bmattock
Mentor
I live on the Canadian border, and I met with a man last year who was using one of those 'rascal' type scooters to get around. I asked him why, and he told me he was on a four year waiting list to get his knees replaced.
Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. Taken one by one, neither my story nor yours prove anything at all, they're just noise.
In any case AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID, Canadian-style health care is not on the menu in the bills currently before the US Congress, so what lovely health care Canada or France or lower Eastern Absurdistan has does not make one tiny little difference to the USA at the moment. NOTHING we are discussing in Congress does ANYTHING like what Canada, France, et al, do with regard to health care.
So not to put too fine a point on it, but who the hell cares what France's or Canada's health care system is or how well it works? We're not discussing having anything like that here.
This is the essence of the speciousness of the argument. You don't want "me" to control your life. But what are we, in fact, talking about in the instance of health care?
Under the current system, which you wish to maintain, a group of monopolists called "insurance companies" have unaccountable bureaucrats who get to decide that my mom dies because she isn't worth insuring. You, my friend, are controlling the life, liberty and happiness of myself and my family.
You can debate that you don't want ANYONE sticking their nose in, which is fine. Go live in a cabin in Alaska. YOU want to pick and choose what group of people get to control ME, and yet you bloviate about being left alone. It's both absurd and foully dishonest.
bmattock
Mentor
Freedom of speech says different. Typical - utter disregard for civil liberties when it suits you.
Bribery is not speech. Corporations are not people (except in our ass-backwards courts). Get a grip.
ferider
Mentor
Why should government-controlled health care insurers work any differently ?
Why should oligopolist-controlled health care insurers work any differently?
Still with the strawman that a group of people called a "corporation" has some magic honesty and efficiency that a group of people called a "government" don't.
wgerrard
Mentor
How about we start with you explaining how private for-profit companies can provide quality health care to everyone? You've carefully avoided that. I can only assume that the provision of health care for all isn't important to you.
Medicare's alleged insolvency could be mitigated by an alteration of government spending priorities.
skibeerr
Well-known
Wich is a movie, as in fiction loosely based on isolated facts.
Or do you find the "son" a real person?
The problem is not the wealthy Canadians being anle to get immediate treatment instead of waiting.
Does everybody, like a person losing his job and no longer able to pay insurance, get treatment in the US?
I live in Europe and what do I now about the situation in the US is based on hearsay so I ask; does a person down on his luck gets good medical care? And how does this work?
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about the bills currently before Congress.
First, I do not wish to maintain the current broken system. Not liking the current proposals are not the same as liking what we have. I wish to avoid driving our economy and my civil liberties over a cliff. That's not the same as liking what we currently have.
Second, everyone is currently free not to buy insurance. Under the proposals currently under consideration, everyone will be required by law to buy insurance. Never before in the history of the USA has the federal government required a citizen to purchase a good or service by virtue of simply being alive. Car insurance, as I've noted, is not a valid comparison because one does not have to drive, any more than one has to have health insurance currently. But under the current proposals, one will have to purchase health insurance or face fines and/or prison.
So yes, I say that those in favor of the current proposals seek to control my life, and no, I do not wish to control yours. If I were to be left the hell alone, I'd be thrilled. And I have zero desire to control your life at all.
Under the current proposals, i will not be ABLE to legally go live in a cabin in Alaska without purchasing health insurance.
So tell me all about being dishonest, liar.
ferider
Mentor
I didn't say that. I would love a well-published analysis of the current health care system and costs, followed by a reform. Plus, there is no real rush to complete a reform in 2009. That's all.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Actually, yes, I believe private enterprise can do better than government in nearly every circumstance. This is proven in private education many times over.
As a practical matter, the US does not have compulsory education. We even have 'graduates' that can't read.
Oh, dear, back on your private definitions again. I thought you said only liberals do that? All right: 'compulsory school attendance'.
Now, why do private schools often do 'better' than state schools? Because the pupils' parents want them to be there; because kids who don't behave can be thrown out, back into the state system; and because expenditure per head is much higher, resulting in better teacher/pupil ratios and more resources. This really is a non-starter.
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
Mentor
I don't want "government-controlled health care insurers". I want single payer. I want to pay my taxes and go to the doctor who gets a piece of my taxes.
I certainly don't want to maintain the current rigged system.
Assuming this is true, what is different about switching to a new set bureaucrats?
emraphoto
Mentor
"I live on the Canadian border, and I met with a man last year who was using one of those 'rascal' type scooters to get around. I asked him why, and he told me he was on a four year waiting list to get his knees replaced.
Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. Taken one by one, neither my story nor yours prove anything at all, they're just noise."
which was my point exactly. thus the "specious" nature of the argument vis a vie the "wait times".
Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. Taken one by one, neither my story nor yours prove anything at all, they're just noise."
which was my point exactly. thus the "specious" nature of the argument vis a vie the "wait times".
bmattock
Mentor
Anything that requires me to purchase a good or service without my consent does not increase my rights, it infringes on them. I do not want it. It is unconstitutional. And we'll discover that as soon as this current mess of crap is passed into law, challenged, the SCOTUS grants cert, and that will be the end of that. You want to define health care as a basic human right? Fine, there is a way to do that. An amendment. Short of that, nada.
The Constitution was designed intentionally to be difficult to modify, because the founders wanted it to require a lot of thought, a lot of effort, and a lot of consensus. Not the zeitgeist, not the minor passing fancy of a few do-gooders, none of that. A prime example was Prohibition. It took an amendment to get it passed, and when the public infatuation with being dry passed and it became clear that we drink booze in this country anyway, it took an amendment to remove it. And that was just booze. Mandatory purchase of health care? That requires an amendment at the very least, it's a much bigger deal than banning booze.
Just quoting your own words, Roger.
Thanks Roger, you've proven my point. Government education does not guarantee actual education, anymore than government healthcare guarantees health.
bmattock
Mentor
Not on the current list of fixes being proposed by Congress. Since it's not on them, defending the current proposed chunks of crap being proposed is disingenuous and intentional slight-of-hand designed to fool idiots who don't actually read the bills in question.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
This is so pompus.
bmattock
Mentor
Public schools? Just a guess.
Exactly...like our congressmen who have admitted not reading the bills for which they voted...