Once the Commies infiltrate our medical care, it's gonna be Red Dawn all over again, and this time we don't have Patrick Swayze!Woodsey said:
USA health system... umm... what the hell?!
- Thread starter Zhukov
- Start date
The British system has troubles sure, though they're not as bad as everyone says. What's the facist system? Is that the Swiss system you mentioned? Cause that sounds... okay. I guess, but I still worry about hospitals being for profit organizations, doesn't sound right to me.burzummaniac said:How ironicorangeban said:.
Doesn't Sweden spend about 50% of it's funds on welfare? Funds which can be allocated elsewhere? I also hear a ton of shit about the British system, usually regarding the quality of the service and waiting times. I'm not sure about the Canadian or Australian systems though. Still, I wouldn't suggest switching to a Socialist system, it just doesn't seem to work well in my eyes. I prefer the Fascist system (which is similar but I find it preferable). I'll try and research the Canadian and Australian systems though.
Yeah when you spend money you usually don't have it anymore. I'm aware.SuperShadowAce said:
The thing is you see it as someone must be broke after spending 20,000 on a surgery. I see it as a small enough amount that almost any adult could pay that amount and still live decently.
Yup, this right here is why no-one in Scotland invents anything or in fact works at all. I mean, we have free health-care, medication, schooling (including university), dammit the council even provides housing! Since we get so much for free we all just sit around, refusing to do anything, 'cause if anything goes wrong then we just get the government to pay for it! I mean, forget that if we all attempted to earn no income the government would have no money (the government uses taxes to fund itself remember) then the government couldn't provide all these things for free, that doesn't matter. [/endsarcasm]dehboy said:
Yeah, actually, "to help out your fellow countryman" is exactly the incentive why many people do stuff: see charity work, sticking to a job that doesn't pay great due to it being an important job despite having other options (for instance, teaching).
This is classic fear-mongering. "If we had socialized services then we'd have no iPhones! NONE! What's the point of poor people being able to life their lives if we have no iPhones?!?!?!?!?!?!"
Kinda my point. Socialised roads are a given pretty much everywhere, without concerns about non-tax payers using them. I was drawing a loose comparison across to socialised healthcare, though obviously the situation's a bit different.emeraldrafael said:
Most countries have their unique forms of medicare because of one reason: They tax the hell out of their citizens. Most "developed" countries with this have such extreme taxes to pay for every idiot-Joe going out and replaying that awesome move he saw on Wrestling and getting seriously disfigured for it. Most Americans don't like the idea of already getting less cash than we already have as many are unable to buy their meals with their current salary, how will they handle a massive tax hike?
Besides, why should we pay for those random idiots who get themselves hurt? I don't. What people are mistaking here is that it's NOT the health care system's fault, it's the insurance companies fault, because so many of them refuse to pay for whatever reason they can weasel themselves out of. If we leave the health care system alone, and forced the medical insurance companies to actually earn their damn pay, then a lot of these issues would be fixed.
Lastly, people are seeming to misunderstand the idea of American emergency care. You don't walk in half-dead and have to fill out waivers and pay up front to get that life saving treatment, no. American medical staff are required by law to treat you and save your life using anything they're able to use, and only after you are alive, stable, and getting ready to go home do they even talk about any sort of bill, if there is on. Which is course should go back to our lovely insurance companies who will then deny it.
To sum up: The American healthcare system is fine. It's the American medical insurance system that's gone to hell.
Besides, why should we pay for those random idiots who get themselves hurt? I don't. What people are mistaking here is that it's NOT the health care system's fault, it's the insurance companies fault, because so many of them refuse to pay for whatever reason they can weasel themselves out of. If we leave the health care system alone, and forced the medical insurance companies to actually earn their damn pay, then a lot of these issues would be fixed.
Lastly, people are seeming to misunderstand the idea of American emergency care. You don't walk in half-dead and have to fill out waivers and pay up front to get that life saving treatment, no. American medical staff are required by law to treat you and save your life using anything they're able to use, and only after you are alive, stable, and getting ready to go home do they even talk about any sort of bill, if there is on. Which is course should go back to our lovely insurance companies who will then deny it.
To sum up: The American healthcare system is fine. It's the American medical insurance system that's gone to hell.
The Fascist system is like the Socialist system, but the free healthcare only goes to productive members of society (I.E. has a job, contributes to society) who genuinely cannot afford the payments. Some made getting insurance obligatory (like in Switzerland). I like the system tbh, it seems like a decent mix between capitalism and socialism. I agree that hospitals shouldn't become profit machines, but I think they should be able to sustain themselves without being funded purely from the people's taxes.orangeban said:The British system has troubles sure, though they're not as bad as everyone says. What's the facist system? Is that the Swiss system you mentioned? Cause that sounds... okay. I guess, but I still worry about hospitals being for profit organizations, doesn't sound right to me.burzummaniac said:How ironicorangeban said:
Doesn't Sweden spend about 50% of it's funds on welfare? Funds which can be allocated elsewhere? I also hear a ton of shit about the British system, usually regarding the quality of the service and waiting times. I'm not sure about the Canadian or Australian systems though. Still, I wouldn't suggest switching to a Socialist system, it just doesn't seem to work well in my eyes. I prefer the Fascist system (which is similar but I find it preferable). I'll try and research the Canadian and Australian systems though.
I kind of thought that the British system couldn't be that bad. Honestly, the people I heard acted as if it was hell on earth :/. The media likes to take jabs at it I believe...
Last post on this thread for me, but let me just put this one response back up here: Ludeius: I don't know who you think hates gays. I certainly don't. I don't think the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage all, and I think it certainly doesn't have the right to determine what two consenting adults agree to do. Interference with Freedom of Contract is a big no-no to me (another reason why I hate Obamacare).
That's a minor point, but it leads into a larger one. Judging from what you've said throughout this way, I don't think you're objective at all. I came to the conclusion a while ago that you are far enough to the left that your assumption of teh BIAS from Fox more comes from your mistaken belief that you are impartially deciding the truth, when in fact you are squarely left and victim of massive confirmation bias. And if you agreed with me about how biased MSNBC is, why single out Fox? I suspect your agreement is a fig leaf to maintain some appearance of impartiality.
Calling Fox a fear monger (to the exclusion of other groups that could easily match its "fear-mongering" status, like the DNC, the View, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, etc.) DOES warrant a response. And it was inflammatory because you called me an idiot. I don't know why you expected differently when you insulted me.
I don't know about you, but when I see opinion pieces, I expect at least arguments from one direction and personal extrapolation of data, so I don't count opinion pieces for when I account for bias. Which leads me into my final message (not that either of you might not have a rebuttal worth listening to, I'm just really tired of this. It's not like we're going to convince each other or anything.) for Cadet:
One, I disagree that raising taxes will help. It hinges on the assumption that people will continue to work just as hard, but fork over more money to the govt. They won't, and they never have to this day. High taxes depress economic activity - at some point the burden of making the pie becomes such that the pie gets smaller. Even if the gov't gets a larger portion of the pie (and it's averaged out to about 20% over the last half-century, which is less than President Obama's rosy unrealistic fantasy budget's assumptions) the pie will shrink and result in lower revenues. I also am no longer certain what is meant by trickle down, because if anything could be considered trickle down, it'd be funneling it up toward the government and then letting it trickle down onto whomever the government decides deserves it, which is the central platform of the Democratic Party. I'm for bottom up economics...where there are low barriers to entry for entrepreneurs, meaning minimal regulation and taxation...which only Republicans now support (well, when they aren't lying through their teeth, which is for politicians is like breathing).
As for CNN's bias, I mostly noticed it during Katrina. Constant editorializing in the middle of so called hard news segments, concentrating on stories deleterious to then-President when Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco deserved a fair share of the blame, being the ones in charge of first response. In fact, if it weren't for TEH EBIL FOX, their incompetence would never have been noticed. Not to mention the narrative they were crafting about the Iraq War was unfair and incomplete, seemingly engineered to discredit Pres. Bush (not that, in hindsight, the war was a good idea. IMHO, it probably wasn't.), and one which didn't jibe with the accounts of my many friends in the service. CNN's bias doesn't come from any overt method, it comes from story selection, which is a particularly insidious form of bias.
As for accounts of bias, Stewart didn't manage to point out lies without referencing the lies of the other side. Numerous polls have found that Fox News viewers are not less or more well informed than viewers of other networks - Politifact.org agrees with this assertion, and rates Jon's claim false. In fact, according to a Pew Poll last year, Hannity viewers are better informed than Stewart viewers (how anybody can listen to the personality-less Hannity for an hour is anyone's guess). And a Youtube channel devoted to pointing out errors at Fox is not only a good thing, but not limited to Fox. There are websites like Mediaite that perform the same service for other networks - frankly, I don't think there's any news outlet without some bias, but the froth and vitriol aimed at Fox and Fox alone is undeserved IMHO. But suggesting that having a youtube channel about it is evidence that Fox is TEH EBIL BIAZED means that ANY website that finds mistakes in any news outlet is evidence that all networks are TEH EBIL BIAZED.
That's a minor point, but it leads into a larger one. Judging from what you've said throughout this way, I don't think you're objective at all. I came to the conclusion a while ago that you are far enough to the left that your assumption of teh BIAS from Fox more comes from your mistaken belief that you are impartially deciding the truth, when in fact you are squarely left and victim of massive confirmation bias. And if you agreed with me about how biased MSNBC is, why single out Fox? I suspect your agreement is a fig leaf to maintain some appearance of impartiality.
Calling Fox a fear monger (to the exclusion of other groups that could easily match its "fear-mongering" status, like the DNC, the View, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, etc.) DOES warrant a response. And it was inflammatory because you called me an idiot. I don't know why you expected differently when you insulted me.
I don't know about you, but when I see opinion pieces, I expect at least arguments from one direction and personal extrapolation of data, so I don't count opinion pieces for when I account for bias. Which leads me into my final message (not that either of you might not have a rebuttal worth listening to, I'm just really tired of this. It's not like we're going to convince each other or anything.) for Cadet:
One, I disagree that raising taxes will help. It hinges on the assumption that people will continue to work just as hard, but fork over more money to the govt. They won't, and they never have to this day. High taxes depress economic activity - at some point the burden of making the pie becomes such that the pie gets smaller. Even if the gov't gets a larger portion of the pie (and it's averaged out to about 20% over the last half-century, which is less than President Obama's rosy unrealistic fantasy budget's assumptions) the pie will shrink and result in lower revenues. I also am no longer certain what is meant by trickle down, because if anything could be considered trickle down, it'd be funneling it up toward the government and then letting it trickle down onto whomever the government decides deserves it, which is the central platform of the Democratic Party. I'm for bottom up economics...where there are low barriers to entry for entrepreneurs, meaning minimal regulation and taxation...which only Republicans now support (well, when they aren't lying through their teeth, which is for politicians is like breathing).
As for CNN's bias, I mostly noticed it during Katrina. Constant editorializing in the middle of so called hard news segments, concentrating on stories deleterious to then-President when Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco deserved a fair share of the blame, being the ones in charge of first response. In fact, if it weren't for TEH EBIL FOX, their incompetence would never have been noticed. Not to mention the narrative they were crafting about the Iraq War was unfair and incomplete, seemingly engineered to discredit Pres. Bush (not that, in hindsight, the war was a good idea. IMHO, it probably wasn't.), and one which didn't jibe with the accounts of my many friends in the service. CNN's bias doesn't come from any overt method, it comes from story selection, which is a particularly insidious form of bias.
As for accounts of bias, Stewart didn't manage to point out lies without referencing the lies of the other side. Numerous polls have found that Fox News viewers are not less or more well informed than viewers of other networks - Politifact.org agrees with this assertion, and rates Jon's claim false. In fact, according to a Pew Poll last year, Hannity viewers are better informed than Stewart viewers (how anybody can listen to the personality-less Hannity for an hour is anyone's guess). And a Youtube channel devoted to pointing out errors at Fox is not only a good thing, but not limited to Fox. There are websites like Mediaite that perform the same service for other networks - frankly, I don't think there's any news outlet without some bias, but the froth and vitriol aimed at Fox and Fox alone is undeserved IMHO. But suggesting that having a youtube channel about it is evidence that Fox is TEH EBIL BIAZED means that ANY website that finds mistakes in any news outlet is evidence that all networks are TEH EBIL BIAZED.
Yes, but for that expendature you're not getting the same amount of health care as other countries that can balance their budgets.harmonic said:
That ALSO is in black and white. Spend more and get less... isn't that the antithesis of the american way?
But you're not even close to as large as Canada....
I agree, per capita-wise. Which is why there's a movement in europe to create balanced budgets, in order to begin tackling the problem.
See, if you don't have a balanced budget, you will NEVER address the debt problem and it will destroy the country. The problem is the States has one of the worst external debts in the world, 1st by total debt, and 19th by per capita. It cannot afford to NOT raise taxes. At some point, it will be a necessity, particularily because the country's idea of debate is two budgets with billion dollar deficits.
After over a decade of balanced budgets, I think my country is very much in a position to judge.
Low revenue coming in, high spending going out, high corruption in the private sector for health care.
Seems the problems are pretty obvious to anyone.
Except... health care ain't doin it. It's not the money being shelled that's the premise, it's the result. The result is abject failure. I mean... you saying there's a ton of money going in... why... isn't that just more PROOF health care ain't doin it?
You're not getting what you're paying for. I don't see how that can't be more clear to you. Again, the numbers don't lie. You're paying more, and getting less. It's a failed system by any capitalist standard.
Regardless, America needs more revenue. Somehow. It simply cannot keep running trillion dollar deficits, or deficits at all. And cuts are at the point it just can't do so any more without majorly destroying the country's infrastructure. If it hasn't already.
I'm 17. Almost 18. Clearly you are a cynic, and have a very limited understanding about how people and government work. Don't give me that "I earned everything I made, and I deserve every last penny of it". Please, give me a break, you're a human being. Just like the rest of us. If you're rich you either knew the right people, were driven, and worked hard, and let's face it, you definitely had help from lots of different people along the way, or you were born into it. You didn't do it all by yourself. Either way, are you seriously going to tell me 1 person out of a world full of billions of people, deserves to be obscenely rich, while there are millions of people who can barely afford to eat? You stop being naive. I'm not saying you have to give away your entire fucking fortune, but who the hell do you think you are? Human life is human life. Your status in society doesn't somehow make you better than the rest of the populace. And if you think it does, frankly, you disgust me.dehboy said:
And helping eliminate things like poverty and supporting things like health care for all people, and better education by giving tax money to them helps move society forward, and actually will make society MORE prosperous. And that's all that matters. The world doesn't care about you as a person. The world cares about what you can contribute to society. People can live their lives without fear, and do what they want to do. Poor people can actually be given a chance at doing something great, and have their potential for things like the arts, math and science realized. Maybe the next Albert Einstein lives in the ghetto, but has no way of achieving greatness because of the lack of opportunity life gave him.
Ambition is not created by competition. I'm a naturally driven person. I can't be the only one. I want to be a actor and a writer. I'm not doing those things because I want to be rich. I'm doing them because it's something I really want to do. If I'm good at it, society will reward me.
But I won't get paid, you say? Sir, I want you to do some research on the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden). They're some of the happiest, lowest crime, lowest poverty countries and successful economies in the world. Socialistic free market capitalism can exist (eg IKEA). And it works quite well.
But what do I know? I'm just some naive young optimist.
Taxes go to things like public works, military, research, and other shit like that. Now you're talking about a point that is still debated by politicians trying to get elected (Lower taxes but less government funded crap Vs. More government funded crap but higher taxes), and there is really no answer to that. I, personally, would rather have lower taxes and more freedom to do what I want, rather than pay higher taxes but have the government tell me what health care I get. But there are people who feel differently and that's what the argument is about.DracoSuave said:
But the deal with the ball is it involves ownership of a specific object. Your well within your right to own something. But wealth is something else. It's really, at its base, intangible. It's just a number. And right now the distribution of that number is severely uneven in this country, to the point where it's detrimental to progress. Unfortunately, humans are selfish and shortsighted by nature, and unable to see the long term benefits what raising taxes does. Now, granted, the government still needs to be responsible with the money its given. We have to live within our means, and stop borrowing money and spending more then we have. We should be using the money to pay back our debts, and ensuring basic things like the right to live (medical care) to all people. Taxes are the only way to pay for that. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.CM156 said:
The funny thing is, if you look at socialistic free market governments like Denmark, Norway and Sweden, you'd see the good high taxes can bring. Hilariously low crime, low poverty, longer life expectancy, and they're some of the happiest countries in the world. Without causing all the problems of "laziness" and "no ambition" and "end of the economic world" FOX news would like you to believe.
So everyone DESERVES coverage? Why? What gives them that right to demand coverage if they can't pay for it? Just because they need it? Does their need qualify them to drain obscene amounts of money from people who have money? Keep in mind that a single health care claim could range in the low thousands to $20,000 or even higher as seen here. So, someone has to pay $20,000 dollars in the end, is it fair to make someone who worked hard to get money to have to give that up just because the poor "need" it? (Need in parentheses because there will inevitably be scammers taking even more money for themselves as opposed to your precious "needy")Mezmer said:
Now, a lot of people don't usually have a problem helping out a fellow human. But what I have a problem with, and so do most people opposing this, is having someone tell me what I have to do with MY money. If I want to help out a cause I think is worthy, then I'll donate to it. But fuck you if you think you can tell me who deserves my money. The only person who deserves my money is ME, and whoever I feel like giving it to. What about you makes you better than me, that you can tell me what I have to do with my money? If status doesn't make you any better than me, or vice-versa then what right do you have to boss me around?
You say that your status doesn't make you better than anyone else? Try practicing what you preach. Does a persons status as a poor person who "needs" something make them better than a rich person who already has what they "need"? Then shit, sign me up. As a college student who has a part-time job I clearly "need" some money. Where does the line form? Does not having money entitle you to take money from rich people because you "need" money? No that just makes you a thief.
And that is why you're a naive optimist.
That's not your choice at this point.Laxman9292 said:
The choice is:
Increase revenue to Balance the deficit
or
Country collapses.
I like how you THINK the choice is between lower taxes and lower spending, I think it's cute and quaint that a country with a TRILLION dollar deficit on this budget year -alone- thinks that it has these options. It's quaint.
It's like when little children believe in santa claus, and other such cute imaginary fictions.
Your economy is utter shit, and thinking 'not helping working people keep healthy enough to keep what little is left in the economy' is actually valid in the modern world is as quaint as thinking that lowering taxes is going to prevent your country from economic self-destruction.Laxman9292 said:
How's that tooth fairy working out for ya?
If money is intangible then give me all your money. Obviously you have no use for such an intangible thing. See how well you get along without your intangible money. You're an idiot if you think that just because it is a number that money is intangible. Money holds value. And exchanging money is an exchange of values for services that are equal to a value set by the person performing the service. Money is a very real thing and very tangible. That number represents how much value you have and what you can get in return for those numbers. See that is the problem, people like you, who believe that money is intangible and that it is just a number, don't realize how wrong you are and how you're taking bread out of the mouth of the rich to feed the poor. And when you keep coming back eventually the "rich" wont have any bread left for you to take. But you don't understand that, "Oh they're rich they can afford to pitch in a few extra bucks here, and here. Oh and over here and there as well. Whats that? There's nothing left to take? Impossible, they're rich and money is just an intangible number anyways. Herp de Derp."Mezmer said:
You should read Atlas Shrugged. Honestly, yes it is a depressing fear-mongering book on the "evils" of Communism, and whatever every other ignorant person who has never actually read it but knows that Ayn Rand "hates poor people" because everyone else says that. But actually the book is a hypothetical scenario of Socialism's logical conclusion. The people who are responsible for all the innovation in the world (read: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, rich people) decide they are sick of people telling them what they have to do with their money, who "deserves" their products for free, or who "needs" them. They decide to pull out and abandon the country and live by themselves. Now what do you think happens to a country of poor people all clamoring that their "need" is greatest and therefore they deserve the money? Yes it is a wildly unrealistic outcome but then again, isn't every dystopian story? The point is to illustrate a point and give a warning, not to say this is what's gonna happen.
I'm just going to throw in my two pennies and the hop into bed, because I'm beyond tired and my eyes are strained from slime hunting.
I live in the UK and I pay tax that goes towards the NHS. So sure I pay a little more tax, but I live day to day safe in the knowledge that if tomorrow I broke my arm or fractured a rib or tore a muscle I'd be situated in a state hospital bed with the treatment I need. I wouldn't have to worry about a thing and I like that.
It seems almost barbaric that the medical industry has been allowed to remain that way for so long. Treatments refused, insurance turned down or claims denied because of existing conditions. What is wrong with a system when it is twisted into a gross profit making machine of its intended purpose: to help people get better. I understand that doctors and medcial staff need to get paid, they do a fantastic job I'm sure, but really? It seems like a system that's pretty easy to get lost in.
The NHS isn't perfect, but I live safe knowing that I have my treatment already paid for.
I live in the UK and I pay tax that goes towards the NHS. So sure I pay a little more tax, but I live day to day safe in the knowledge that if tomorrow I broke my arm or fractured a rib or tore a muscle I'd be situated in a state hospital bed with the treatment I need. I wouldn't have to worry about a thing and I like that.
It seems almost barbaric that the medical industry has been allowed to remain that way for so long. Treatments refused, insurance turned down or claims denied because of existing conditions. What is wrong with a system when it is twisted into a gross profit making machine of its intended purpose: to help people get better. I understand that doctors and medcial staff need to get paid, they do a fantastic job I'm sure, but really? It seems like a system that's pretty easy to get lost in.
The NHS isn't perfect, but I live safe knowing that I have my treatment already paid for.
Just another thing about my ogverment that needs drastic reform.
The sad thing is that in order to really make the state and operation of it better, you'd have to re-do basically the entire organization and structure of how stuff works.
The sad thing is that in order to really make the state and operation of it better, you'd have to re-do basically the entire organization and structure of how stuff works.