, and the vast majority of those are black and hispanic prisoners, EVEN THOUGH all studies prove that MORE WHITES use more drugs than blacks and hispanics.

 

I have been calling it the "criminal injustice system" since Reagan… about the time the 'war on drugs' started. The statistics of today really began then.

 

This is a funny joke. Romney was an evil, hearthless, white, rich, plutocrat as portrayed by the Obama campaign before tax returns were even mentioned and he was continued to be portrayed that way throughout the campaign.

 

Obama has plenty to hide and at this stage it is irrelevant. He is elected and Republicans should assume going forward that the media will not investigate or press any Democratic candidate on their past going forward. They should assume the media will print pure fabrications as they did with the Bush National Air Guard letters. They should assume the media will attempt late stage "discoveries" as they did with Bush and the drunk driving charge (Obama's drug use is completely unimportant though.)

 

Smart Republicans would assume these as a baseline and incorporate them into winning rather than bemoan them. They won't go away so all complaining does it ignore the problem rather than address it. 

 

You're welcome to disagree with it. Canada's Supreme Court ruled their waiting lists were human rights violations. Almost all internal and external audits of said health care programs involve how long people have to wait and additionally how their care is at at times steered toward more painful or less satisfactory outcomes in the name of savings.

 

I don't doubt your own outcome. It would likely be my own if I were in Europe. The deepest procedure I've had to have done is having my tonsils out and I've never even broken a bone. (knock on wood head) I have no doubt that the system does a pretty decent job of delivering some basic care to most people most of the time.

 

 

 

I'm going to disagree. The identity politics language appears to be a tactic that is being doubled down on, not relied on less. The right is wondering how to get people to wake up and look at the numbers. They don't wake up today because the discomfort in their lives is being minimized. Studies repeatedly show how well off the poor in the United States happen to be enjoying things like air conditioning, cable television, computers and internet ownership, etc. You are right that taxes are not high in comparison to historical rates. I've personally argued that the Bush tax cuts could expire and little would be affected in terms of economic outcome though I do worry about the investment side a bit with capital gains.

 

However the real concern isn't which side is hurting more. Republicans are completely hurting as a party in California. They've been completely marginalized. It doesn't matter at all that they are hurting to me. What troubles me much more is that the people who are hurting and will be hurting much more in the future cannot alter their thinking about what to do to change the outcome.

 

For many of these neighborhoods, they've been Democratically run for GENERATIONS. They evil white mean Republicans were the problem when they were the majority and white were the problem when they were the majority and now they are still the problem when they are 30-35% of the California House and 45% of the population. It's sad but comical to watch the same people saying the same thing to the three white people left in the college classrooms and the other 27 people are all people of different genders and ethnicities. It's like watching take back the night rallies or listening to complaints about how male sports keep women off campus when the student body is almost 60% female. The claims never change. Nor will they.

 

It's also much more important to note that when borrowing is involved, things can look much better than they actually are and that perspective and spin have nothing to do with it. The bill coming due does. Obama borrowed $5 trillion and the results are marginal at best. The bill is due and we cannot continue to borrow in the same manner. Who will look good when the "housing bust" is our federal government and our entire economy.?

 

Communism is the anti-thesis of being American because it does not deal with individual rights. They are subsumed to group rights. Socialism one could make some arguments for being acceptable.

 

 

Nothing is revealed when you assign magical dog whistles and intentions to plain words and phrases. Also isn't this hypocritical? Obama can associate with people and their ideas and there is no harm. You claim SDW associates with certain people and ideas and in your view it is causing harm. Be consistent.

 

 

We can see that Obama advocates group and identity politics. We can see that once people begin voting their group instead of their economic situation that they become trapped in a circular reasoning that harms them and that defies logic.

 

It sounds like they are able to make their living by dealing with the abstract and passing on their thoughts related to it. How enjoyable is it to abstract your daily nutrition, a roof over your head or a jacket on your back? Their solutions don't do well under such scenarios. Their solutions, like the joke #firstworldproblems pokes fun at, assumes a life of wealth and the problems within it.

 

 

Your anecdotes aside, would there ever be harm in having terrible mentors? If Obama had Hitler as a mentor, or Stalin would that be of concern? If Obama had the as a mentor someone trying to normalize adult-child sex, would that no cause for concern? Is there ever a time to question associations in your view? Since the rest is more rationalization, I'll leave it at this and we can go forward from here.

What on Earth does this thread have to do with Appleinsider? The site is just being hijacked for a political rant. Please post this stuff in an appropriate forum!

 

That's an unfortunate first post. If you check, you will notice that you are in the PoliticalOutsider forum. It is exactly the appropriate forum for these posts.

 

Guess what, Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Jaguar-Land Rover are also building factories in China.  To sell cars to Chinese consumers.  

 

Yes, Chrysler is owned by Fiat.  Guess what, corporations are international these days.  Chrysler vehicles are built in several countries, China will be one of them.  If you're going to sell vehicles to the Chinese, what's wrong with building them in China?

 

BTW, many Japanese and Korean automakers have factories in North America, creating American and Canadian jobs.  Should we tell them to go home?  Samsung is building a chip foundry in the US, should they go home?  

 

Trade is international, it's time to face that reality.  Each corporation makes decisions that make sense for their target market and supply chain.  Outsourcing to China isn't the same proposition it used to be.  

 

 

I'm in Australia, with Universal health care. If I hurt my knee, I'll get and MRI and surgery if necessary in a timely manner. Medications are capped at $30, or $5 if you are unwaged.

 

It's a pretty good system and the standard of care is much higher in our public hospitals than the private ones.

You are fortunate to have a good health system like that in your country.
 

The thing is, the US is overrun with idiots who think that public health care in other countries doesn't cover things like MRIs, physiotherapy, modern medical procedures and medications. This thread is evidence of that.

 

 

That's an idiotic statement from someone who doesn't know a thing about the health care systems overseas, makes assumptions, and who doesn't want to know the truth, and who doesn't want to face the fact that the US health system is NOT special in terms of the quality of care provided (for those who can pay for it).

 

The last time I needed medical assistance in the US, I was charged US$120 for some antibiotic ear drops for an ear infection! I waited for two hours and saw the doctor for less than five minutes before he gave me the prescription.

 

It's not just that I was charged that much as a nonresident without insurance. The fact is, that had I had insurance, my insurance company would have paid close to that much. Had I been on a public insurance program, the government would have paid close to that much.

 

The fucking thing should have cost $20, as it would in other countries.

 

Our system is broken and idiotic. Just like someone who thinks you don't get an MRI with public health care in Australia or Germany.

Canada's just about the same, despite all the whiners.  

 

The other day I went to see the doctor at an 'Urgent Care Centre' (like a Hospital, but for non-life threatening issues), I was in and out in about 10 minutes.  I once had an MRI, I waited about 15 minutes for it, without an appointment.  

 

Sure, there are long waits sometimes, like the middle of flu season after work when everyone's taking their kids to the doctor, or late at night at the hospital if you are going in for something trivial, or some private clinics (privately owned, but still subsidized by the government).  These of course are exceptions, not the rule.  All the times I've gone to a doctor I've generally been in and out in 30 minutes or less.  Only a few times have I ever waited an hour or more (and of course, it was somewhat trivial and at a bad time).  

 

The 'socialized health care' in Canada is very good, and affordable for all.  

 

It does sound like a decent system and I assure you that if Americans could spend 1.5% of their total income and get that system, I have no doubt that most would. The problem is two fold though, first we have the issue of health care cost rising. The claim is government health care will lower the cost. We look at Australia and see this...

 

Financial year	% of GDP	Amount ($ billions)
1981–82	6.3	10.8
2007-08	8.8	103.6
2008-09	9.0	112.8
2009-10	9.4	121.4
Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

 

That is clearly a troubling trend. However the second point is this, Americans pay 2.9% of their income in Medicare tax which is the name of our system for retirees. So realize that I give double the rate you pay to be labeled an uncompassionate jerk and receive no health care in return. Next year this rate will be increased to 3.8% and will also include investment income. All this so I can still pay for my own health care plan.

 

Again, Americans would likely take the Australian deal. Instead we pay out of pocket for private while being tax at double soon to be almost triple the rate and get little to nothing in return.

 

 

 

The waiting cues are not acceptable by U.S. standards. The Canadian Supreme Court declared them a human rights violation. These things are reported on regularly and the times mentioned are absurd by U.S. standards.

 

 

Some people disagree.

 

Also from the same page look at this...

 

Country	Life expectancy	Infant mortality rate	Physicians per 1000 people	Nurses per 1000 people	Per capita expenditure on health (USD)	Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP	% of government revenue spent on health	% of health costs paid by government
Australia	81.4	4.2	2.8	9.7	3,137	8.7	17.7	67.7
Canada	81.3	4.5	2.2	9.0	3,895	10.1	16.7	69.8
France	81.0	4.0	3.4	7.7	3,601	11.0	14.2	79.0
Germany	79.8	3.8	3.5	9.9	3,588	10.4	17.6	76.9
Japan	82.6	2.6	2.1	9.4	2,581	8.1	16.8	81.3
Sweden	81.0	2.5	3.6	10.8	3,323	9.1	13.6	81.7
UK	79.1	4.8	2.5	10.0	2,992	8.4	15.8	81.7
US	78.1	6.9	2.4	10.6	7,290	16.0	18.5	45.4

 

Those criticizing people in the U.S. fail to realize that we already give the government more money than most completely socialized health care systems in other countries receive only to get almost nothing in return for it.

 

We could complain about greedy corporations but government gets enough money to build their own infrastructure, their own hospitals, and hire and pay for their own services.

 

A failure to endorse socialized health care in the United States is a failure by those who claim to support government to hold said government accountable for failures. This is a very large function with large states and Democratic controlled governments. The money for infrastructure and services is stolen and used to purchase votes and then those who stole it declare that those who don't want to double down are the ones that hate government.

It's insane that you see the problem (astronomical costs compared to other countries) but you don't see the solution (regulate those costs).

Physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and the legal system are all earning insane profits from our broken health care system. Not to mention the thousands of health care pharmaceutical and insurance related lobbyists in Wahington who earn million dollar salaries for doing nothing short of bribing our officials to allow all this to continue. This is why a five minute consultation and some ear drops costs $120.

Fix that.
Edited by tonton - 11/23/12 at 5:31pm

Let those willing to pay for it cut in line or go to a private hospital. That's the way it works in most countries. What's the problem?

It would easily work if we can get costs down.

Obviously, the first step is to get costs down. The only way to do that is through regulation and fair competition. Even a free market step can be beneficial. Let's allow patients to choose generic drugs. Let's cut drug patent validity periods. Let's allow patients to choose their practitioner, not insurance companies.

But this won't be enough. We'll also need to use existing antitrust laws to attack unfair pricing.

I just came across this thread. My comments as posted on Facebook the day after the election:


CNN says that Obama won because his camp had a stronger ground game. I disagree completely. I don't think it's about the ground game at all. Rather, it's an indication that Americans have rejected extremism.
- We refuse to allow religious fundamentalists dictate how our country should run.
- We refuse to allow the uber-wealthy to run the country for their own benefit rather than ours.
- We refuse to allow a few radical party leaders to dictate what we can do with our bodies.
- We refuse to allow leaders to tell a woman that it's her fault she got pregnant by being raped.
- We refuse to allow people to pillage companies to extract all value, shut down the companies, export the jobs, and then send all of their money overseas to avoid paying taxes.
- We refuse to allow leaders to ignore the last 10 centuries of science and try to take us back to the dark ages.
- We refuse to allow leaders to bury their heads in the sand on issues that will affect our grandchildren.
- We refuse to allow leaders to intentionally interfere with the workings of government just to try to limit the President to one term.
- We want leaders who stand for something rather than changing their views every 30 minutes or so depending on who they're talking to.
- We want leaders who understand that living in the United States is a privilege - and it costs money to do so. Someone has to pay for the schools. And the roads. And the defense. And everything else that makes our country work. And simply taxing the heck out of your secretary while you hide all your money in tax havens won't cut it.

Americans want a government that works and represents them. The Democrats showed yesterday that they are far better in touch with that objective than the GOP.

 

The government collects enough money that it need not even utilize the private sector. You are completely failing to see the problem. You don't need to regulate the private sector if you can simply bypass them. Likewise it is ridiculous to contend that the medical sector isn't regulated when it is HIGHLY regulated. Everything done within it needs government approval at some level.

 

This is the same discussion that was had regarding Obama mandating companies and insurers provide contraceptives. Why do you need to mandate someone else pass it out when you can just pass it out yourself? It isn't as if there is some law that declares the government can't hand out birth control pills, condoms and everything else for free at whatever clinics they care to offer. The point is they take the money, don't offer the service and then come back for seconds by mandating others provide the service they already took the money to provide.

 

 

 

The costs aren't up because of profits. The costs are up because of cost-shifting. The medical industry is heavily regulated and you cannot even attempt to compete in it without government permission. There are no unauthorized doctors, hospitals or medicines. Your point is absurd. Plans offer what they are allowed to offer and operate only where they are allowed to operate.

That grossly oversimplifies matters. There are a multitude of reasons why our medical costs are skyrocketing. Just a few:

1. Self-inflicted damage. We still have something like 25% of our population smoking. Obesity rates are even higher. Teen pregnancies where there is no prenatal care. Or pregnancies complicated by drugs, smoking, or alcohol. Diets consisting of stuff that we wouldn't feed a pig. Go to a state fair some time and watch all the 500 pound people with turkey legs in both hands. Or all the people who need carts to get around Walmart. Only a small percentage of Americans exercise with any regularity at all. These things are preventable - and account for a huge percentage of our health care costs.

2. Liability laws. As just one example, cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease and there's not one shred of evidence that malpractice plays any part in any significant number of cases. Yet doctors are getting sued for "causing" CF on a regular basis - and losing.

3. Defensive medicine. At least partly due to #2 above, doctors prescribe endless tests that have no real therapeutic or diagnostic value - just to keep from getting sued.

4. Fear of dying. I read once that something like 50% of a person's lifetime medical costs occur in the last month of their life. We go to extraordinary expense to extend the life of someone who is clearly dying and no medicine in the world can change that. But that doesn't stop us from doing everything possible to get every minute we can - at enormous expense in terms of money, peace of mind, and quality of life.

5. Fear of risk. While it is not perfect, our procedures for approving new medicines attempt to reduce risks to extraordinarily low levels - thus keeping many potentially useful medicines off the market (again, at least partly due to #2 above).

6. Incentives are all wrong. No one is incentivized for keeping patients healthy. Rather, doctors and hospitals make money when people are sick. That is not to say that doctors or hospitals neglect their responsibilities to try to keep people healthy, but there is completely insufficient incentive to PREVENT problems. The focus of the entire system is on fixing problems after they occur.

And so on.

Many of those are global, but some of them are particularly unique to the United States. So regardless of who is paying, our costs will be dramatically higher than most of the world - because of the factors given above. Fixing our health care expenditures has absolutely nothing to do with who pays. Rather, if we want to reduce our percent of GNP spent on medicine, we need to address the issues above.

 

 

You are correct that these matters would lower cost but the same party pushing the Obamacare coverage is the same party preventing action here.

 

Don't you understand that in a multi-ethnic, multiracial society that when you judge someone or expect responsibility for oneself that it is a racist notion? Thus you can't judge but you can ban for everyone. All this is done in the name of freedom of course.

 

 

 

Of course these items are preventable. Many of them are also strongly correlated with lower levels of income and education. However when you live in a society where people are entitled to outcomes regardless of their own efforts, then no one is going to change behavior because there is no causality. You can't see the effect of bad behaviors when the government shelters you from them. If you have that teen pregnancy replete with kid that is ADD/ADHD or perhaps even more damaged. You get to be a paid caretaker for life and the kid gets a lifelong Social Security Disability Check for something as vague as "autism like symptoms." The government counts on and steals the revenue from smokers just like they count on you playing the lottery. They could solve the problem but it profits them to ignore it. Preprocessed foods are great for grain growers as is the ethanol mandate and the tariffs on sugar which helps corn syrup do so well. All of these are Democratic crony capitalism at work and also feature Democratic transfer payments at work. It only falls apart when everyone is broke.

 

 

Well of course they are going to get sued. They are one of those evil makers. They have money and profit that some taker hasn't taken yet. Besides those trial lawyers, almost exclusively Democrats, needs to fight for the little guy just like John Edwards did. You call it liability laws that are killing the system. They call it fighting for the little man.

 

Well and don't forget that the government has mandated the costs be paid and that the insurance must offer and provide for it as well.

4. Fear of dying. I read once that something like 50% of a person's lifetime medical costs occur in the last month of their life. We go to extraordinary expense to extend the life of someone who is clearly dying and no medicine in the world can change that. But that doesn't stop us from doing everything possible to get every minute we can - at enormous expense in terms of money, peace of mind, and quality of life.
 

 

 

Who says yes to and pays for all this end of life care that consumes all the double the tax rate monies we render unto them that would pay for an entire socialized health care program in most other countries, why the government does via Medicare. Again this is about government incompetence and those who got the programs being unable to control their own victims and their crazy ever growing demands. Why grandma might die two weeks earlier if she doesn't get a 1% chance at a liver transplant and she is 83 years old? Better not judge it. She might be a woman, or a minority or someone who could scream about inequitable treatment. Just say yes to everyone and no to no one and if we run out of money just go ask for more. Life isn't about equal opportunity. It is about equal outcomes and the hardest place to make those outcomes equitable is end of life of course. Plus those retirees vote and their grandkids can't yet.

 

Well I hate to break it to you but healthy patients don't need very much health care. Many of them would prefer something like how people keep their auto insurance where you handle most of the "maintenance" yourself and go see a "mechanic" when you have a problem. They would probably prefer a health savings account with a much less expensive umbrella plan that covers the rare incident of cancer or other rare concern.

 

These types of plans just happen to be the type being outlawed by Obamacare. They are outlawed because it isn't about the number of dollars being spent on healthcare. We have plenty of those. We don't have enough dollars to transfer to others though. Those older voters who need lifelong Social Security Disability while taking their electric scooters to McDonalds need more dollars and the only way they can get them is by mandating healthy people purchase more health care.

 

 

 

It isn't regardless of who is paying. It is precisely because of who is paying. When you pay, you consider alternatives. If you don't burn your hand on the stove, nothing in your brain decides to stop touching hot stoves. When someone had bad or negative health related to lifestyle choices. They should be given enough health care to minimize the pain and suffering during their self-chosen decline. We don't do that. We attempt to make them whole again. If someone has two bad knees and diabetes and a bad kidney from a lifetime of booze, smoking and bad food. We give them oxygen, insulin, two knee replacements, physical therapy and a liver transplant. In their mind, the fates just struck them wrong and they crapped out in the game of life. It wasn't about personal choice to them.

 

It's no different to them with health as it is with money. You got lucky. Share the wealth and share your health.

 

You do realize that's a British newspaper article about the British NHS right?  

 

The UK has their own, specific issues...

 

Let me get this strait...  Socialized health care is bad because the US has a wasteful and inefficient government?  Maybe they should concentrate on fixing inefficiencies instead of simply brushing them under the carpet and saying that socialized health care is too expensive.  Unless the American people like paying twice as much for half as much benefit, and having lower life expectancy, infant mortality and living standards than countries with socialized health care...  

Quote:

You're kidding, right?

 

Did you fail third grade economics?

 

Why don't you tell me what increased demand (and plenty of supply capacity) usually do to price?

 

Then I can tell you why it doesn't happen in the US (but it happens in Canada).

 

Lobbyists, corruption, quid pro status quo.

 

Apparently you weren't aware that all the phrases you just uttered are dog whistles for racists. You just let them know you are on their side.

 

At least that is what Democrats say every time Republicans mention what you just mentioned.

You are fortunate that you have a good insurance plan. Others are not that lucky as you.
 

 

Please tell that to your compatriots on the left in Canada. You can get physically attacked in Canada for exposing such sentiments.

They have that system in Canada. The rich people who want to cut in line can always go to the US for treatment. And they do. Let them.

 

But yeah, I think the Hong Kong/Swiss/German/Austrian/Dutch/Scandinavian/Spanish/French/British system is better than the Canadian system. Canada's problem, however, is not enough doctors, due to the draw of insane profits if they practice in the US. The broken system in the US is contributing to the Canadian problem.