Forbidden Donut

Actually, I'm starting to think the best solution to health care is no solution.

NO HEALTH CARE FOR ANYONE.

Dying is natural, afterall. For chrissakes, you're going to go sometime. Could be in the next 5 minutes or 100 years from now. Of course, some people get a shiat deal and die of cancer or traumatic injury, but hey--that's life.

After all, we're being so productive the the extra years we're getting. If we knew we only had about 35-45 good years don't you think:
-We'd not waste our time on reality TV shows?
-we would have never seen the "pet rock" invented?
-With no healthcare, obesity would be a thing of the past as tapeworms and other parasites become common. Eat what you like, when you like!
-Since you know you might go at any time things like smoking bans, trans-fat bans, seat belts, crosswalks, police, firefighters and backup-parachutes seem very silly. Think of the savings!

Once you get over the whole "dying thing" there really are a lot of good points to this plan. We waste so much money needlessly keeping unproductive members of society alive, and for what!? Some warm fuzzies? This should actually drive drug innovation as the development of life saving pharmaceuticals would be completely out of the hands of government and directly in the hands of the people who need it.

I agree with this post and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Fark.com/Politics/
If you don't spend at least an hour a day reading headlines, articles and threads from that place, you're not using the internet right.
/FACT.

I prefer my Reddits, thank you very much.

//edit: and Colbert gave it a shout out ;p

Meh, reddit has no sense of humor. It's like digg that way. My $0.02

Back on topic:
Politifact on healthcare:
- "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." = False
- "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services." = False
- "All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange." = True
- The health care reform bill "would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner." = False

Wow. I haven't even heard that one.

//and I take it you aren't a guy who enjoys puns.

No... I'm just not a guy who enjoys nested comments...

And a guy who enjoys comical headlines.*

And a website that has some kind of hive-mind.

/Reddit doesn't hold parties across the country for members either.


*A sample of last weeks Headlines of the Week:
"Woman's body found in machine at McDonald's food processing plant. Corporate officials ask for a moment of soylents"
"Baby born at burger joint. That's one small fry to go"
"Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick to separate; and here we thought their relationship was stable"
"Kirk considering a run for Obama's old Senate seat, still weighing the pros and Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaans"
"New York criticized for lack of slaughterhouses - even though they do have Newburgh, Troy, Utica and wherever the Mets play in September"

First, Andrew, by reducing overhead for doctors offices, you do know that means cutting tens of thousands of jobs, right? If there's no need for employees, there wont be a demand for them.

Onto a different note:

Why should I keep paying for things I wont use? I willingly give tons of money to charity. I already pay for roads, bridges, tunnels, tolls and the military. Which I will never complain about. But please do explain to me why the role of the government now more than ever is determined to put its hands on things that aren't involved in its foundation? What is stopping me from setting up a corporation overseas and just living in America? If I'm going to get taxed at ridiculously high rates for things I horribly disagree with, what's stopping me from moving my income stream beyond US borders? This could potentially be a horrible situation for America.

Also, who says health care is a natural born right? Why shouldn't I get the better doctor, better care, if I can afford to pay more? Why shouldn't the best doctor in the world have a right to charge exorbitant rates? The best baseball players get paid much more than the league minimum. This is, remember, the American way. The end goal is to be the best, to have whatever it is you want. Maybe it's a prestigious academic position, the Fields Medal, or maybe it's having a boatload of money. The world needs ditch diggers and gas station pumpers, just as they need the wealthy who already pay so much more than the poor for things they'll never need. If you try to tell me, after I pay for your education, pay for part of your meals, pay for your new car, your first home that I don't deserve priority over the things that I can actually afford there's something horribly distorted with your idea of how capitalism and the economy work.

So... you are advocating keeping around inefficient business practices in order to keep the jobs that have been created to deal with said practices? That's not even a conservative philosophy; I'm not really sure what type of philosophy that is.



It is my understanding that US citizens are taxed regardless of where they do business, so if you decided to live in the US and run a company overseas, your income would still be subject to US tax law.

All of that is pretty much a moot point though since the scenario you outline is not at all inline with historical precedent. Our country didn't collapse under the weight of far higher taxes on the rich in past decades. Not only that, but we will be one of the last westernized countries to adopt anything that could resemble universal health care (which is a pretty big stretch given the current state of the health care bills in congress), so it's not like they are going to flee to some other privileged nation where they won't be taxed at "ridiculously high rates."



I agree. While we are at it, let's get rid of the following socialized, government funded/managed departments and organizations so we can apply this same philosophy across the board:

* Police
* Firefighters
* Federal Emergency Management Agency
* Food and Drug Administration
* Federal Highway Administration
* Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
* Department of Agriculture
* Department of Commerce
* Department of Defense
* Department of Education
* Department of Energy
* Department of Health and Human Services
* Department of Homeland Security
* Department of Housing and Urban Development
* Department of Justice
* Department of Labor
* Department of State
* Department of the Interior
* Department of Transportation
* Department of Veterans Affairs

If you agree with that, then great! I'm glad to have you on board this sinking conservative ship. Otherwise, don't mascaraed as a conservative unless you have the balls to not nitpick which issues you want to be conservative about. You are dealing with perhaps the biggest class-struggle in the US since the separate-but-equal laws, and you have the audacity to say that the lives of the poor aren't worth your dime (which is disgusting), and you do so under a faux-conservative banner (which is insulting).

Very quickly before I respond to everything (which might be in the early afternoon), your 'you get taxed on your income if you live in the US' is wrong.

Are you familiar with the term "Tautological"?

Social Contract.

Nobody here.
You should. But this is not mutually exclusive from providing satisfactory levels of care to everybody. Which isn't a "right" as much as it's a "good fucking idea that will save you, the precious taxpayer and rugged individualist, money in the long run."

And football has salary caps. How socialistic of them. As to your actual point instead of the pointless aside: They do, and they can. The free-market you worship would weed him out if he charged more than the market can bear, though. And costs are approaching that level already.

Feel free to explain where the Greek concept of Eudaimonia appears in our legal system. Since we're talking about what the government should and should not be involved in. Or explain why your personal philosophy on what are and are not inalienable rights that our government should protect is superior to another.

If you can get rich without making use of schools, roads, police, or the military, then you can tell me all about how bootstrappy you are. If you can build a cabin, Thoreau style, and somehow start a business that makes profit out of thin air without the need to distribute products or make use of capital gained with the aid of government programs, more power to you. Otherwise, I'll continue to believe that the rich make more use of government services than the poor and therefore owe more money to the system that allowed them to become rich.

If this were what I was saying, you might have a point. But I bet it was fun to build that series of strawmen to knock down. I repeat: It is possible to provide you with your precious precious priority that you feel so entitled to because you have money, while still providing a basic level of care to the poor and infirmed. If you try to tell me otherwise there's something horribly distorted with your idea of how societies and health care work.

It is very kind of you to provide this insight devoid of any kind of evidence. I will surely take your word on this without doing any research whatsoever.

Please refer to my signature picture for a demonstration on how to continue this delightful exchange.

I hear this is a good video and somewhat relevant.

And this is PBS doing a video on healthcare from countries around the world.

The ones in bold are area that I think that can be removed from the federal level, and brought down to the states.

I know that I am going to be told how wrong I am about having this opinion, but I am all for the states themselves to handle their own social welfare.

Mind you, this is not perfect, but I do think that there is a lot of fat that can be trimmed from our current gob'mental system to allow for more than enough money to handle anything a state should need. IMO, the fed government should provide as few as services as possible. Let the states handle as much as it can.

I'm not going to tell you how wrong you are. Just how inconsistent. And seemingly arbitrary.

But I don't think that list was meant to talk about things the fed gov't should/shouldn't do, but rather a list of services that people who fancy themselves completely independent of government support invariably use without taking a second thought.

There are no federal fire fighters, for example. But if your house is on fire, and you call the FD, then you're using taxpayer money to bail yourself out of a pickle, and if you've got a shitty apartment in NE Philly, the benefits of this service are spread across everybody in the apartment complex, and the value of the property is fairly low, and if lost, would not represent a tremendous financial hit on the denizens. If you've got a 5 million dollar mansion in California, and you use the FD, then you are using that money to save only yourself and your belongings, which total in value to more than the entire block of apartments mentioned earlier.

Oh and if you don't call the FD, then you have to use water from your personal well. Taxpayer money paid for that water system. And whatever you do, don't drive on the roads, or now even buy an American car (that isn't a Ford). Don't buy organic produce, and research which fruits and vegetables you buy. You wouldn't want to buy something that might have been subsidized by taxpayers...

I'll just leave this here:

That is awesome. Thank you.

Wait, you mean to say that Obama (a black man) is trying to kill OUR (white) babies? I AM ENRAGED!

Did you SEE the look in that *REDACTED* attractive-and-successful-african-american's eyes!? He doesn't just want to "try" and "kill" your baby. He wants to fuckin' eat it mang.

Excuse me while I go make a thread in which to dump AWESOME political ads such as this one, which is a Townhall Ad btw.

/Off to visit Boortz and Malkin. And maybe a smattering of Coulter to top off my afternoon.

We spend 7% of GDP on defense, 22% on healthcare. We cannot afford free (or extraordinarily cheap) healthcare. When you have a UHC system, we will see more deaths caused by poor service, predetermined levels of service, limited service, etc. Not to mention that it is not on the governments list of "things to do." Perhaps if people pursued better lifestyles than the cancer death rates would come down on their own, less people would be denied heathcare coverage, the risk of covering people will diminish, and the costs to the consumer will fall because the cost per person pursuing healthy living is far less. There are far better ways to improve the 'health of the country' than expanding medical coverage and tying it into yet another layer of beuracracy. Gubment's role is to, provide national security, enforce safety laws, ensure fair competition and to maintain the federal transportation infrastructure.

Citation? Your numbers appeared to be dramatically incorrect to me, and a very brief google search supported my concern.



Citation of historical precedent? Since "more deaths" generally decreases the average life span of a population, I find this a bit hard to swallow since the average US life span is lower than many countries with UHC.



Perhaps if people pursued better lifestyles than there will be no change in the amount of people denied coverage, and the costs to the costumer will continue to significantly rise because it is profitable to do so, and so long as the federal government can be influenced by the health insurance industry, no sufficient price-based competition will exist to lower the cost to the consumer.

Of course, a citation of historical precedent can go a long way to proving your scenario plausible.



Name one that will improve health care in the way the government plan seeks to do. I only ask because your republican leadership has refused to do so, so I really don't know what alternatives you're imagining.



Citation needed.



Come on man. I desperately want some honest health care discussion, but you're not doing anything but contributing to an already out-of-control spreading of pure disinformation to the ignorant (which is most people) with unsubstantiated rhetoric like that.

I'd also wager those same countries have a lower obesity rate, healthier food in general, maybe a lower percentage of smokers, and a lower percentage of people that drive on a regular basis.

The point is, I hate comparing one country to another. It's not apples to apples, it apples to oranges. There are way too many factors to consider between the two different countries. What works in one country would never work in another.

So you're saying America is an Apple and all of these countries with UHC are oranges? I'm against UHC like any non-retarded conservative, but you sound like a retard right here. UHC could work with America, does that make it the best idea? No, but it's not necessarily a terrible disaster like some are making it out to be. What we have right now is less acceptable, in my opinion.

Are you serious? Did you even read my post or just look for the latest time stamp to senselessly attack? There's not a single thing in my post that is for or against healthcare. The point was trying to compare unlike systems doesn't usually work. Just because something works in one place doesn't mean its going to work in another.

I think Richie's point is that there are lots of countries with successful UHC programs, so while comparing the details of one program to another might not be very useful, it isn't really fair to say that the success of such programs doesn't support the idea that a form of universal healthcare could be successful here as well.

As for that statistic I brought up, I was simply pointing out that statistics do exist for citation. Mungo saying that bad shit will happen with UHC is irresponsible without the data to back it up.

Cool story, bro.

Meanwhile, HR3200 or whatever it was passed in the house. Off to the Senate where it will totally change and then not get passed.

And this also happened:

Hm, don't know how I missed this.

It doesn't just work in one place. It works in every country that it exists in, in any of it's myriad forms. So yeah. You're saying that the US can't do it because we're somehow special. Which is absolutely an implied, "No UHC in the US" position.

Just because Canada can, doesn't mean it'll work here.
Just because Japan does it, doesn't mean we can.
Just because it works in Germany, doesn't mean it's an experiment we can afford to engage in here.
Just because it works in Switzerland, doesn't make it viable in the US.
Just because they have UHC in Australia, doesn't mean we're ready for it here.
Just because they have it in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, They UK, Finland, New Zealand, The Czech Republic, South Korea, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia...

There's *just* not enough information to build an accurate comparison.

I guess your version of successfully working is different then mine, because simply getting by doesn't really cut it.

Lets look at the biggest socialized group of people in the US; the military. If healthcare is run like anything else in the military, including its own healthcare program, it would be a giant failure. It simply wouldn't work. It doesn't work in the military now, and that's full of a group of people expecting to be told what to do and get shit on on a constant basis. If this country has shown anything it is that free enterprise is the most efficient, successful way to do anything. Government controlled programs are not. It may not best the happiest solution, but its realistic and it's Darwin at work (who has less and less of a say in matters these days, unfortunately).

You really like making those bare assertions don't you.
To recap:
American UHC != European UHC
BUT
American Military = American UHC

Also, what precise failure of the Military do you believe will carry over to the government administration of health insurance? How do you mean that the military is "run"? The VA is wildly successful, as I understand it. What do the expectations placed on a group of individuals in a given system have to do with said systems success or failure?


Whoa... ok, you jumped the shark.

Don't let military life melt your brain, man. Free enterprise? Efficiency? Success? Darwin?

/It's worse than "Hope'N'Change ltd."

Homework:
1. Which countries with UHC are barely getting by?
2. What is the state of healthcare in this country?
and
3. Where has reliance on the free market gotten us, in terms of Health Care?

I know this is snarky Andrew so I apologize, but....
1. the ones that are basically bankrupt (GB in particular)
2. bad
3. the most technological breakthroughs of anywhere else on the planet, in the shortest amount of time in history. But yes I admit the free market is not helping with the costs as it should be but maybe that is attributable to governmental regulation in the first place.

You're drawing conclusions from facts not in evidence.

You, and your conservative brethren, *start* with this idea that Government has only ever ruined anything it's ever gotten involved in. You operate in hypotheticals.

1. We're going bankrupt too. And GB's actual healthcare spending is lower than ours. And outcomes are widely recognized as superior.

2. yep. sure is.

3. I hear this a lot. It sounds like hyperbolic patriotic bullshit to me. But instead of just calling it like I see it, I'm going to point out that I've never actually seen anything to demonstrate that most medical technological breakthroughs came out of American companies. But that's mostly besides the point because that's not what the free market is actually doing in the health insurance sector, which is what this is really about.

It's also fantastic that a lot of those vaunted scientific advances are in dick pills and hair regrowth.

But the best imaging devices in the world are manufactured in America (by a German company)!

fun fact:
The number one selling drug IN THE WORLD is not actually viagra. It is BY FAR Lipitor.

Below that it's close but typically it's either Advair for asthma, which also has a fun list of side effects, including asthma attacks, or Nexium, which is for heartburn.

Truly, we are on the cutting edge.

I'm just happy that you guys will be paying for all my health bills when I start eating myself sick. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Have fun with that. I'll be happy to pay slightly more in taxes for that possibility, if this shit works at all.

I guess we'll see, in 2013...

/SLOWOWOWOW DOWNNNEN!
//Watts teh hurrey?

I would like to hear evidence of "The VA is wildly successful" at providing care to the Veterans.

Everything I've seen, everything I've heard, and everything I've ever read while on Active Duty, and continue to encounter claims exactly the opposite.

The only Veterans who get reasonably good care from the government are the ones who RETIRE, which means they continue to receive a medical care package that is actually maintained and provided by the Military itself, not the VA.

The only people who receive good quality medical care from the VA are ones with suspected or actual significant political pull(typically senior military at time of their separation/retirement).... Or have managed to get their (service connected) medical issue documented five ways from Sunday, and even then they're still likely to be having to pull proverbial teeth using pliers and no pain killers on a regular basis.

The only way to get good medical service from the VA is to have good connections and make sure that the VA knows that "powerful people" in Washington will come knocking if you don't get the care you are needing. Which is a completely ass backwards way for an organization to operate.

But its why organizations like the VFW and the American Legion have very large memberships and why they maintain a substantial number of lobbyists in Washington. Vets pretty much have to use the VFW and the Legion as a billy-club to get the VA to deliver on much of anything medical related.

Military personnel on active duty are likely in need of frequent, and often immediate and critical medical care. How do you think this might affect apparent outcomes and how do you think it affects the cost? Do we have military personnel dying from lack of medical care on a routine basis?

You levy some pretty damning claims against the VA.


That aren't supported by a quick search.

You've already said we manage to take good care of our retired veterans pretty well with their government run healthcare, which more or less handles my problem with Pheylan's comments.

I can tell you from personal experience from myself and from some of my colleagues, the military's healthcare is anything but run "pretty well".

Between ridiculously heavy paperwork and bureaucratic backlogs, long wait times, inadequately trained medical personnel, a shortage of doctors, and old, sometimes not working equipment it leaves a lot to be desired. I can definitely go to a private practitioner, and have done so in the past because my career was in jeopardy otherwise, and receive better, quicker service. That may be practical for myself, but it isn't for a good portion of the enlisted people who's salary won't let them do so.

I've heard similar claims from retired military and VAs that TheDaemon claimed.

Never being in the armed services, I'm more easily satisfied with your response than those of random google searches. I'm never sure of the caliber of person from where the information on the interwebs is coming from.

I've started avoiding this discussion altogether because, quite frankly, most of the opinions in this thread make me want to punch a significant number of babies, but just jumping in here:

How is this different than the private sector today?

I guess the thing that bothers me the most in this thread is that everyone seems to agree that health care is terrible in this country today. Our health care system is embarrassing. Beyond that, it is responsible for killing [potentially] millions of people.

I fundamentally oppose federal health care reform. I do so not because I think it is expensive or that the government would be terrible at it; I'm not a fucking idiot. I oppose it because I am terrified of the government controlling pretty much anything. It is a fringe fear that I am well aware pretty much no one else on this forum shares. But again, I'm not a fucking idiot. Health care programs can and do work throughout the world. The precedent has been set so fucking many times that it just enrages the rationalist in me when people start spouting stupid nonsensical and irresponsible bullshit like "it wouldn't work here."

I wish the government would stay out of my life as much as possible.

There was a point in time not too long ago when we had significantly less "programs" and departments. I wish we could go back to that, but that will never happen.

Anecdotal evidence is clearly the most reliable form of evidence.

I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.



Back to Phey:
I don't know how much more plainly to put this:
The Data Do Not Support Your Claims.

Furthermore, your claim that the prioritization system is arbitrary and based on favoritism is demonstrably false, when you look at that self-same information. So... basically... no.

I claim what? Huh? When did I mention anything about favoritism?



You can quote as many studies as you like. Like I stated, my explanation is from personal experience entirely, not reading someone's story on the internet. Looking at it from the perspective of someone who came from the private section to military healthcare recently, I can definitely tell you that the medical care did decline in the change. On the opposite side of that, it is now much cheaper (as in free) to have healthcare for me. I would honestly say that I do prefer the free over the paying version of it, despite the decline in care. I still have the option of getting outside care, which like I said, I have done in the past out of necessity of inadequate services. However, I see the free healthcare as a benefit of a job, not as a benefit of simply existing which is what UHC is. Call me an asshole, but its is not the responsibility of the government to take care of every person in this country.

You want to reform healthcare in this country? Fine. Fix the insurance companies, malpractice lawsuits, court system, etc to stop the absurd insurance costs.

Cloture in the house 60-40, party line vote.

Now I have to look up what had to be stripped out under cloture rules...

I just read this for the first time today.


Phey, I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Whoops. I was responding to Daemon's comments that you need to be in good with the right people to get care. When the system is set up and enforced to (OMG!) ration the care.

"You cannot
legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy
out of freedom. What one person receives without working
for, another person must work for without receiving. The
government cannot give to anybody anything that the
government does not first take from somebody else. When half
of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and
when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to
work because somebody else is going to get what they work
for, that my dear friend,
is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth
by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers

We have more CT and MRI scanners in the Minneapolis / Saint Paul area than all of Canada combined. No wonder US/CAN border medical facilities are booming?

The libs in DC are trying to rebuild the whole car, and all we need is a new exhaust system?

The US has the best medical treatment available to it citizens and illegals than anywhere on the planet, your 37th or 38th place BS is so biased because of how the stats are compiled. If you throw out homicide and accidental deaths we would be #1. Also just how and when "live births" are reported from nation to nation skews the outcome.

The second largest employer in the world is the UK's Health Care administration, this does not include the doctors!

And the main reason we can not go down the path of socialized medicine: We can not afford it, we are broke, in debt beyond reason, and the people we owe the money to are worse than the mafia!

Welcome back Bud! How ya been?