Not a real surprise, but things are continuing to be headed in the wrong direction:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/7480
Health care access: CRISIS NOW
Social security: NOT a CRISIS
What does bush waste his time with?
Why did you people vote for such a useless, war mongering idiot?
Full Version: Health Access Crisis Trending Worse
Yeah if only we had voted for John Kerry we would have good strong socialist healthcare!
Oh wait, no, socialist healthcare was not part of the John Kerry platform.
Oh wait, there are alarmingly high emigration rates to the states from Europe and Canada for skilled doctors. Oh wait, nearly every major pharmaceutical breakthrough of the twentieth and twenty first century was made in the United States of America. Oh look, thanks to socialist, beauracratic healthcare, 3,000 people died in last summer's French heat wave!
Oh wait, 84.8 PERCENT OF AMERICANS CURRENTLY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE!
Maybe we should deal then instead with the 15.2 percent of Americans who don't?
NO! Vote TQ! UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! EGALITEREAN HEALTHCARE! LOW QUALITY HEALTHCARE!
Oh wait, no, socialist healthcare was not part of the John Kerry platform.
Oh wait, there are alarmingly high emigration rates to the states from Europe and Canada for skilled doctors. Oh wait, nearly every major pharmaceutical breakthrough of the twentieth and twenty first century was made in the United States of America. Oh look, thanks to socialist, beauracratic healthcare, 3,000 people died in last summer's French heat wave!
Oh wait, 84.8 PERCENT OF AMERICANS CURRENTLY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE!
Maybe we should deal then instead with the 15.2 percent of Americans who don't?
NO! Vote TQ! UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! EGALITEREAN HEALTHCARE! LOW QUALITY HEALTHCARE!
Selfish ######.
Let the uninsured die.
Do nothing about the worsening problem.
You republicans are MORALLY BANKRUPT.
It will bite you, just wait and see.
Let the uninsured die.
Do nothing about the worsening problem.
You republicans are MORALLY BANKRUPT.
It will bite you, just wait and see.
I personally advocate universal tax vouchers that would cover hospitilization, pharmaceuticals, doctors visits, and catastrophic care. This would ensure universal healthcare while at the same time ensuring the benefits of private sector competition.
But don't let that get to you, anyone who disagrees with you just MUST be some kind of moral monster. Let's ignore the fact that the market has done far more to improve the lives of the average person than the government in the 20th/21st century.
It is still obvious that any solution offered geared towards helping the 15.2 percent of Americans who lack health insurance would be a much better solution than ignoring the 84.8 percent of Americans who have it and universalizing the system.
But don't let that get to you, anyone who disagrees with you just MUST be some kind of moral monster. Let's ignore the fact that the market has done far more to improve the lives of the average person than the government in the 20th/21st century.
It is still obvious that any solution offered geared towards helping the 15.2 percent of Americans who lack health insurance would be a much better solution than ignoring the 84.8 percent of Americans who have it and universalizing the system.
Uh huh, but somehow as the article demonstrates this magical MARKET that you WORSHIP like a GOD has FAILED miserably in the health field, and is getting WORSE every minute!
Except 84.8 percent of Americans have health insurance there bucko.
A dramatic majority of Americans recieve health insurance just fine.
A dramatic majority of Americans recieve health insurance just fine.
Uninsured percentage headed towards 25 percent.
Not good enough, not by a LONG SHOT, bucko!
For those uninsured they are 100 PECENT uninsured and tens of thousands of them are DYING annually because of this bucko.
Not good enough, not by a LONG SHOT, bucko!
For those uninsured they are 100 PECENT uninsured and tens of thousands of them are DYING annually because of this bucko.
Really? Tens of thousands of American are dying annually from a lack of health insurance?
How about you provide some documentation of that claim?
How about you provide some documentation of that claim?
I have several times on this board.
It is a well known fact, so no, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!
If you are too lazy to do that, use some common sense.
People with serious diseases avoid treatment because they have no insurance, the diseases progress to terminal phase.
People with good coverage go earlier and avail themselves of earlier treatment, often saving their lives.
If you are IGNORANT of these basic facts ... PATHETIC.
It is a well known fact, so no, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!
If you are too lazy to do that, use some common sense.
People with serious diseases avoid treatment because they have no insurance, the diseases progress to terminal phase.
People with good coverage go earlier and avail themselves of earlier treatment, often saving their lives.
If you are IGNORANT of these basic facts ... PATHETIC.
So basically you get to launch rhetoric about how Americans are literally DYING OFF in the streets by the tens of thousands every year because 15.2 percent of Americans lack health insurance, and yet you don't have to provide a single shred of documentation. I see.
If you have so readily provided the documentation before, one would imagine you keep it close at hand, perhaps in a favirote places folder so that you can back up your ridiculous assertions whenever they are called into question.
So no, burden of proof is on you. Proof please.
If you have so readily provided the documentation before, one would imagine you keep it close at hand, perhaps in a favirote places folder so that you can back up your ridiculous assertions whenever they are called into question.
So no, burden of proof is on you. Proof please.
Bugger off, troll.
The infidel is questioning the evidence behind my rhetoric!?!
TO THE AD HOMINEM-MOBILE!
TO THE AD HOMINEM-MOBILE!
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jun 26 2005, 05:14 AM)
The infidel is questioning the evidence behind my rhetoric!?!
TO THE AD HOMINEM-MOBILE!
TO THE AD HOMINEM-MOBILE!
You really are a pain in the #####, Bent!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/health...ance-deaths.htm
It is really common sense. I explained it to you. People without insurance wait until it is too late for obvious reasons, they are not covered. Why are you so dense?
Thanks. Now was the ad hominem part so necessary or could we simply have moved on with the discussion?
Now again why would it be better to target the 84.8% of Americans who DO have health insurance than the 15.2 percent of Americans who don't?
Now again why would it be better to target the 84.8% of Americans who DO have health insurance than the 15.2 percent of Americans who don't?
Neither is happening now. We are going BACKWARDS.
The problem is bigger than insurance access.
The larger problem is COST.
And the main culprit is the PRIVATE INSURANCE system which is a PARASITIC SYSTEM.
Universal health care KILLS the parasite.
The problem is bigger than insurance access.
The larger problem is COST.
And the main culprit is the PRIVATE INSURANCE system which is a PARASITIC SYSTEM.
Universal health care KILLS the parasite.
By introducing an extremely ineffective beauracratic system that allowed 3,000 people to die in last summer's French heat wave, that allows doctors to emigrate in alarming numbers from Europe and Canada to the US (you know, where they can actually make a buck plying their trade.) and has allowed every major pharmaceutical breakthrough since the end of WW2 to be made in the United States.
Tax vouchers: Universal care for morality, private sector competition for quality.
Tax vouchers: Universal care for morality, private sector competition for quality.
The French died because they don't have AIR CONDITIONING there.
Not related to their health care system THE BEST IN THE WORLD, in any way.
I find you right wingers incredible.
You are married to the status quo that DOES NOT WORK and is the most expensive in the world and DOES NOT DELIVER.
Change is needed, MAJOR CHANGE.
Scary for you, huh?
Not related to their health care system THE BEST IN THE WORLD, in any way.
I find you right wingers incredible.
You are married to the status quo that DOES NOT WORK and is the most expensive in the world and DOES NOT DELIVER.
Change is needed, MAJOR CHANGE.
Scary for you, huh?
Since I'm advocating change, no.
But the product you are pushing downright sucks.
If I have a car that doesn't run and I need to buy a new one, I'm not going to buy one I know to be a lemon, I would rather buy a nice car with a small number of miles on it that still runs just fine.
Tax vouchers. Universal care, market competition.
But, no, of course not. Nothing that might in any way barr the absolute power of the Nanny State is acceptable.
But the product you are pushing downright sucks.
If I have a car that doesn't run and I need to buy a new one, I'm not going to buy one I know to be a lemon, I would rather buy a nice car with a small number of miles on it that still runs just fine.
Tax vouchers. Universal care, market competition.
But, no, of course not. Nothing that might in any way barr the absolute power of the Nanny State is acceptable.
French don't have AIR CONDITIONING? What the he11? Another bullshyt excuse for their crappy healthcare.
You cannot avoid reading this.
People still want socialized health care?
You cannot avoid reading this.
QUOTE
Healthcare To Die For in Britain?
by Ralph R. Reiland (February 26, 2005)
Summary: The downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
[www.CapMag.com]
In “Die in Britain, survive in U.S.,” the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there’s a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. “Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world,” writes Bartholomew, “and America has the best.”
If you’re a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, “Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top.”
Explains Bartolomew: “That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare.” The reason isn’t that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It’s more simple than that. “In America, you are more likely to be treated,” writes Bartholomew, “and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment.”
More specifically, three-quarters of Americans who’ve had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a by-pass.
On the availability of equipment, explains Bartholomew, Britain has only half as many CT scanners per million people as the United States, and half as many MRI scanners. With lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones, the United States has more than seven times the availability per million of population than Britain.
Not only is the British equipment in short supply, but much of what’s there should be loaded up and carted off to the nearest scrap dump. An audit by the World Health Organization, for instance, found that over half of Britain’s x-ray machines were past their recommended safe time limit, and more than half the machines in anesthesiology required replacing. “Even the majority of operating tables were over 20 years old --- double their life span,” reports Bartholomew.
Taken as a whole, Britain’s universal healthcare system has evolved into a ramshackle structure where tests are underperformed, equipment is undersupplied, operations are underdone, and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and overly tied down in red tape. In other words, your chances of coming out of the American medical system alive are dramatically better than in Britain.
“Having a diagnosis test beyond an x-ray in Britain tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need,” writes Bartholomew. “In Britain, 36 percent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery. In the U.S., five percent do. In Britain, 40 percent of cancer patients do not see a cancer specialist.”
On how things worked in an individual case, Bartholomew writes of Peggy, an American radiologist, who went to Britain to meet her English boyfriend’s family. While she was there, her boyfriend’s father found blood in his urine and went to a local National Health Service hospital in which no CT scans or cystoscopy tests were done. The patient had asthma and laid in his hospital bed with breathing difficulties but still didn’t see a specialist. He was told it would take six weeks. Short of the six weeks, he was discharged from the hospital. Back home, before his appointment with a consultant came up, he died of an asthma attack.
Bartholomew reports that Peggy was “surprised at how ‘accepting’ her boyfriend’s family was.” What she saw was an unexpected passivity, a lethal submissiveness to systemic incompetence and tragedy, a reaction that seemed poles apart from how things happen in the United States. Explains Bartolomew: “She didn’t say too much because she did not want to come across as a pushy, arrogant American but she was thinking that ‘in America we’d go nuts if we were told we would have to wait six weeks to see a specialist. Expectations are so much higher.’”
As a footnote on Canada, the average wait for a simple MRI is three months. In Manitoba, the median wait for neurosurgery is 15.2 months. For chemotherapy in Saskatchewan, patients can expect to be in line for 10 weeks. At last report, 10,000 breast cancer patients who waited an average of two months for post-operation radiation treatments have filed a class action lawsuit against Quebec’s hospitals.
None of the above is meant to say that America’s health care system isn’t a mess. That’s just a different story, with a different set of fatal flaws.
by Ralph R. Reiland (February 26, 2005)
Summary: The downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
[www.CapMag.com]
In “Die in Britain, survive in U.S.,” the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, there’s a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. “Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world,” writes Bartholomew, “and America has the best.”
If you’re a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, “Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top.”
Explains Bartolomew: “That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare.” The reason isn’t that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It’s more simple than that. “In America, you are more likely to be treated,” writes Bartholomew, “and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment.”
More specifically, three-quarters of Americans who’ve had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a by-pass.
On the availability of equipment, explains Bartholomew, Britain has only half as many CT scanners per million people as the United States, and half as many MRI scanners. With lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones, the United States has more than seven times the availability per million of population than Britain.
Not only is the British equipment in short supply, but much of what’s there should be loaded up and carted off to the nearest scrap dump. An audit by the World Health Organization, for instance, found that over half of Britain’s x-ray machines were past their recommended safe time limit, and more than half the machines in anesthesiology required replacing. “Even the majority of operating tables were over 20 years old --- double their life span,” reports Bartholomew.
Taken as a whole, Britain’s universal healthcare system has evolved into a ramshackle structure where tests are underperformed, equipment is undersupplied, operations are underdone, and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and overly tied down in red tape. In other words, your chances of coming out of the American medical system alive are dramatically better than in Britain.
“Having a diagnosis test beyond an x-ray in Britain tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need,” writes Bartholomew. “In Britain, 36 percent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery. In the U.S., five percent do. In Britain, 40 percent of cancer patients do not see a cancer specialist.”
On how things worked in an individual case, Bartholomew writes of Peggy, an American radiologist, who went to Britain to meet her English boyfriend’s family. While she was there, her boyfriend’s father found blood in his urine and went to a local National Health Service hospital in which no CT scans or cystoscopy tests were done. The patient had asthma and laid in his hospital bed with breathing difficulties but still didn’t see a specialist. He was told it would take six weeks. Short of the six weeks, he was discharged from the hospital. Back home, before his appointment with a consultant came up, he died of an asthma attack.
Bartholomew reports that Peggy was “surprised at how ‘accepting’ her boyfriend’s family was.” What she saw was an unexpected passivity, a lethal submissiveness to systemic incompetence and tragedy, a reaction that seemed poles apart from how things happen in the United States. Explains Bartolomew: “She didn’t say too much because she did not want to come across as a pushy, arrogant American but she was thinking that ‘in America we’d go nuts if we were told we would have to wait six weeks to see a specialist. Expectations are so much higher.’”
As a footnote on Canada, the average wait for a simple MRI is three months. In Manitoba, the median wait for neurosurgery is 15.2 months. For chemotherapy in Saskatchewan, patients can expect to be in line for 10 weeks. At last report, 10,000 breast cancer patients who waited an average of two months for post-operation radiation treatments have filed a class action lawsuit against Quebec’s hospitals.
None of the above is meant to say that America’s health care system isn’t a mess. That’s just a different story, with a different set of fatal flaws.
People still want socialized health care?
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jun 26 2005, 04:51 AM)
I personally advocate universal tax vouchers that would cover hospitilization, pharmaceuticals, doctors visits, and catastrophic care. This would ensure universal healthcare while at the same time ensuring the benefits of private sector competition.
How would that work, Ben-T?
The major problem is cost. The current system is bloated and full of graft. No price competition to speak of. actually, BushCo BANNED the US gov from trying to negotiate lower prices.
Every major breakthrough last century, maybe, but that record has already fallen to the Stem Cell research. The US is already lagging.
Incidentally, I was one of those uninsured, before I left. I looked up the costs of insurance, and gambled that I wouldn't have a major problem. Paying for my dr. visits out of pocket was much cheaper than paying for insurance - even wih the occaisional ER visit.
What reforms do you present to increase the effeciency of the system? How will they work?
That would be better than nothing.
It is a TOTAL CAVE IN to the EVIL MEDICAL INSURANCE industry, but they are so powerful, there probably isn't a choice.
It is a TOTAL CAVE IN to the EVIL MEDICAL INSURANCE industry, but they are so powerful, there probably isn't a choice.
Yes the evil medical insurance industry that has provided every major pharmacuetical breakthrough of the twentieth century and causes skilled doctors from Canada and Europe to emigrate in alarming numbers to the US. Meanwhile, Canadians illegally sneak across the border to the US so that they can CHOOSE they're own healthcare, while 3,000 people die in France do to socialist BS.
But why let the PEOPLE choose THEIR OWN healthcare? Why let the best healthcare industry in the world continue pumping out QUALITY care?
No, TQ knows best, the Nanny state knows best! The people know nothing! THE PEOPLE MUST BE CRUSHED! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!
But why let the PEOPLE choose THEIR OWN healthcare? Why let the best healthcare industry in the world continue pumping out QUALITY care?
No, TQ knows best, the Nanny state knows best! The people know nothing! THE PEOPLE MUST BE CRUSHED! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!
TG doesn't read much, if at all. Didn't he read about the wonderful universial, free British healthcare?
Bent, you are a callow right wing preppy rich college boy who has NO IDEA what the situation is for most Americans.
The insurance companies had nothing to do with pharmaceutical research. You are confused.
The Canadians that come in are a small number. A huge percentage of Canadians are happy with their system and would never choose the American system. In fact, MILLIONS of Americans are looking to Canada and other countries to get their life saving presciption meds.
The French system is regularly rated the BEST IN THE WORLD. The American system is not EVEN CLOSE.
The current system we have is a fluke of history and it has gone horribly wrong. Yet, you embrace it blindly as if it is the best of all possible worlds. Foolishness!
The insurance companies had nothing to do with pharmaceutical research. You are confused.
The Canadians that come in are a small number. A huge percentage of Canadians are happy with their system and would never choose the American system. In fact, MILLIONS of Americans are looking to Canada and other countries to get their life saving presciption meds.
The French system is regularly rated the BEST IN THE WORLD. The American system is not EVEN CLOSE.
The current system we have is a fluke of history and it has gone horribly wrong. Yet, you embrace it blindly as if it is the best of all possible worlds. Foolishness!
Rated the best in the world on the basis of how many people it covers.
Meanwhile it allows a simple heat wave to kill 3,000 people.
Meanwhile by standards of QUALITY CARE the US is clearly the best in the world.
But why allow the people to use their tax dollars to buy what healthcare they CHOOSE to buy? Oh no, we can't have that happen! The masses can never control their own destiny, that would be disastrous!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Meanwhile it allows a simple heat wave to kill 3,000 people.
Meanwhile by standards of QUALITY CARE the US is clearly the best in the world.
But why allow the people to use their tax dollars to buy what healthcare they CHOOSE to buy? Oh no, we can't have that happen! The masses can never control their own destiny, that would be disastrous!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Granted it is among the best in the world for the MINORITY of people with GOOD INSURANCE.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Maybe good enough for an elitist like you.
But, objectively, NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Maybe good enough for an elitist like you.
But, objectively, NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
If by the minority of the people you mean 84.8% percent of the populace, sure.
No fool, I said GOOD INSURANCE.
That is a much smaller number.
Being a member of the ELITE, you have no understanding of these matters.
That is a much smaller number.
Being a member of the ELITE, you have no understanding of these matters.
Ah GOOD INSURANCE.
By which you mean "A term which really can't be defined that I can use vaguely to push my ideology and be intellectually dishonest, both at the same time!"
By which you mean "A term which really can't be defined that I can use vaguely to push my ideology and be intellectually dishonest, both at the same time!"
not to mention, "and you need to believe it as its true!"
You are splitting hairs here. Very juvenile.
You know what I mean, or you should.
Just like any product, the quality varies.
A lot of health insurance policies really don't cover much and the result is the same avoidance of needed care faced by people without insurance.
Also, many people can only get insurance with their preexisting conditions excluded, which is basically useless for the very diseases that are killing them.
Get my point?
The system sucks!
And it is high cost too.
The American people are getting screwed and you CELEBRATE IT!
Shame on you smug elitists.
You know what I mean, or you should.
Just like any product, the quality varies.
A lot of health insurance policies really don't cover much and the result is the same avoidance of needed care faced by people without insurance.
Also, many people can only get insurance with their preexisting conditions excluded, which is basically useless for the very diseases that are killing them.
Get my point?
The system sucks!
And it is high cost too.
The American people are getting screwed and you CELEBRATE IT!
Shame on you smug elitists.
Lots of righties have the agree. Bob started a topic - something like "I can't believe it, but I agree with Thaiquila"
Lets see ... what makes insurance good? How about the amount and variety of coverage? I don't have the numbers here, but they ought to be available somewhere.
Better to push the debate in a useful direction.
And yes, there is a *lot* of insurance that is bloody expensive and not that good. What is a reasonable amount to expect to pay for insurance for, say, someone like you, Ben-T?
Lets see ... what makes insurance good? How about the amount and variety of coverage? I don't have the numbers here, but they ought to be available somewhere.
Better to push the debate in a useful direction.
And yes, there is a *lot* of insurance that is bloody expensive and not that good. What is a reasonable amount to expect to pay for insurance for, say, someone like you, Ben-T?
Of course Health insurance is too expensive for many Americans. However historical trends clearly indicate that products forced to compete on the free market are inevitably superior to products subject to monopolies, like the government monopoly TQ would like to place on American healthcare.
With tax vouchers, everyone has the LUXURY of KNOWING they are going to recieve health care, which gives them the ability to best choose which healthcare product they would like to buy. That pushes up competition, thus keeping quality high.
As for me, a reasonable price is whatever the most competitive product I can find is.
With tax vouchers, everyone has the LUXURY of KNOWING they are going to recieve health care, which gives them the ability to best choose which healthcare product they would like to buy. That pushes up competition, thus keeping quality high.
As for me, a reasonable price is whatever the most competitive product I can find is.
Oh, the free market has been really great for healthcare in America.
The most EXPENSIVE in the world.
Like I said, the American people are being royally RAPED in this area.
It is not a free market.
It is a corrupt monopoly owned by the evil PARASITIC health insurance industry.
It is BROKEN.
Time to fix it.
The most EXPENSIVE in the world.
Like I said, the American people are being royally RAPED in this area.
It is not a free market.
It is a corrupt monopoly owned by the evil PARASITIC health insurance industry.
It is BROKEN.
Time to fix it.
"An industry" is not a monopoly, which causes the rest of your premise to fall apart.
Indeed it is time we reformed American healthcare. With tax vouchers.
Indeed it is time we reformed American healthcare. With tax vouchers.
Bent,
how very interesting.
Are you aware that many millions of Americans are not able to purchase private health insurance, the only ticket to health care in the US, because they have preexisting conditions?
This is outrageous.
Those companies are OUT OF CONTROL and the only hope to check their greed is the GOVERNMENT.
how very interesting.
Are you aware that many millions of Americans are not able to purchase private health insurance, the only ticket to health care in the US, because they have preexisting conditions?
This is outrageous.
Those companies are OUT OF CONTROL and the only hope to check their greed is the GOVERNMENT.
Why do humans become magically less greedy when they work in the public sector and not the private?
So what's your point? When industry abuses the people, the only recourse is through new laws and government. For example, anti trust laws and anti stock trading corruption laws. Like it or not, fundamentalist free market capitalist, we need government.
My point is that a government run monopoly is in no way preferable to a business run monopoly. The government is an alimentary canal with a appetite on one end and no sense of responsibility on the other, as a great man once said.
That is why tax vouchers are best. They ensure universal care. They ensure private sector competition. They avoid monopoly.
That is why tax vouchers are best. They ensure universal care. They ensure private sector competition. They avoid monopoly.
Well, it is a good sign that even a radical right winger like yourself sees the need for health care access reform.
I would also like to see radical COST reform, and by not abolishing the medical insurance industry, we lose that opportunity.
The high cost of medical care in the US is a crippling factor for US international competitiveness.
But you don't care, you have your purist ideology which fails to consider the real life facts.
I would also like to see radical COST reform, and by not abolishing the medical insurance industry, we lose that opportunity.
The high cost of medical care in the US is a crippling factor for US international competitiveness.
But you don't care, you have your purist ideology which fails to consider the real life facts.
I fail to see how I am a radical right winger or how I have a purist ideology. Apparently to you radical right winger is defined as anyone who supports the Iraq War.
The United States already has the best QUALITY healthcare in the world. Tax vouchers would re-double that, making the healthcare universal.
It is the best of both worlds, as opposed to the worst of one or the other.
The United States already has the best QUALITY healthcare in the world. Tax vouchers would re-double that, making the healthcare universal.
It is the best of both worlds, as opposed to the worst of one or the other.
Yes, the best of all possible worlds!
The band plays on ...
The band plays on ...
I think at this point it is clear that you don't care about actually helping out the people, but would rather explot their plight for your ideological gain.
The boy prophet has spoken!
I kneel before you.
Oy vey.
I kneel before you.
Oy vey.
Can you think of one possible reason why government monopoly over healthcare would be better than private sector competition and universal care?
Of course not. Ad hominems are the best you can do.
Of course not. Ad hominems are the best you can do.
Private sector for medical care has failed in America is why.
Time to try something different, more on the European model.
Time to try something different, more on the European model.
Private sector care has succeeded enormously in providing quality care, and failed in providing universal care.
Government monopoly has succeeded in providing universal care. and, as all monpolies do, fallen flat on it's face in providing quality care.
Tax vouchers ensure universal care, while keeping live the private sector competition that keeps quality care alive in the US.
Government monopoly has succeeded in providing universal care. and, as all monpolies do, fallen flat on it's face in providing quality care.
Tax vouchers ensure universal care, while keeping live the private sector competition that keeps quality care alive in the US.
French care is rated TOPS in the world, so your assertion is bullshit.
Total access and world class quality can and do exist.
Why settle for anything less?
Total access and world class quality can and do exist.
Why settle for anything less?
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jun 26 2005, 08:52 PM)
Private sector care has succeeded enormously in providing quality care, and failed in providing universal care.
Government monopoly has succeeded in providing universal care. and, as all monpolies do, fallen flat on it's face in providing quality care.
Tax vouchers ensure universal care, while keeping live the private sector competition that keeps quality care alive in the US.
Government monopoly has succeeded in providing universal care. and, as all monpolies do, fallen flat on it's face in providing quality care.
Tax vouchers ensure universal care, while keeping live the private sector competition that keeps quality care alive in the US.
Spell it out all you want, he is too thick to understand it. Hell, I showed him more much more degraded British Univerisal healthcare is and he brushed by it.
I would classify the gentlemen as: Ferrous Cranus.
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.