[Zerogouki]

...is that they base their arguments on a prejudice that they have about something that hasn't existed in the United States for the past 60 years: a truly laissez-faire health-care market. And as long as they support Federal meddling in the matter, and as long as they support imposing their ideology on everyone else regardless of whether or not everyone else wants it, we'll never know for sure what a modern laissez-faire health-care market would actually look like. We'll never know how accurate those prejudices are; they just assume that their position is the correct one with no evidence to back up this assertion.

The advantage of a libertarian/Constitutional approach - the advantage of state sovereignty - is that the states who want a more active government role in the medical sector would be allowed to have it. Instead of imposing a laissez-faire ideology on everyone, we'd actually be trying out a bunch of different stuff at the same time and finding out the truth about what works best.

But hey, who cares about the truth when you can just call your opponents a bunch of greedy bastards and misrepresent their position by claiming that they support the status quo?

[Wolfman]

I base my views on the very economic fact that the US has a horrible cost-benefit for the treatment of illnesses. I'd love to see you disprove economics.

[DanDaMan]

Liberals and Leftists, fundamentally, know they cannot care for themselves.
They want to never grow up and be responsible adults. Therefore they need a nanny state.

[Zerogouki]

I said:

But hey, who cares about the truth when you can just call your opponents a bunch of greedy bastards and misrepresent their position by claiming that they support the status quo?

Wolf said:

I base my views on the very economic fact that the US has a horrible cost-benefit for the treatment of illnesses.

And THAT's why it's so goddamn frustrating to debate this issue with leftists. Do they even bother to read what we post?

[Kman]

Who is the arrogant one here? your the one that wants to take money from people that earned it fair and square and give it to people that didnt earn it. (nvm I see that I misread the headline, I thought UHC meant unregulated healthcare .. )

In regards to the cost problems that is because the US government removed the mechanisms that caused downwards price pressure and competition among doctors, dont blame the private sector for problems that the US government caused. If the US government had stayed out of health care completely then prices would be much cheaper.

There are 2 health care sectors that government never manipulated, which is plastic surgery and eye laser surgery, both these sectors have had prices dropping alot these past 10 years, while the health care sectors that the US government has manipulated has seen prices increase alot over the last 10 years.

[Wolfman]

And THAT's why it's so goddamn frustrating to debate this issue with leftists. Do they even bother to read what we post?

Because I ignore that you are clearly trolling, and respond with a very valid argument? Must be annonying.

your the one that wants to take money from people that earned it fair and square and give it to people that didnt earn it.

Says the guy in Denmark.

If the US government had stayed out of health care completely then prices would be much cheaper.

Go ahead and argue from cost. I don't care. I'm talking about cost. I'm talking about cost-benefit. Two different things.

[Zerogouki]

Because I ignore that you are clearly trolling, and respond with a very valid argument?

You didn't respond with a valid argument. You responded with a strawman argument and ignored the entire thrust of my post, which was that the US hasn't had a fully private health-care system for the past 60 years.

[Wolfman]

You responded with a strawman argument

Telling you I go by simple economics, and then challenge to proove it wrong is a strawman?

and ignored the entire thrust of my post, which was that the US hasn't had a fully private health-care system for the past 60 years.

OK. And? You're still obviously trolling. Of course I'm going to ignore that. And the fact that countries with more government involvement spend less should tell you something

[The Clockwork Rat]

Sorry...

[Zerogouki]

Telling you I go by simple economics, and then challenge to proove it wrong is a strawman?

No. However, conflating "I support a free-market approach" with "I support the status quo" is definitely a strawman, because the USA hasn't taken a fully free-market approach for the past 60 years.

It would probably be better if it was run on a state-by-state basis, since the economy of each state is different. Hell, let some states not have government run healthcare, and see what the difference is after 20 years.

Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN THE ORIGINAL POST?

Jesus Christ, why does nobody ever actually read what I write?

[Nattering Nabob]

...is that they base their arguments on a prejudice that they have about something that hasn't existed in the United States for the past 60 years: a truly laissez-faire health-care market. And as long as they support Federal meddling in the matter, and as long as they support imposing their ideology on everyone else regardless of whether or not everyone else wants it, we'll never know for sure what a modern laissez-faire health-care market would actually look like. We'll never know how accurate those prejudices are; they just assume that their position is the correct one with no evidence to back up this assertion.

False...they see that what we currently have is not working and offer a solution that has worked in many other countries...

[Zerogouki]

Their position isn't just that our current system isn't working; it's also that UHC is the best alternative.

[Huntster]

Go ahead and argue from cost. I don't care. I'm talking about cost. I'm talking about cost-benefit. Two different things.

Are you drunk? Not only did you fail to type "not" in your sentence, "I'm talking about cost", the whole point is absurdly blind:

If the "cost" side of your "cost-benefit" comparison/ratio is based upon unnecessarily high costs because of ruinous government interference, then the "cost-benefit" ratio is flawed.

And THAT's why it's so goddamn frustrating to debate this issue with leftists. Do they even bother to read what we post?.......

......Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN THE ORIGINAL POST?

Jesus Christ, why does nobody ever actually read what I write?

Not only don't they read what we post, they don't bother to read what they post (as the above example clearly proves). Thus, after posting some stupid shit and getting called on it, they then launch on diversionary derailments and other adventures in a vain attempt to obscure their own ridiculous words and try to save face.

[Wolfman]

No. However, conflating "I support a free-market approach" with "I support the status quo" is definitely a strawman, because the USA hasn't taken a fully free-market approach for the past 60 years.

I'm sorry, did I say that?

Jesus Christ, why does nobody ever actually read what I write?

Probably for the same reason for that you're carded all the time. The majority of your posts are full of insults, or are simply mindless trolls attempts. All I did was try to create a valid discussion.

If the "cost" side of your "cost-benefit" comparison/ratio is based upon unnecessarily high costs because of ruinous government interference, then the "cost-benefit" ratio is flawed.

Uh hu. You do know that in the rest of the developed world, where everything is state run, it's cheaper then in the US where it's free market with government restrictions.

[Huntster]

If the "cost" side of your "cost-benefit" comparison/ratio is based upon unnecessarily high costs because of ruinous government interference, then the "cost-benefit" ratio is flawed.

Uh hu. You do know that in the rest of the developed world, where everything is state run, it's cheaper then in the US where it's free market with government restrictions.

Yup.

And I also know that many "expensive" surgical operations available in the United States with virtually no waiting period whatsoever aren't available at all in many areas of "the rest of the developed world", and if they are, they're not as successful because few surgeons can afford to provide them.

Just last week I spent four days with a friend (who is single...........no family to take care of him while he recovered) from double knee surgery. His knees were a wreck. Bone on bone (the meniscus was gone), with arthritis to aggravate the situation. He's 62 years old and in good physical condition otherwise. While at the doctor because of a broken toe (dropped a manhole cover on it) he complained of his knees.

His doctor sent him to a specialist.

The specialist did the x-ray thing, then asked him if he wanted new knees. My friend said yes.

The doctor asked him if he wanted to do it that week. My friend declined, because (again, single) he needed to get his home and "stuff" ready for winter (a serious consideration here in Alaska).

So, about a week and a half after first talking to the doctor about it, he had both knees replaced.

No government, no "universal health care", no liberal bullshit, no Medicare (imagine if he had waited just 3 more years and had been on Medicare), no wait, no problem.

The complete "package" came with two new knees, a fancy ice water wrap machine that circulates ice water around the knee to reduce swelling, a knee movement machine that keeps his knees flexing and straightening in bed, two weeks of a therapist visiting his home (30 miles from the hospital), crutches, a walker, and all kinds of other "stuff". He's recovering in amazing fashion, with almost no swelling at all, and he was doing "laps" in his house on the crutches (exercising) one week after the surgery.

All my friend had to do was give them his insurance card.

I've had similar situations myself. I got shot in the head in 2001 and was med-evacuated in a helicopter from a remote area of Alaska (miles from any road). I was blinded in my right eye from the bullet damage for quite some time. I had the best care I can imagine, and it was all automatic. The professionals took very good care of me. Reconstructive surgery (I'm actually prettier than ever before), eye therapy and constant checkups (my sight returned 100%), and the bullet in a urine sample container in my closet instead of in my head.

I just pulled out my card (well into the affair), and I had no problem at all.

I'm no spring chicken here, partner. I've been around. I've been in and out of more hospitals than I can possibly remember (and an Army hospital was the worse nightmare I can remember..................government health care that you can have, if you dare).

You can't tell me what I need.

Been there, done that, big time.

[Zerogouki]

All I did was try to create a valid discussion.

A strawman argument has nothing to do with "valid" discussion.

in the rest of the developed world, where everything is state run, it's cheaper then in the US where it's free market with government restrictions.

1) It's only cheaper there because of rationing. You know, the denial of needed care.
2) I've already pointed out in this thread that the US has not had a free market for SIXTY FUCKING YEARS. Do you understand that? There is NOBODY in this thread, or even the universe, who believes that the US should keep its current system. Do you understand that? This thread is NOT about keeping the US system as it is. Do you understand that?

I got shot in the head

Admitting that you've suffered severe head trauma in the past is not the best way to convince people that you are of sound mind.

[Huntster]

I got shot in the head

Admitting that you've suffered severe head trauma in the past is not the best way to convince people that you are of sound mind.

That was just one case of "severe head trauma", not to mention all the other various "traumas" I've been treated to. It's just a fact, and the key to that is that my health insurance has saved my ass so many times I've literally forgotten them all, and I don't trust a government operated, universal system to take as good care of me or pay doctors enough to sustain the wonderful system we now have.

BTW, Alaska's total state population is less than that of the city of Long Beach, California, but we have one of the best hospitals on Earth in so many areas, especially traumatic injury. They put people back together after bear maulings on a regular basis. They deal with altitude sickness regularly (there are thousands of mountain climbers challenging Denali every year).

And, for such a sparcely populated place, there sure are a lot of gunshot victims around here................

[hannigaholic]

Just to throw the cat among the pigeons a bit, but personal anecdotes are irrelevant to the debate on whether government funding of healthcare is a good idea or not. You could find equivalent accounts of poor people who would be dead if they lived in the US but survived because of UHC and made a distinct contribution to society (Stephen Hawking, for example). What really matters is statistics and the fact is that, despite having one of the most highly privatised helathcare markets in the world, the US care costs way more and delivers better results only in very limited areas.

Also the rationing argument is way overplayed. All those of us with UHC have to do usually is wait a bit longer to get treatment. We don't get denied treatment outright, unlike those who can't afford insurance, or who lose their jobs, in the US.

[Huntster]

Just to throw the cat among the pigeons a bit, but personal anecdotes are irrelevant to the debate on whether government funding of healthcare is a good idea or not.

1) They aren't irrelevant to the person with that experience

2) People vote

3) People attend "town hall" meetings and talk

You could find equivalent accounts of poor people who would be dead if they lived in the US but survived because of UHC and made a distinct contribution to society (Stephen Hawking, for example).

You can also find recipients of "universal health care" here in the U.S. to discuss these things with, too. People who are recipients of the Public Health system (aboriginal Americans), Veteran's Health system, and (most importantly) Medicare (all those over 65 years of age).

Notice all the AARP commercials on TV advertising "supplemental" insurance?

Can you catch that clue, or do you really need somebody to draw you a picture?

What really matters is statistics and the fact is that, despite having one of the most highly privatised helathcare markets in the world, the US care costs way more and delivers better results only in very limited areas.

Yup. Specialty areas. The areas that government health care totally fails at.

The areas that will kill you.

All those of us with UHC have to do usually is wait a bit longer to get treatment.

In the specialty areas.

The areas that will kill you.

We don't get denied treatment outright, unlike those who can't afford insurance, or who lose their jobs, in the US.

1) No, you don't get denied treatment outright. You get delayed until you're dead.

2) Hospitals nearly nationwide are under legal requirements not to deny treatment, even to people who aren't even supposed to be in this country. That's why they're being financially and logistally destroyed.

[hannigaholic]

1) No, you don't get denied treatment outright. You get delayed until you're dead.

You really should look into the facts.

Life expectancy
Cancer deaths
Infant Mortality rates
Years lived in ill health - Male
Years lived in ill health - Female

Many of those places with healthcare that supposedly delays healthcare "until you're dead" are outperforming the United States on some very important healthcare issues, while spending less money. Nobody is saying it's perfect, but you shouldn't continue to spout your untruths about the performance of socialised or universal healthcare. It actually works quite well.