Quote: Original post by trzy
Making judgments based on sources you trust is a necessity in a complicated world.

True. Rendering public opinions based on second-hand information that you have not yourself validated, though, is neither necessity nor benefit - something for which our President was roundly criticized when he injected himself into a law enforcement situation on which he was not fully briefed. You presented yourself as only having been told, not as having viewed the material first-hand. I will not apologize for criticizing that presentation, but I will say that characterizing your opinion as uninformed when you in fact were informed is an error on my part, and I apologize for that.

Quote: We don't need to recognize this. This is already the reality of America. How else is the information going to be communicated if not in a culturally and linguistically-appropriate manner?

Imperiously, insensitively and inappropriately. Which happens today in American to hundreds of thousands of poor and minorities every year.

Our perspectives are clearly different. For whatever reason, you assume fair treatment is the norm, while I assume the opposite. Having recently been made aware of a book called Medical Apartheid (somewhat sensational title, but the facts bear it out) and living in Harlem, New York where I see very sick people all around every day, I think that having an enforceable legal provision that considers the minorities a positive.

Quote: It's a redundant and unnecessary provision.

Okay, let's even assume that it is redundant and unnecessary. Does that make it "nonsensical," or even fraudulent as you insinuate with your ridicule of "cultural appropriateness consultants"? You could have said you think it's an unnecessary provision as we already have laws and codes of ethics that mandate such, and we should simply enforce those rather than write new ones. I would have respected that. Instead you dismiss the underlying concern as "nonsensical," which I do not respect.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
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.

bingo

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.

So what can be done that won't inevitably lead to COMMUNISM

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Well I just hope that adding the 47 million uninsured won't clog the hospitals up too much (bad for everybody)

Wait. Are you saying that poor people should be denied hospital care so that they don't "clog up" the hospitals for rich people?

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.

Uhh.... you do realize that when the 47 million uninsured get sick, they already "clog up" hospitals, though it's just that they're forced to do it through the emergency room. I haven't seen a robotic E.R., so I'm pretty sure that those sick people are ALREADY affecting doctors' schedules and waiting lists.

I've never understood how the spin-meisters have gotten by claiming that there will be a sudden flood of patients, when it's long been established that no one can be refused in the emergency room.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I've never understood how the spin-meisters have gotten by claiming that there will be a sudden flood of patients, when it is ALREADY established that no one can be refused in the emergency room.

Simple: those who should be proponents of healthcare reform (largely the Democrats) are pussies. Oh, and they don't own enough media outlets to reinforce their variants of the narrative. Even supposedly left-leaning outlets like MSNBC spend too much time covering what the "other side" is saying, and then appending a brief moment of incredulity to it after the fact.

The national debate has been poisoned by extensive disinformation, leading to angry initiations by pro-business types that automatically set pro-reform types on the defensive. It's tactically brilliant, really.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
The national debate has been poisoned by extensive disinformation, leading to angry initiations by pro-business types that automatically set pro-reform types on the defensive. It's tactically brilliant, really.

Agreed.


In my political memory, the rightwing echo machine has always been far more impressive at it's spin (and even disinformation) than any collective effort on the left.* The difference seems to be that the hardcore right-wingers have made an art of rabble-rousing/demagoguery/faux-outrage, while I haven't seen such poo-flinging to be anywhere near as common from the liberal commentators.

On the plus side, the ~recent over-the-top nature of the rightwing spin seems to be losing its effectiveness (at least outside of the population of diehard neocons).





* IMO, the most amusing spin that the Republican party has consistently gotten away with is their claim to be for small government and "getting government out of the way of the people, doncha know," while the party simultaneously devises legal ways to dictate what medical advances should be stiffled and what should go on in people's bedrooms.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on August 9, 2009 1:48:16 PM]

Quote: Original post by Promit

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"

In case it wasn't clear from the last post, I would love to see the health insurance companies go broke. They're incredible leeches on society. I'm disappointed that the political landscape in this country is that not only do politicians not have the balls to go single payer, but the effort will likely fail entirely. Polls show massive favorabilities for public option (60%+) and it still won't happen.

Leeches on society? In what way exactly?

Surely you are not talking about their profit margins? Those are pretty lame as a percentage of invested capital.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

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.

Can you cite this proposal, and its opponents?

If 'raise its own revenue' includes 'not abusing the contract-enforcing position of government to strongarm people into deals they wouldnt otherwise agree to', id be all for it. Itd be hilarious.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I've never understood how the spin-meisters have gotten by claiming that there will be a sudden flood of patients, when it is ALREADY established that no one can be refused in the emergency room.

Simple: those who should be proponents of healthcare reform (largely the Democrats) are pussies. Oh, and they don't own enough media outlets to reinforce their variants of the narrative. Even supposedly left-leaning outlets like MSNBC spend too much time covering what the "other side" is saying, and then appending a brief moment of incredulity to it after the fact.

Emergency care is one thing, what about diagnostics and long-term care? Or issues that may not appear immediately life threatening? On the one hand, the high cost of doctor visits, diagnostic procedures, and the like work to discourage Americans from seeking treatment. This high cost is a real problem. On the other hand, allowing everyone essentially free medical procedures would definitely lead to a spike in patient visits for all manner of frivolous reasons perhaps leading to the much-feared rationing we see in the UK.

If I want to get a balltrasound right now, or an MRI, I can get it within days to a couple weeks tops. My understanding is that this is not always the case in the UK and Canada.

Quote: Original post by trzy
Emergency care is one thing, what about diagnostics and long-term care? Or issues that may not appear immediately life threatening? On the one hand, the high cost of doctor visits, diagnostic procedures, and the like work to discourage Americans from seeking treatment. This high cost is a real problem. On the other hand, allowing everyone essentially free medical procedures would definitely lead to a spike in patient visits for all manner of frivolous reasons perhaps leading to the much-feared rationing we see in the UK.

If I want to get a balltrasound right now, or an MRI, I can get it within days to a couple weeks tops. My understanding is that this is not always the case in the UK and Canada.

To answer your question from a dutch perspective: im very well connected with the medical profession, so i could get an MRI within a month. Without the right signature (which would have otherwise cost me a few hunderd euros or so), itd have taken at least a month longer.

Yay centralized healthcare?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by trzy
Emergency care is one thing, what about diagnostics and long-term care? Or issues that may not appear immediately life threatening? On the one hand, the high cost of doctor visits, diagnostic procedures, and the like work to discourage Americans from seeking treatment. This high cost is a real problem. On the other hand, allowing everyone essentially free medical procedures would definitely lead to a spike in patient visits for all manner of frivolous reasons perhaps leading to the much-feared rationing we see in the UK.

If I want to get a balltrasound right now, or an MRI, I can get it within days to a couple weeks tops. My understanding is that this is not always the case in the UK and Canada.

To answer your question from a dutch perspective: im very well connected with the medical profession, so i could get an MRI within a month. Without the right signature (which would have otherwise cost me a few hunderd euros or so), itd have taken at least a month longer.

Yay centralized healthcare?

It is the same in Poland, although being a very poor country, the socialized care there is quite abysmal.