Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron
This is reminding me of the time I had to phone the SOCIALIZEINIZED fire department when one of the wall sockets in my house burst into flames. I had to spend two hours talking to some bureaucrat on the phone to get them to send out a fire engine, because the fact that it was SOCIALIZEINIZED there was some automatically some kind of SOCIALIZEINIZEINIZEINIZED bureaucrat in between me and my fire department. In the end I burned to death because of socialism.

If you think a socialized fire department could work, you're living in a fairy tale.

So because fire departments, which have long been the province of local governments, work, everything the government does will work? What are you, a communist?

Quote: I don't know, the UK seems to manage fine, and manages to offer a fantastic quality of care.

Is it as good as it could be? Or for that matter, as good as it should be? Some evidence suggests not. And as for managing this unremarkable system, I'll concede that Britain does a fine job, except possibly in the area of finances, which I understand are in quite a shambles.

The communist card there really? I doubt his sarcasm was claiming to say that everything is better with the Government lets toss away this whole freedom thing, yet that extreme conclusion is jumped to like there couldn't possibly be a less dramatic interpretation. Something like fire departments work so maybe something else might work too. Maybe its worthing thinking about. Maybe its even worth trying.


As to the UK health care not being "as good as it should be?" That's the wrong question. If we wait for the flawless option then we wait forever. The correct question is "is it better?" Then you can get into what about it works, what is repeatable here. Tossing one's hands up and refusing to examine or try something because its not "as good as it should be" is a fantastic way to get nothing done at all.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Rich or poor, if a person has to wait on a waiting list to get a procedure they need, it's going to hurt them.

So poor people should just be turned away at the door so that rich people don't have to wait? That is the most inhumane thing I've ever heard!

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
This is why it's a little tiring to hear people say things like "ohhh the stupid republicans think this is socialized healthcare! it's NOT its just a public OPTION"

Well.. maybe an option now, but 10 to 20 years from now? I dont think so.

As I already said, public and private health coexist perfectly happily here in Australia. The Australian system isn't exactly the same as the one being proposed for the U.S., but it should at least prove to you that it's not inevitable that private insurance companies will be driven "out of business" by a public system.

Quote: Original post by Promit
In other news, I was wondering where our Lounge trolls had gone off too. Nice to see you gents back. Only Dredd's still missing I think. Enjoy your arguing with a community you don't contribute to in even the slightest ways! (And I don't mean Chris.)

Your only rebuttal is an ad hominem and you call us trolls? Grow up.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Your only rebuttal is an ad hominem and you call us trolls? Grow up.

That was an aside, it wasn't his "only" rebuttal (it wasn't even a rebuttal).

Quote: Original post by Goober King
The communist card there really? I doubt his sarcasm was claiming to say that everything is better with the Government lets toss away this whole freedom thing, yet that extreme conclusion is jumped to like there couldn't possibly be a less dramatic interpretation. Something like fire departments work so maybe something else might work too. Maybe its worthing thinking about. Maybe its even worth trying.

This is a tired old argument. Show how it would be better, particularly with the incompetent US government at the helm. Also, fire departments are a ridiculous comparison because these are the domain of local governments.

Quote:
As to the UK health care not being "as good as it should be?" That's the wrong question. If we wait for the flawless option then we wait forever. The correct question is "is it better?" Then you can get into what about it works, what is repeatable here. Tossing one's hands up and refusing to examine or try something because its not "as good as it should be" is a fantastic way to get nothing done at all.

It doesn't have to be flawless, it just has to be better. If you're proposing that the US ought to adopt the British system, then by many metrics, our healthcare system would worsen. That's not what we want.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Goober King
The communist card there really? I doubt his sarcasm was claiming to say that everything is better with the Government lets toss away this whole freedom thing, yet that extreme conclusion is jumped to like there couldn't possibly be a less dramatic interpretation. Something like fire departments work so maybe something else might work too. Maybe its worthing thinking about. Maybe its even worth trying.

This is a tired old argument. Show how it would be better, particularly with the incompetent US government at the helm. Also, fire departments are a ridiculous comparison because these are the domain of local governments.

Oh right, were you actually serious with that communist comment? Because it was pretty funny to be honest. To be honest I was more making fun of the ridiculous scaremongering regarding universal healthcare, and the crazy fantasies people come out with regarding what a UHC system would be like (bureaucrats in between you and your doctor, etc), rather than making a serious point.

At the end of the day, if UK healthcare were subpar, then I'd have bothered to claim my employer's free health insurance. As it is, I don't see the point in doing so. I'm not saying that UK healthcare is perfect by any means, but at least there's some form of accountability when things go wrong. If you get fucked by your insurance company in the states, then you're shit out of luck.

If for some reason the NHS mess up, they're accountable to the people. If an insurance company drops someone, or refuses to insure them for a "pre-existing condition" they're accountable to no one except their shareholders.

If I fall seriously ill tomorrow, I don't have to worry about what it's going to cost me, whether or not my insurance company is going to pay for it or just ditch me, whether or not I'm going to be saddled with a level of debt that'll take a lifetime to pay off, even with a good job.

I can't count how many threads I've seen people asking ridiculous medical questions in forums, because they're too scared of what it will cost them to go to the doctors.

Now, I'm not saying that the US government is perfect, but I find it very hard to believe that the US government is incapable of doing something that pretty much every first world country has managed to do successfully. If the government is so incompetent with regards to providing healthcare, then I think serious questions need to be asked about the healthcare being provided to your troops, which is government run.

I really have to wonder what "metrics" the two health care systems are being judged on. Especially considering that the U.S has an infant mortality rate comparable to countries like Croatia, and Lithuania, and healthcare costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy.

[Edited by - Stab-o-tron on August 9, 2009 7:15:23 AM]

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron

Quote: Original post by trzy
the incompetent US government

Now, I'm not saying that the US government is perfect, but I find it very hard to believe that the US government is incapable of doing something that pretty much every first world country has managed to do successfully.

As for the "incompetent" comment ... it's probably a sign of someone who's running out of arguments, when they're resorting to vacuous rabble-rousing, instead of any substantive arguments.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on August 9, 2009 10:32:48 AM]

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by Promit
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that some people are simultaneously saying that government will be terrible at healthcare, but somehow no company will be able to compete with its terrible healthcare. Doesn't the very idea of a free market suggest that people will choose the best provider, and so if the government is useless, nobody will buy?

Surely you are smarter then that. Government services don't have to compete, they can subsidize all or part of their service with tax money making the percieved cost of health care extremely cheap or even free. It doesn't matter if their service is better or if they are run effeciently. They don't have to rely on providing a good service to survive.

This isn't an argument for or against government healthcare. I just think your comparison is bullshit.

Seeing as one of the primary alternatives on the table is a system which would be mandated to sustain its own operation financially, Promit's comparison seems rather appropriate.

So, if those in disagreement really believe that the government is so terrible, there should be exactly zero opposition to a public-option which is explicitly and forever mandated to raise it's own revenue (as sufficient to cover it expenses). Of course, the neocons oppose even these options, making it pretty clear that an excuse citing fear of subsidized competition is bullshit.

Ok. All you naysayers.

Have you not yet, at minimum, been convinced that the US system sucks right now?

Wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to do something to improve it?

Well, what the fuck would you suggest?

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Judging from previous Obama speeches where he called himself a "proponent of a single-payer system" and that this bill inevitably destroys private companies, I would assume this stepping stone very clearly indicates the end objective.

You do realize that the part in bold above is not "inevitable," right? That it is, in fact, a specious argument advanced by the same people who claim that government can not run anything effectively and private enterprise will always outperform public service.

In fact, public and private health options co-exist in many countries, for the entire population, and even co-exist in America for select sub-populations: the elderly and veterans.