I just don’t want to have to wait 6 months to see a doctor when I get sick, especially when I’m already paying for it.
Where do you get these bizarre assumptions? Do you have any proof that Canadians wait “6 months” to see a doctor? All you have are anecdotes of relatively rare instances of waits for non-critical procedures. Meanwhile, you ignore completely the under-treatment of the uninsured, which slowly results in a mountain of acute care requirements when serious illness results from years of neglect of treatable conditions.
How many times do we have to post the statistics, Mellie? I personally posted, for your benefit, the statistics on waits for cholecystectomy, a very common procedure, and discussed the effects of waiting for the cholecystectomy.
You studiously ignored the post completely. No response to it at all. It was not anecdotal, it was based upon a Canadian study. You accuse us of supporting our position on anecdotal evidence, however, you refuse to even read or comment on real, documented evidence of what we are saying.
Mellie, your modus operandi is not about discussion. It is about rants. Which just makes you look stupid.
4. re: US infant death rates higher than other countries: “First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.” [2] Notably, however, those countries all adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.” http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
There are many such examples, Mellie. The facts are, it is possible to find some statistics that might, in the short term, decrease. Particularly if one is not averse to cherry-picking, and skewing the data, such as you do with infant mortality rates and longevity rates. Your over-arching statement that “the quality of US health care is deteriorating” is simply not true.
A strange delusion possesses the working classes of the nations where capitalist civilization holds its sway. This delusion drags in its train the individual and social woes which for two centuries have tortured sad humanity. This delusion is the love of work, the furious passion for work, pushed even to the exhaustion ofthe vital force of the individual and his progeny. Instead of opposing this mental aberration, the priests, the economists and the moralists have cast a sacred halo over work.
This is from the very beginning of a book written in 1883 by Paul Lafargue entitled “The Right to be Lazy”.
Mr. Lafargue is or was I should say the son in law of Karl Marx. Too much work you understand led to overproduction and so on, it was part of the marxist economic line. And you wondered why so many people on the left have time to rally and march and so on in the middle of the day when the rest of us are working! And you wondered why they believe they have a right to fruits they have not worked for, nor a health care system they have to pay for because if they aren’t working who is going to pay for all that free care? Not those that use it I guarantee it.
Ask any health care person who has worked for any length of time and we can tell you horror stories of those who are happy to eat up the dollars we have for health care in the most inappropriate fashions. After enough years you just get cynical.
There has to be changes, yet the changes that are proposed have been tried and they do not work in other countriesThe closest one I’ve ever heard about working is in Taiwan and that is because if you use the system too much someone from the government comes to your home and you have to show why your at the hospital every couple weeks. How many Americans do you know besides the resident moonbats that will put up with that? Or the 20 people to a ward, how many young Americans even know what a ward is? The folks here that want socialized medicine must somehow believe that people who get pissed because they have to wait for a hour to be seen in an ER will not mind waiting to have gallbladder out for 6 months while their busy being in pain and puking because of it. Or the doc who complains because he only made $250,000 last year is going to be happy making significantly less. After all he has alimony to pay. Real case by the way. Course he was on wife number 4 and his porsche did have to be towed that day. Thank God there ate lots of docs who aren’t like this, but the reality is that there are plenty who are.
I see health care up close and personal, and our present system has caused deaths of patients, as well as repeat admissions that had resources not been taken away, may not have happened. However to think that the government bean counters will do better than private bean counters is nothing more than sheer stupidity coupled with wishful thinking, a great brew of hemlock. I for one am not drinking.
I just don’t want to have to wait 6 months to see a doctor when I get sick, especially when I’m already paying for it.
Where do you get these bizarre assumptions? Do you have any proof that Canadians wait “6 months” to see a doctor? All you have are anecdotes of relatively rare instances of waits for non-critical procedures. Meanwhile, you ignore completely the under-treatment of the uninsured, which slowly results in a mountain of acute care requirements when serious illness results from years of neglect of treatable conditions.
How many times do we have to post the statistics, Mellie? I personally posted, for your benefit, the statistics on waits for cholecystectomy, a very common procedure, and discussed the effects of waiting for the cholecystectomy.
You studiously ignored the post completely. No response to it at all. It was not anecdotal, it was based upon a Canadian study. You accuse us of supporting our position on anecdotal evidence, however, you refuse to even read or comment on real, documented evidence of what we are saying.
Mellie, your modus operandi is not about discussion. It is about rants. Which just makes you look stupid.
We can all see his modus operandi and its not like he’s convincing anyone. All you are accomplishing by trying to argue with him is occassionally giving him a jumping off point for his next rant.
If you don’t like what he says, select an appropriate number of stars, laugh at him, and move on without responding. Go find one of the other liberals if you are looking for a conversation.
We can all see his modus operandi and its not like he’s convincing anyone. All you are accomplishing by trying to argue with him is occassionally giving him a jumping off point for his next rant.
If you don’t like what he says, select an appropriate number of stars, laugh at him, and move on without responding. Go find one of the other liberals if you are looking for a conversation.
Stellar idea, Bow. (Err, I mean, Pandora...)
As much as I appreciate the posts of oscar and skip, I’d much prefer seeing a thread empty of all but
A post is hidden because Meliorist is being ignored.
I want you to respond to this pwnage. Particularly the part where I got you to admit that “world-class” care would be unavailable to Americans under your Utopian system, and would be available only to those who could afford to go outside the system.
If the best you can do in response is to ridicule and regurgitate, I will consider my thrashing of you thorough, and dust off my hands.
IronDioPriest - 12 May 2008 11:53 PM
C’mon, Meliorist.
IronDioPriest - 12 May 2008 09:17 PM
Meliorist - 12 May 2008 08:56 PM
Should that person be able to enjoy high-quality medical care as a fruit of their labor? Should the money they earn as a result of their commitment to personal excellence be able to purchase them the best medical care they can afford? Or should that person just suck it up and live with the fact that no matter how hard they work, no matter how committed they are to being a productive member of society, there is an arbitrary ceiling, set by beaurocrats, that limits the care he receives to the same care purchased with taxpayer dollars according to government mandate.
By what logic are the affluent prevented from buying private health care in a national health care system? Even if a system were so restrictive as to prohibit such private care, and I am unaware of any that do, the wealthy patient could always travel to a place where world-class care is available.
Ahhh. So you cede that under such a government run system, restrictive or not, private “world-class” health care, to use your words, would be available elsewhere; not within the government run system. If the government were to restrict the wealthy from purchasing “world-calss” care here at home, then the affluent could “travel” to locations where that “world-class” care was available. I get it.
Mideastern Arab billionaires have been flying to Europe for medical care for decades, and European countries generally have nationalized health care.
Proximity matters. Mideastern Arab billionaires come to the United States, when it really matters. The Mayo Clinic is a primary destination. Yassir Arafat spent much time here, in Rochester Minnesota.
Many Americans would likely supplement the benefits of a national health care system with private supplemental care, particularly for elective or cosmetic procedures not covered or not delivered by a preferred practitioner.
Particularly, or exclusively? If not exclusively, what would the impetus be for one to “step outside” the system and supplement it with private supplemental care?
Right now, my HMO denies me many choices. If I go outside the list of plan doctors, I must pay much more. Does that mean our splendid private system is limiting my choices? I have the choice of other doctors if I can afford them. A national health care systems would give Americans the same choice, while protecting them from ruinous medical disasters.
“Right now”, you are free to find a diffferent HMO. “Right now”, a private company is limiting choices based on economic considerations, as perverted by government regulation. If you are unhappy with those choices, you can seek a remedy in the marketplace. You can make a grievance to an employer who may not be in a position to immediately rectify the situation, but who understands the realities of dissatisfied employees. “Right now”, the market is attempting to find solutions to the problem of uninsured citizens, and is being hindered by government regulation.
In your Utopia, the federal government would be the sole arbiter of available choices within the system. Decisions would be made for your health-care based on acts of congress - a body that runs this country fiscally in a manner that any private business using the same tactics would not survive. The same beaurocracy that pollutes the IRS, HUD, and the Departrment of Homeland Security would be in charge of your health care.
People like you believe that the automobile of society is best driven in reverse gear and steered by looking through the rear-view mirror. This is a dangerous way to drive.
The difference between you and I is that I EARNED my license to drive, you got yours out of a box of Cracker Jacks. None of the rest of your gibberish is worth responding to.
IDP has you pegged. Now listen to your mom and go upstairs before your granola gets saugy.
Just where did this cult of extreme responsibility start? Did you grow your own food? Did you sew your own clothes? Did you invent your own language and teach other people to speak it? Were you home schooled? Did you drink water delivered through the pipes of a municipality, or did you only drink rainwater delivered by God?
Tell me what it is that I wrote about responsibility that is extreme. Can you do that? What IS your definition of responsibility?
Your notion of independence and isolation is so extreme as to be pathological.
If you think my “notion of independence” is so extreme, whats extreme about it? Isolation? Because I take responsibility for the choices Ive made in life and dont expect others to pay for my mistakes?
Like most reactionaries,
Who or what am I reacting to? You call me a reactionary, now tell me why?
you don’t have a constructive vision of a desired state of society.
You dont know me or what my vision is. And at least it’s my own, not what some educated idiot put in my head between frat parties. If I thought you had the capacity to understand, Id share it with you. That subject might make for an interesting thread, but it sure hasnt been the topic here.
Rather you are motivated by OPPOSITION TO CHANGE.
Your arrogance to presume to know what motivates me is astounding!! The biggest laugh Ive had in awhile. Thanks!! This truly shows who you got your brilliant mind from. The caps were a nice touch. The Prof must have really been on a tirade when defining Conservatism for ya. What motivates me is my family, giving the best I am able in everything I do, and living a life that pleases my God, but I AM in opposition to change OF THE TIME TESTED, TRIED AND TRUE VALUES, PRINCIPLES AND LAWS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT THIS COUNTRY.
You don’t want to eliminate Social Security or return to child labor or abolish unions.
You are so right.
But people like you opposed these reforms with equal vehemence years ago, claiming that they would destroy personal responsibility and corrupt our society. Your idea of progress is reversing the evolution of society, but only a little bit. You always desire the nonexistent superiority of a mythologized yesteryear, but with most of the comforts of today, and none of the disturbance of tomorrow.
You should make a point to slap your professors next time you see them. You were bullshitted big time. “nonexistent superiority of a mythologized yesteryear”? This made me consider that you may have an eight year major in Liberal Arts, but I realized it could have been picked up with enough time spent reading KOS Kiddies in their daily stuggles to impress each other.
Show me ONE government run social program that even comes close to it’s intended social effect.
Social Security, which was bitterly opposed by “conservatives,” has greatly reduced poverty among elderly Americans. This was exactly the intended social effect, and the program remains highly popular with the American people.
Bull$hit. High popularity and fear due to demagoguery are not the same thing.
And you haven’t responded to my comments above.
You might as well stop now, mealy-mouth. Let go of the BS you’ve been clinging to. You can see full well that the logic of it crumbles under the slightest scrutiny in detail.
That is, unless you’d like to respond to my comments, and your admission that the best “world-class” medical care would be unavailable to citizens under your Utpoian taxpayer-funded health care system, and that for people to receive that “world-class” care, they’d have to go outside the system.
After all, your entire premise ad nauseam is that Americans would suffer no loss of care quality by switching to a system paid for by compulsory taxation; that systems run by socialist governments are superior to our capitalist system. But then you go and say that people would probably supplement that system with private insurance, and that the affluent would be able to receive “world-class” care outside the system - here at home if the politburo allows such a thing, or abroad if it does not.
I want you to respond to this pwnage. Particularly the part where I got you to admit that “world-class” care would be unavailable to Americans under your Utopian system, and would be available only to those who could afford to go outside the system.
If the best you can do in response is to ridicule and regurgitate, I will consider my thrashing of you thorough, and dust off my hands.
IronDioPriest - 12 May 2008 11:53 PM
C’mon, Meliorist.
IronDioPriest - 12 May 2008 09:17 PM
Meliorist - 12 May 2008 08:56 PM
Should that person be able to enjoy high-quality medical care as a fruit of their labor? Should the money they earn as a result of their commitment to personal excellence be able to purchase them the best medical care they can afford? Or should that person just suck it up and live with the fact that no matter how hard they work, no matter how committed they are to being a productive member of society, there is an arbitrary ceiling, set by beaurocrats, that limits the care he receives to the same care purchased with taxpayer dollars according to government mandate.
By what logic are the affluent prevented from buying private health care in a national health care system? Even if a system were so restrictive as to prohibit such private care, and I am unaware of any that do, the wealthy patient could always travel to a place where world-class care is available.
Ahhh. So you cede that under such a government run system, restrictive or not, private “world-class” health care, to use your words, would be available elsewhere; not within the government run system. If the government were to restrict the wealthy from purchasing “world-calss” care here at home, then the affluent could “travel” to locations where that “world-class” care was available. I get it.
Mideastern Arab billionaires have been flying to Europe for medical care for decades, and European countries generally have nationalized health care.
Proximity matters. Mideastern Arab billionaires come to the United States, when it really matters. The Mayo Clinic is a primary destination. Yassir Arafat spent much time here, in Rochester Minnesota.
Many Americans would likely supplement the benefits of a national health care system with private supplemental care, particularly for elective or cosmetic procedures not covered or not delivered by a preferred practitioner.
Particularly, or exclusively? If not exclusively, what would the impetus be for one to “step outside” the system and supplement it with private supplemental care?
Right now, my HMO denies me many choices. If I go outside the list of plan doctors, I must pay much more. Does that mean our splendid private system is limiting my choices? I have the choice of other doctors if I can afford them. A national health care systems would give Americans the same choice, while protecting them from ruinous medical disasters.
“Right now”, you are free to find a diffferent HMO. “Right now”, a private company is limiting choices based on economic considerations, as perverted by government regulation. If you are unhappy with those choices, you can seek a remedy in the marketplace. You can make a grievance to an employer who may not be in a position to immediately rectify the situation, but who understands the realities of dissatisfied employees. “Right now”, the market is attempting to find solutions to the problem of uninsured citizens, and is being hindered by government regulation.
In your Utopia, the federal government would be the sole arbiter of available choices within the system. Decisions would be made for your health-care based on acts of congress - a body that runs this country fiscally in a manner that any private business using the same tactics would not survive. The same beaurocracy that pollutes the IRS, HUD, and the Departrment of Homeland Security would be in charge of your health care.
That is, unless you’d like to respond to my comments, and your admission that the best “world-class” medical care would be unavailable to citizens under your Utpoian taxpayer-funded health care system, and that for people to receive that “world-class” care, they’d have to go outside the system.
Don’t you get exhausted demolishing your own straw men? There is no contradiction between establishing a universal health care system and permitting private supplemental health care. You don’t seem to be able to make a coherent point because you are too busy proving that American health care is the best of all possible worlds. It sure doesn’t look that way to the hundreds of thousands of people bankrupted by medical bills in the US each year.
I noticed how fast you ran away from the Social Security issue. Presumably you think the elderly would be delighted to abandon medicare and that veterans are eager to lose their VA medical care too. Maybe people just don’t realize how much better off they would be at the mercy of profit-seeking insurance companies.
So what abouty it mealy? Why not take on the question directly? Your dodging is becoming comical.
So what abouty it mealy? Why not take on the question directly? Your dodging is becoming comical.
Do you even have a coherent question? Is your question why a national health care system cannot provide the best care that money can buy for everyone? No system can do that, because there will always be exotic, emerging, and experimental treatments that only a few can access or afford. What is your point?
He has been asking you to discuss the implications of your earlier remarks, particularly to the section noted in bold:
By what logic are the affluent prevented from buying private health care in a national health care system? Even if a system were so restrictive as to prohibit such private care, and I am unaware of any that do, the wealthy patient could always travel to a place where world-class care is available. Mideastern Arab billionaires have been flying to Europe for medical care for decades, and European countries generally have nationalized health care.
And BTW, it would be nice if you stopped throwing out straw men, and pretending as if people on this forum are doing what you keep accusing us of doing. You completely dismiss legitimate points with a wave of the hand, and make a series of counter-attacks to distract attention from your non-responsiveness.
In the alternative universe that he shares with his compadres/comrades/fellow travelers, “Meliorist” is able to fancy himself as a mighty and righteous warrior “taking the Powerliners on”.
