The Dudeism Forum

IMHO...

They said the same thing about pooling grain resources and then using those resources to feed citizens when the crops failed. In Mesopotamia, 7,000 years ago, and look how that turned out. Today we just call civilization.

Besides, we've had socialized healthcare since Ronny Ray Gun, with the Emergency Care and Labor ...er...something act. We just now have a way to pay for it, instead of paying $300 for a bag of salt water (IV) to cover those hidden costs.

Quote from: revgms on February 28, 2014, 06:53:55 AM
They said the same thing about pooling grain resources and then using those resources to feed citizens when the crops failed. In Mesopotamia, 7,000 years ago, and look how that turned out. Today we just call civilization.

Besides, we've had socialized healthcare since Ronny Ray Gun, with the Emergency Care and Labor ...er...something act. We just now have a way to pay for it, instead of paying $300 for a bag of salt water (IV) to cover those hidden costs.

Public co-ops of commodities such as "grain resources and then using those resources to feed citizens when the crops failed" is in no way comparable to socialized or socialist medicine such as ObamaCare. For one thing, we don't have ANY lack of resources for health care and we are in no way facing a "crop failure" of health care in America.

Healthcare in the United States is the envy of the world; it's level of sophistication is unparallelled, it's available to anyone (no county in America is without a county hospital system, emergency health care responders, free clinics, healthcare education, strict public health laws, and other health related resources such as Paramedics/Firemen, and even Police who often aid in emergency health situations).

The United States maintains a vast reservoir of oil reserves in case of an emergency, but this is not a form of "socialized oil resources." That would be like saying public libraries in a community are "socialized reading" or public parks are "socialized baseball fields" or freeways are "socialized transportation."

ObamaCare is one GIANT MASSIVE leap backwards into a far lower level of public healthcare, and nothing more than an attempt to control society and force it towards a failed system of socialism/globalism. There was NO healthcare crisis in America; that nonsense and LIE was used by extreme liberals to con America into another step toward communism, nothing more.

What's your real feelings DB?   ;-)

As an outsider, all I remember hearing about health care in America is that if you didn't *quite* have the right health insurance, you end up losing everything when you get cancer, or whatever.  Someone I know (a fairly successful songwriter who delivered many top 40 hits) had to pay over 10 grand for every child his wife gave birth to.  As opposed to the (not perfect) health care here in Canada.  Pay your $70 bucks a month, and you get to birth as many kids as you want, no charge.  There are indeed costs not covered, particularly for specialty pharmaceuticals. But on the whole, I thought Canada's health care was what all other countries aspired to.

Am I wrong?

Quote from: Hominid on February 28, 2014, 08:17:20 PM
What's your real feelings DB?   ;-)

As an outsider, all I remember hearing about health care in America is that if you didn't *quite* have the right health insurance, you end up losing everything when you get cancer, or whatever.  Someone I know (a fairly successful songwriter who delivered many top 40 hits) had to pay over 10 grand for every child his wife gave birth to.  As opposed to the (not perfect) health care here in Canada.  Pay your $70 bucks a month, and you get to birth as many kids as you want, no charge.  There are indeed costs not covered, particularly for specialty pharmaceuticals. But on the whole, I thought Canada's health care was what all other countries aspired to.

Am I wrong?

A quick answer would be that the $70 fee is inaccurate because you pay for healthcare through your taxes, so if you add your tax burden to the $70, that fee goes way up. AKA; there is no free lunch, someone is paying for it. And no $70 babies in reality.

...IMHO.

...the point being, that we don't ever get hit with a ten grand bill for birthing a child.  Or having a pancreas removed.  Taxes aren't that high, so I don't get your point.

Quote from: Hominid on February 28, 2014, 09:06:36 PM
...the point being, that we don't ever get hit with a ten grand bill for birthing a child.  Or having a pancreas removed.  Taxes aren't that high, so I don't get your point.

I'm not that familure with Canada's tax or healthcare system, so I was only pointing out that perhaps the $70 was just the tip of the iceberg. Beyond that, it's just like my opinion, man.

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on February 28, 2014, 03:09:37 AM
IMHO...

I'd hit it.

Quote from: jgiffin on March 01, 2014, 01:16:15 AM

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on February 28, 2014, 03:09:37 AM
IMHO...

I'd hit it.

Zesty coitus? 

We pay more money for worse outcomes, we do not, and have not had, the best healthcare in a long time. http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1

THe ACA is tyhe conservative personal responsibility plan out of the Heritage Foundation, the by your own bootstraps plan did not come from us progressives, it came from the right. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA, individual mandates go back to the beginning of this nation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/

When I lived in Scotland my medical costs were all covered by the national insurance payments that came out of my wage along with the state pension. I've had a few operations and require continual medication which were covered by the ni payments including dental. Now I'm in holland I pay medical insurance but have to pay for any drugs and dental treatment and private pension so for me I am worse off under a system like Americas. My point is that both systems work to a given norm but both systems can fail when considered per individual.

What is worse is the system we used to have, the ACA is far from perfect, from anyone's perspective, but no one claims what we had was better or even workable.

Yin and Yang mang, every good choice comes with bad mistakes. The fundamental choice of mistakes represented here are, one side is willing to make the mistake of paying too much to have a healthy populace, the other side is will to make the mistake of letting 40 million go uninsured thinking that will save tax dollars. The choice we all have to make is which mistake is unacceptable to us, paying too much, or not healing enough.

Bhudda, I once too dabbled in right wing neo-conservatism (especially in regards to nationalized healthcare), not in 'Nam of course. When I was in medical school, I thought socialized medicine was an abomination. Of course, I was a Christian then and not a Dudeist.

By any purely statistical measurement, countries with socialized medicine like Canada or Great Britain provide medical care with as good as or better outcomes than we do in the United States at much less cost. The costs are lower for the country as a whole (as percentage of GNP) as well as to the individual patient.

A lot of us docs on the frontline didn't watch our buddies die face down in the muck for CEO's of pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to get paid $20 million dollar bonuses a year. Those rich fucks.... this whole fucking thing. The truth is that there is so much rigging the system and medicine has become dominated by players who want to make a profit instead of actually caring for sick folk. I admit patients every day that simply can't afford to see a doctor or pay for their medications.

The league by-laws for Medicare and other insurers make it impossible to give patients the care they need. They make that kraut Burkholtz look like the model of efficiency. Some days I think it would be much simpler if we had a one payer system that everyone was covered under. At least then I wouldn't have little old ladies who have to decide to pay for their medicine or keep their power on...

Having said that, the great fear that I have is that if we take away the obscene profit motive, will we continue to have the innovations in medicine that we do today? America is the primary driving force in medical innovation (although to be fair the European countries which are mostly socialized also are innovators) and it is fueled by the american dream of striking gold in them thar' hills and getting rich.

At some point somebodies got a strike a balance and tell the insurance companies, drug companies, for profit hospital chains, etc to just take it easy, man, and be happy with a good profit and not fuck a stranger in the ass.

Quote from: Karl_Hungus on March 01, 2014, 03:50:15 PM

At some point somebodies got a strike a balance and tell the insurance companies, drug companies, for profit hospital chains, etc to just take it easy, man, and be happy with a good profit and not fuck a stranger in the ass.

They've got a pill for that, and treatment is not covered by your insurance.   

In the old days universities were the power houses of innovation, they did it for the grant and prize money.

The problem Karl points out is really a patent issue, sure you were the first, you get insane profits for 7 years, then into public domain. That one policy change would have huge repercussions, it would balance incentive with collective good.