- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Concerning the "Patients United Now" Ad Campaign
Concerning the "Patients United Now" Ad CampaignFollow
I wouldn't mind privatized healthcare being completely outlawed anyway. Governmental healthcare can provide for someone who does not have the means to get better, and everyone does deserve the right to get better. No one, though, deserves the right to extra medical care, because they have more money, not even optionally. A rich person who is ill should die and live like anyone else; the very notion that money can afford you better essential needs is disgusting, much less so that it should.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
I wouldn't mind privatized healthcare being completely outlawed anyway. Governmental healthcare can provide for someone who does not have the means to get better, and everyone does deserve the right to get better. No one, though, deserves the right to extra medical care, because they have more money, not even optionally. A rich person who is ill should die and live like anyone else; the very notion that money can afford you better essential needs is disgusting, much less so that it should.
I'm imagining cogs and springs bursting out of certain people's heads after reading this.
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
This is related, so I'll put it here instead of a new thread.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD99JFDJG0
Someone needs to tell this guy that government is for the people, by the people. It's not about DeMint (or "Republicans") vs Obama. People like this piece of sh*t make it hard for me to get excited about American Politics in general. Clearly hurting Obama's performance rating is more important than actually accomplishing something good for the bulk of the American public, amirite?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD99JFDJG0
Quote:
Last week, DeMint was quoted as telling fellow conservatives: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
Someone needs to tell this guy that government is for the people, by the people. It's not about DeMint (or "Republicans") vs Obama. People like this piece of sh*t make it hard for me to get excited about American Politics in general. Clearly hurting Obama's performance rating is more important than actually accomplishing something good for the bulk of the American public, amirite?
Yes, b-but the Republicans can't get anything done with the Democratic socialist machine steamrolling everything in their path! They must bring down Comrade Obama so they can fly their own flag of freedom.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Where's gbaji?
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
I wouldn't mind privatized healthcare being completely outlawed anyway. Governmental healthcare can provide for someone who does not have the means to get better, and everyone does deserve the right to get better. No one, though, deserves the right to extra medical care, because they have more money, not even optionally. A rich person who is ill should die and live like anyone else; the very notion that money can afford you better essential needs is disgusting, much less so that it should.
If they ever chase you out of America, we'll offer you refuge in Europe, comrade.
Someone needs to tell this guy that government is for the people, by the people.
Someone like Gordon Brown? :)
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
No P.U.N. intended.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Smash wrote:
Someone needs to tell this guy that government is for the people, by the people.
Someone like Gordon Brown? :)
Someone like Gordon Brown? :)
That was uncalled for.
zepoodle wrote:
Where's gbaji?
Haha! Taking a bit of vacation. And, Dr. Encyclopedia is alive and well (lvl 12 I believe....) :)
Um... DailyKos? Really? So. Reading the article/blog/whatever, was there anything other than the labeling of a "cyst" as a "tumor" which they found to be inaccurate about the woman's story? A cyst in your brain will kill you just as surely as a tumor, so I'm not sure why they make such a big deal about the label. It's certainly no worse than downplaying it by calling it a "pimple" over and over...
The woman needed surgery to fix a life threatening condition. She was told it would take her X time to get to see a specialist to verify the need for said surgery. She went to the US to see a specialist sooner, and was told that if she'd waited the X months, she likely would have died or suffered permanent injury. She paid out of pocket (mortgaging her home IIRC) to pay for said surgery in the US, since even after receiving a diagnosis the Canadian medical industry would not do it unless and until she'd gone through their process (which meant months waiting for a specialist to see her to obtain the exact diagnosis she'd already obtained).
Is it a single example being blow out of proportion? Of course. Are there other examples? Absolutely. Does the Canadian health care system work well for most of the people in it? Sure. But that's not the point. The issue is that those pushing a nationalized health care system are selling it on the idea that the care will be "better". The reality is that the care will be "worse", but more people will be able to obtain it. That's the honest truth for any sort of socialized system. It balances out quality of care for each individual with quantity of care which covers more people. So. If you currently are not able to obtain medical care, or have substandard care, it's a good deal. But if you do have health care, you're also certainly going to see your costs go up and the quality go down. It's the tradeoff for covering a whole bunch more people for the same total amount of money.
Given the Left's willingness to throw out examples of poor people without health care as examples of the failings of a non-socialized medical system, I don't think it's unfair for the Right to give a counter example of failings of the proposed "solution" to that problem.
I do find it interesting to see just how far some folks feel they need to go to attack this woman though. Daring to tell her story. That's just criminal! Whatever position you normally hold, it's still pretty clear to see that this is itself an unfair attack. While there's lots of innuendo, the only "false" statement I could see was the whole cyst/tumor thing. And that seems like a pretty silly semantic issue...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
Where's gbaji?
Haha! Taking a bit of vacation. And, Dr. Encyclopedia is alive and well (lvl 12 I believe....) :)
I listened to this story on the way home from work today, thought it pretty intimidating.--> Drug Firms Pour $40 Million Into Health Care Debate.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
Is it a single example being blow out of proportion? Of course. Are there other examples? Absolutely. Does the Canadian health care system work well for most of the people in it? Sure. But that's not the point. The issue is that those pushing a nationalized health care system are selling it on the idea that the care will be "better". The reality is that the care will be "worse", but more people will be able to obtain it.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
gbaji wrote:
Is it a single example being blow out of proportion? Of course. Are there other examples? Absolutely. Does the Canadian health care system work well for most of the people in it? Sure. But that's not the point. The issue is that those pushing a nationalized health care system are selling it on the idea that the care will be "better". The reality is that the care will be "worse", but more people will be able to obtain it. That's the honest truth for any sort of socialized system. It balances out quality of care for each individual with quantity of care which covers more people. So. If you currently are not able to obtain medical care, or have substandard care, it's a good deal. But if you do have health care, you're also certainly going to see your costs go up and the quality go down. It's the tradeoff for covering a whole bunch more people for the same total amount of money.
Honestly, I would rather give every citizen competent health care than give a percentage of the population excellent health care and the remainder none at all. I think that's what you said a socialised health care system would offer, and frankly I don't see anything wrong with it.
Quote:
I do find it interesting to see just how far some folks feel they need to go to attack this woman though. Daring to tell her story. That's just criminal!
It's really more the blatant lying that people took issue with. She repeatedly referred to her cyst as a brain tumour. In the industry, we call that a "lie".
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is it a single example being blow out of proportion? Of course. Are there other examples? Absolutely. Does the Canadian health care system work well for most of the people in it? Sure. But that's not the point. The issue is that those pushing a nationalized health care system are selling it on the idea that the care will be "better". The reality is that the care will be "worse", but more people will be able to obtain it.
You can't really fault him for taking into account the ridiculous and impractical strawman types of arguments that illegalize private insurance, except of course for the fact that anything that radical will never hold political clout in a million years.
bsphil,
That's the point the govn is going to undercut the private insurers. And what happens to a specific market when there are no competitors? Isn't that the arguement you liberals use to bash Wal-Mart? Also if you opt out of the govn obamacare system does this mean you still have to pay taxes for others health care?
Cheap coverage, not decent. There's a difference. Who's going to determine how much doctors are going to be paid if not determined by the market? Are we simply going to pay doctors a set amount?
Not only that but do you really like the idea that they're trying to push this through as fast as they possibly can? Obama doesn't even know what all is in the bill, how can he stand up there and act like it's the most important thing in the history of US politics?
Quote:
If you don't like the government proposed option, DON'T TAKE IT. Use your own awesome insurance. For some people out there, cheap, decent coverage still beats having absolutely nothing.
That's the point the govn is going to undercut the private insurers. And what happens to a specific market when there are no competitors? Isn't that the arguement you liberals use to bash Wal-Mart? Also if you opt out of the govn obamacare system does this mean you still have to pay taxes for others health care?
Cheap coverage, not decent. There's a difference. Who's going to determine how much doctors are going to be paid if not determined by the market? Are we simply going to pay doctors a set amount?
Not only that but do you really like the idea that they're trying to push this through as fast as they possibly can? Obama doesn't even know what all is in the bill, how can he stand up there and act like it's the most important thing in the history of US politics?
If public health care does such a bad job then surely a large market for private insurance is assured?
Kavek,
That's the whole point. A govn system can be run badily and go into debt and still continue forward. Just look at the failure of the USPS, medicare, and a plethora of other govn entities that literally loose millions upon millions annually yet the tax payers are still expected to pick up the tab. Now what do you think that does to private insurers offering the same product?
That's the whole point. A govn system can be run badily and go into debt and still continue forward. Just look at the failure of the USPS, medicare, and a plethora of other govn entities that literally loose millions upon millions annually yet the tax payers are still expected to pick up the tab. Now what do you think that does to private insurers offering the same product?
publiusvarus wrote:
A govn system can be run badily and go into debt and still continue forward. Just look at the failure of the USPS [...] Now what do you think that does to private insurers offering the same product?
According to what you've said previously, it allows Fed-Ex & UPS to prosper and grow by leaps & bounds.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
publiusvarus wrote:
Kavek,
That's the whole point. A govn system can be run badily and go into debt and still continue forward. Just look at the failure of the USPS, medicare, and a plethora of other govn entities that literally loose millions upon millions annually yet the tax payers are still expected to pick up the tab. Now what do you think that does to private insurers offering the same product?
That's the whole point. A govn system can be run badily and go into debt and still continue forward. Just look at the failure of the USPS, medicare, and a plethora of other govn entities that literally loose millions upon millions annually yet the tax payers are still expected to pick up the tab. Now what do you think that does to private insurers offering the same product?
Well, not all that much. I'm told that the wait times for surgeries and appointments in a socialist health care system are incredibly long - so long that only those too poor to afford private insurance will suffer through it. It's like saying that if I sell **** at $1 a bucket I'm undercutting your caviar business.
Quote:
Isn't that the arguement you liberals use to bash Wal-Mart? Also if you opt out of the govn obamacare system does this mean you still have to pay taxes for others health care?
Wal-mart doesn't provide a non-profit essential-to-life service to the entire nation.
Quote:
Cheap coverage, not decent but existent coverage.
ThiefX wrote:
Just a quick question for all you Canadians.
If your healthcare system is far superior to the one in the US then why do so many Canadians cross the border each year to use our healthcare system?
If your healthcare system is far superior to the one in the US then why do so many Canadians cross the border each year to use our healthcare system?
There's also the one's who are using medical services that aren't allowed in Canada. Mostly pharmaceuticals as Canada isn't as quick to be bribed into allowing a new drug onto the market just because someone got paid lots of money to look the other way on some serious side effects.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
We have a few Canadian posters here and a few from various overseas locals. Do any of you guys wish you had the US health care system instead of your own?
Haha.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is it a single example being blow out of proportion? Of course. Are there other examples? Absolutely. Does the Canadian health care system work well for most of the people in it? Sure. But that's not the point. The issue is that those pushing a nationalized health care system are selling it on the idea that the care will be "better". The reality is that the care will be "worse", but more people will be able to obtain it.
The same "opportunity cost" argument I've used in debates about public vs private schools applies here. When the government provides an alternative product, and uses tax dollars to fund it, it effectively adds to the relative cost of any private competing product. Each consumer is already paying for the government product via a portion of their taxes. They will tend to choose to use that service since they've already paid for it. In the case of health insurance, the consumer is mostly businesses and they'll see huge financial benefits to simply dropping their existing private health insurer to enter a government run plan. Doubly so if the plans to remove the tax breaks on employer provided health care go through (which is part of the health care reform package).
One needs only look a states which have implemented this exact type of government health care to see this effect. In both Massachusetts and Hawaii (I believe those are the two), companies dropped their private insurers in droves after the state created their own competing health insurance system. What's funny is that proponents of single payer systems (socialized medicine) don't even hide this very well. Obama said just a couple weeks ago that there were examples of really good single payer systems, and that the US wasn't ready for that sort of thing, but the current proposal(s) would move us in the right direction (or wrong I suppose).
It's very very clear that what's being proposed will lead us almost inevitably to a single government funded health care system. It is, in fact, exactly the *reason* why many are proposing it. They want a single payer system. They believe it's the best way to do things. But they have to get the pesky private health insurance system out of the way first, and that's what this is about. Anyone who claims to not see this is either lying because they want us to go to a single payer system, or they're completely ignorant of the issue itself.
The state can compete unfairly in the market, which is why it should never be allowed to be a direct player in any market. Ever...
Quote:
For some people out there, cheap, decent coverage still beats having absolutely nothing.
Of course. But that's not the issue is it? For some people, cheap, decent housing beats having no housing at all. So, by your logic we should provide socialized housing, right? And for some people, cheap, decent movie tickets beats having no movie tickets at all. So, let's give everyone free tickets to the movies! Do you see how merely pointing at a need does not justify using the government (our tax dollars really) to provide for that need?
"To each according to his need". Where have I heard that before? And what is the other half of the statement? Look at the whole picture, not just the piece in front of you...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The state can compete unfairly in the market, which is why it should never be allowed to be a direct player in any market. Ever...
People's lives are not a commodity that you should be able to buy and sell in a market. Ever.
***
Quote:
Of course. But that's not the issue is it?
If that wasn't the issue then no one would have mentioned it.
Look I know you detest the concept of freedom from which socialized **** is derived, but it's ridiculous to pretend that asking a rhetorical question is going to be met with the answer that you want to hear, when someone disagrees with you.
Edited, Jul 24th 2009 9:58pm by Pensive
Well, Gbaji, seeing as you hate the single desk idea, what is your solution to the US health care systems current woes? You guys are spending way more money then pretty much any other country, both in terms of government funding, and then again from individuals and companies. Your bureaucratic overhead is out of control. Approximately 17% of people have no coverage and about 24% do not have sufficient coverage to actually deal with a serious illness. I asked varrus this and he had an answer, what's yours?
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Of course. But that's not the issue is it? For some people, cheap, decent housing beats having no housing at all. So, by your logic we should provide socialized housing, right? And for some people, cheap, decent movie tickets beats having no movie tickets at all. So, let's give everyone free tickets to the movies! Do you see how merely pointing at a need does not justify using the government (our tax dollars really) to provide for that need?
Look: there is a big, big difference between a movie ticket (luxury) and a life-saving medical procedure (necessity.)
Recent Visitors: 242
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (242)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Concerning the "Patients United Now" Ad Campaign
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC