ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags health care issues , health care reform , uhc

Reply
Old 7th December 2011, 01:03 PM   #81
Arrow
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 147
I believe one of the bigger cons against 3rd payer health care is the lack of interest in keeping costs down. Ever since government began subsidizing healthcare in the 60s, costs have sky rocketed.

Another problem that is being seen with the new health care system is the elimination of smaller medical centers. We could soon only have big box medical services to choose from.

"Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Obama?"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...rma-big-obama/

From the article:

Quote:
Is it a bug or a feature?
That depends on how you feel about big bureaucratic corporations taking over American health care, but the New York Times reports that the controversial health care reform act has accelerated the destruction of small medical practices at the expense of large firms. And if the Times is right, these are part of some fundamental changes in the American health care system that no Supreme Court decision can undo:
From Colorado to Maryland, hospitals are scrambling to buy hospitals. Doctors are leaving small private practices. Large insurance companies are becoming more dominant as smaller ones disappear because they cannot stay competitive. States are simplifying decades of Medicaid rules and planning new ways for poor and rich alike to buy policies more easily. [...]
Other changes influenced by the legislation may leave some patients and doctors lost in the new land of giants. As medicine moves from a cottage industry to one dominated by large organizations, some patients with insurance will probably find their choices more limited. But their care may be better coordinated, as hospitals, doctors and even insurers join to streamline services.
“The system is transforming itself,” said Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals. “But the success of these changes depends a lot on whether there is sufficient funding.”
Is this what the social engineers who redesigned the American health care system really wanted to do? Is big better in health care, and is bigger still better still?...
Arrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 01:16 PM   #82
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,166
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Combine subsidies (the ability to impose costs on strangers), defensive medicine, and an unreasonable fear of death and you get high cost medicine.
So you oppose health insurance?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 02:14 PM   #83
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Pons asinorum.

Do try and respond to the points actually made instead of continuing to foist your ideological/philosophical views of the world on the readers of this thread. Evidence please, not ideology. Proof please, not politics.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 02:24 PM   #84
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
So you oppose health insurance?
I don't currently buy it. I would buy a plan that covered mechanical damage with a high ($15,000 or so) deductable. That addresses the issue of moral hazard effectively. I prefer not to pass judgment on other people's lives, however. If they want insurance and are willing to pay for it, that's between them and the insurance provider.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 02:28 PM   #85
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,088
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
...snip...
You still have not provided any evidence that supports your contention that the reasons you gave are why Americans have decided to pay through the nose for your healthcare.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 03:23 PM   #86
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
Sorry, I was thinking of European countries. That I have driven across. Oops.

I don't know how it works in Australia but I've seen plenty of Canadians come here for medical care instead of dealing with ridiculous waiting periods and bureaucratic red tape or with off-the-list needs.
Your observations are meaningless without any actual data.

If you think that the only medical tourism is people travelling to the US, think again.

I am certain a Canadian will elaborate on how easy it is to access private care in the country, I do know that the two systems, NHS and private, mesh in an almost seamless manner in the UK.

You can visit your NHS GP and he can write you a private prescription.

I have seen my physio on both the NHS and private, if he thinks I will need extended treatment, he recommends I am referred through the NHS.

I personally think you have just bought into the propaganda.

Those of us with UHC have the best of both worlds as we can choose to use the UHC or the private sector.

Why don't we compare waiting times in the US and Canada or the US and the UK?

For the most part, we can't, as those sort of statistics are not routinely or uniformly gathered in the US, so comparisons are mostly rhetoric.
Tatyana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 09:26 PM   #87
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You still have not provided any evidence that supports your contention that the reasons you gave are why Americans have decided to pay through the nose for your healthcare.
Your "Evidence?" reasonably indicates a request for support for the comment that preceeded "Evidence?", which is why I asked what you doubt. If you wanted evidence for something else, that was hardly a clear way to make that request.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 09:30 PM   #88
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Do try and respond to the points actually made instead of continuing to foist your ideological/philosophical views of the world on the readers of this thread. Evidence please, not ideology. Proof please, not politics.
"Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic". Since antonyms are "scatter-brained" and "unscrupulous", I try to be systematic. "UHC" occurs in the title of this thread. That's government-supported medical services. How do you keep ideology and politics out of this discussion? Of course we compare models of how governments function.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 09:52 PM   #89
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Evasion noted.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 10:24 PM   #90
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,614
Everything Rolfe said in this thread is absolutely correct.

My older sister depends on Medicaid for health coverage. Her and her husband don't earn enough to spare the money insure their entire family. Recently, her husband got a $2/hr raise after he became a manager at the store where he's employed, their income pushed them over the Medicaid limit, so they lost coverage. Shortly afterward, their daughter suffered a serious accident in a public swimming pool which put her in ICU for 4 days. Daughter survived with no obvious impairments as a result of her accident.

So now what to do about this $250,000 bill which showed up in the mail? Bankruptcy is very likely to happen, there's just no chance in hell she can pay for it and collection agency have been calling at all times of the day and night.

The healthcare system in the US isn't just bad, its plain evil.
__________________
>^.^<
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 10:41 PM   #91
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post

So now what to do about this $250,000 bill which showed up in the mail? Bankruptcy is very likely to happen, there's just no chance in hell she can pay for it and collection agency have been calling at all times of the day and night.

The healthcare system in the US isn't just bad, its plain evil.
Didn't they offer to settle for $25,000? (Not that this is any easier to stomach, but it seems to be the norm when it comes to over inflated costs)

Also, can't they sue the swimming pool? (I know there may be no liability on the part of the pool owners, but, hey it's the american way and needs must when the devil ***** in your punch bowl)
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 11:59 PM   #92
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
"Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic".

Stop beating that dead horse already, you've desecrated its corpse enough. Ideological means that you place more importance on the idea than the facts. In short, your thinking can be summarized thusly: "Sure, it works in practice, but it doesn't work in theory, so I'm rejecting it."


Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Since antonyms are "scatter-brained" and "unscrupulous", I try to be systematic.

Still beating that dead horse? If you keep that up, people are going to think there's really something wrong with you!


Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
"UHC" occurs in the title of this thread. That's government-supported medical services. How do you keep ideology and politics out of this discussion?

You seem to be the only one going on about ideology and politics. Indeed, the core of your opposition rests solely on ideology and politics—you certainly haven't provided any factual evidence to buttress your contrary view. Others have posted data and evidence that belies your claims that UHC is the terrible scourge you make it out to be. But you reject evidence in favour of your ideology. "Sure, it works in practice, but it doesn't work in theory, so I'm rejecting it."
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 01:04 AM   #93
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,088
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Your "Evidence?" reasonably indicates a request for support for the comment that preceeded "Evidence?", which is why I asked what you doubt. If you wanted evidence for something else, that was hardly a clear way to make that request.
Thanks for the feedback on my style of posting.

Have you got any evidence that supports your claim?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 03:29 PM   #94
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
You seem to be the only one going on about ideology and politics1. Indeed, the core of your opposition rests solely on ideology and politics—you certainly haven't provided any factual evidence to buttress your contrary view2. Others have posted data and evidence that belies your claims that UHC is the terrible scourge you make it out to be. But you reject evidence in favour of your ideology. "Sure, it works in practice, but it doesn't work in theory, so I'm rejecting it."
1. Talk about indifference to facts! It's advocates for a State role in the medical service industry who repeatedly introduce the terms "ideology" and "ideologue" into this discussion. If you find the word "ideology" in the dictionary, you get something like "theory" or "system".
2. I agree that people who introduce the term to the discussion intend "so attached to a theory that one is indifferent to facts". I also agree that this is a common phenomenon. Cognative dissonance, confirmation bias, etc., happen. To all of us. Including socialists. I refrain from making that accusation since it provides no more factual content than "you're wrong". No facts. Pure ad hominem. And JREF moderators have repeatedly defended it.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 03:35 PM   #95
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
Evasion noted.
Factually empty comment noted.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 03:38 PM   #96
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
How doctors die.
The Mercedes dealer rides a Schwinn to work.
And that article is relevant to this discussion because..... ?
Again. Extreme care is expensive and often futile. Even if subsidized, many doctors (informed customers) will not use it. You don't need a State bureaucracy to radically cut costs with little impact on aggregate longevity if customers have sufficient information. Combine subsidies (the ability to impose costs on strangers), defensive medicine, and an unreasonable fear of death and you get high cost medicine.
Evidence?
Your "Evidence?" reasonably indicates a request for support for the comment that preceeded "Evidence?", which is why I asked what you doubt. If you wanted evidence for something else, that was hardly a clear way to make that request.
Thanks for the feedback on my style of posting.
Have you got any evidence that supports your claim?
I made several claims in the comment that preceeded your "Evidence?" Which does Darat doubt? For which does Darat want evidence?
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 03:39 PM   #97
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
1. Talk about indifference to facts! It's advocates for a State role in the medical service industry who repeatedly introduce the terms "ideology" and "ideologue" into this discussion. If you find the word "ideology" in the dictionary, you get something like "theory" or "system".
2. I agree that people who introduce the term to the discussion intend "so attached to a theory that one is indifferent to facts". I also agree that this is a common phenomenon. Cognative dissonance, confirmation bias, etc., happen. To all of us. Including socialists. I refrain from making that accusation since it provides no more factual content than "you're wrong". No facts. Pure ad hominem. And JREF moderators have repeatedly defended it.
You are talking bollux.

Show us the numbers.
Tatyana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 04:02 PM   #98
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Factually empty comment noted.
But you still haven't answered my question.

Is the US health care really twice as good as Canada's? What value do you get from paying nearly twice as much for your health care, when compared to those of us in the Great White North?
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 05:15 PM   #99
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
But you still haven't answered my question.
Is the US health care really twice as good as Canada's? What value do you get from paying nearly twice as much for your health care, when compared to those of us in the Great White North?
The statement "US healthcare is twice as good as Canadian health care" makes no more sense than "donuts are twice as good as carrots". So the denial of the statement makes no more sense than "donuts are not twice as good as carrots". All you can observe is something along the lines of "donuts cost twice as much as carrots" or "if offered the choice between a free donut and a free carrot, twice as many people will take the donut as will take the carrot". I don't pay twice as much for my medical care as the average Canadian pays for hers, since, as I have said repeatedly in these discussions, my total expenditure for medical services over the last twenty years has been under $500 (probably under $100) total.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 06:18 PM   #100
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
1. Talk about indifference to facts! It's advocates for a State role in the medical service industry who repeatedly introduce the terms "ideology" and "ideologue" into this discussion. If you find the word "ideology" in the dictionary, you get something like "theory" or "system".
My dictionaries must all be faulty because they don't say the things you claim they do. The closest may be Oxford: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy, but "system" and "theory" are pretty clearly not the imperative words.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 06:37 PM   #101
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
The statement "US healthcare is twice as good as Canadian health care" makes no more sense than "donuts are twice as good as carrots". So the denial of the statement makes no more sense than "donuts are not twice as good as carrots". All you can observe is something along the lines of "donuts cost twice as much as carrots" or "if offered the choice between a free donut and a free carrot, twice as many people will take the donut as will take the carrot". I don't pay twice as much for my medical care as the average Canadian pays for hers, since, as I have said repeatedly in these discussions, my total expenditure for medical services over the last twenty years has been under $500 (probably under $100) total.
So you didn't answer.

For the record, we're not comparing tubers to fried, glazed snacks. We're comparing the same product, in different, but similar countries.

I might have been confusing by using the plural, rather than singular form 'you.'

The average health care expenditure, per person, per year, including private and public spending, is nearly twice that in the US than in Canada. What benefits do Americans gain by spending so much more money?
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 07:56 PM   #102
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
My dictionaries must all be faulty because they don't say the things you claim they do. The closest may be Oxford: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy, but "system" and "theory" are pretty clearly not the imperative words.
You looked up "ideology" and found both "system" and "theory". As I said...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 07:57 PM   #103
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
So you didn't answer.

For the record, we're not comparing tubers to fried, glazed snacks. We're comparing the same product, in different, but similar countries.

I might have been confusing by using the plural, rather than singular form 'you.'

The average health care expenditure, per person, per year, including private and public spending, is nearly twice that in the US than in Canada. What benefits do Americans gain by spending so much more money?

It's fun! And we have the money; it's only the government that's broke!
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 08:06 PM   #104
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
So you didn't answer.
There's an answer right in front of your face. "Twice as good" is meaningless.
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
For the record, we're not comparing tubers to fried, glazed snacks. We're comparing the same product, in different, but similar countries.
We both assert that the products are different. Advocates for the Canadian single-payer plan and for Britain's NHS asserrt that these differ from the US system, both in access and performance.
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
The average health care expenditure, per person, per year, including private and public spending, is nearly twice that in the US than in Canada. What benefits do Americans gain by spending so much more money?
Shorter wait times for procedures, maybe? Or high-quality cancer care? Dunno. If someone wants to pay for a service and someone else wants to pay for a different service, I won't second-guess either of them.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 08:34 PM   #105
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
There's an answer right in front of your face. "Twice as good" is meaningless.
Then what's the point of paying twice as much for something if it's not twice as good?

Quote:
We both assert that the products are different. Advocates for the Canadian single-payer plan and for Britain's NHS asserrt that these differ from the US system, both in access and performance.
No we don't. They all provide provide the same services, regardless of who has access, and the performance is comparable.

Quote:
Shorter wait times for procedures, maybe?
Maybe. It depends on which area you look at. But then, in the US if someone doesn't have money or insurance, the wait is infinite.

Quote:
Or high-quality cancer care? Dunno.
Not so much. Survival rate vary depending on the type of cancer. Some countries have better rates than others for certain types of cancer. It's pretty much a wash.

Quote:
If someone wants to pay for a service and someone else wants to pay for a different service, I won't second-guess either of them.
Interestingly enough, the people in the US have the least choice when it comes to health care. It's pay for yourself, or you're subject to the whims of insurance companies. In most countries with UHC, private care is available for money.

Once again, what are the benefits for paying twice as much for the same service with the same outcome?

But you don't know the answer, then why are you so opposed to UHC?
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 09:11 PM   #106
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
You looked up "ideology" and found both "system" and "theory". As I said...
So, to translate your arguments, "words!", because you implied "system" and "theory" were the crucial bits, but they aren't. They aren't even included in other definitions of the word. You are being very disingenuous.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 11:30 PM   #107
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
So, to translate your arguments, "words!", because you implied "system" and "theory" were the crucial bits, but they aren't. They aren't even included in other definitions of the word.
Here's Merriam Webster Online:
Quote:
Definition of IDEOLOGY
1: visionary theorizing
2a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
You are being very disingenuous.
And that's the gone-to-college way to call someone "liar". So when I dispute the ad hominem "ideology" (by which they intend "closed-minded"), the oppoisition busts out "disingenuous" (by which they intend "liar").
Ad hominem is uninformative argument. Why not discuss costs per treatment and wait times for procedures? Why not discuss post-treatment survival rates? Why not contemplate the complications of where to attribute expenses incurred in treatment overseas? Or do you think you have all this so well-understood that there's nothing left but ad hominem?

Last edited by Malcolm Kirkpatrick; 8th December 2011 at 11:33 PM.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 01:18 AM   #108
epepke
Philosopher
 
epepke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I seem to remember you said your father's death was quite some years ago? There was a time when the NHS in Britain was shockingly underfunded, and some pretty dire stuff has been reported for that period.
Yes, I did. It was around 1993.

As archy said, that is only an explanation; it is not an excuse. I'm pretty sure that the NHS was better before Thatcher as well, but again, what of it? Do people get to choose which decade they get sick? People tell me it's better all the time, but then again, people then told me it was just fine. What happens with some new "austerity measures"?
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."
- Godzilla versus Hedora

"There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military."
-DavidByron

Last edited by epepke; 9th December 2011 at 01:23 AM.
epepke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 03:26 AM   #109
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,644
I still don't think that Americans can actually afford any sort of universal health care.

Their doctors seem to cost much, much more than in other places (The AMA keeping their wages nice and high) and all those paper-pushers who are the drain on the system (non-medical costs) would need a new job (are there enough available?) or benefits (such as they are).
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 03:43 AM   #110
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,088
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
I made several claims in the comment that preceeded your "Evidence?" Which does Darat doubt? For which does Darat want evidence?
You still have not provided any evidence that supports your contention that the reasons you gave are why Americans have decided to pay through the nose for your healthcare.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 10:22 AM   #111
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You still have not provided any evidence that supports your contention that the reasons you gave are why Americans have decided to pay through the nose for your healthcare.
That was not the assertion that preceeded your "Evidence"?
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 10:32 AM   #112
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I still don't think that Americans can actually afford any sort of universal health care.
1. The universe is not sick.
2. Everybody dies. The taxpayers of one medium-sized US State could afford to supply one band aid and one aspirin per year to everybody on the planet. The Earth's entire GDP is insufficient to keep even one person alive forever.
3. The marginal cost of an additonal six months of life, plotted as a function of age over an entire age cohort, is U-shaped. Beyond some point, around age 65 or so, people become increasingly expensive to maintain, and costs (potentially) increase without limit.
4. Lots of life-enhancing procedures are possible but extremely expensive (e.g., artificial hips, knees, shoulders, elbows, knuckles).
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 10:37 AM   #113
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,609
Originally Posted by epepke View Post
Yes, I did. It was around 1993.

As archy said, that is only an explanation; it is not an excuse. I'm pretty sure that the NHS was better before Thatcher as well, but again, what of it? Do people get to choose which decade they get sick? People tell me it's better all the time, but then again, people then told me it was just fine. What happens with some new "austerity measures"?
Every system will have cracks; it seems that your father unfortuantely fell into one of these, however - and with the deepest of sympathy - that's not evidence of a broken system in itself.

Nevertheless if you lived in the UK and were worried about "austerity measures" then you have the option to take out private healthcare insurance as well. The cost of the two combined is still likely to be less than the US, based on personal experience.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 10:39 AM   #114
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,609
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
1. The universe is not sick.
Waffle noted.

Quote:
2. Everybody dies. The taxpayers of one medium-sized US State could afford to supply one band aid and one aspirin per year to everybody on the planet. The Earth's entire GDP is insufficient to keep even one person alive forever.
Correct. But we pay half what you do for comparable clinical outcomes. You have been told this already.

Quote:
3. The marginal cost of an additonal six months of life, plotted as a function of age over an entire age cohort, is U-shaped. Beyond some point, around age 65 or so, people become increasingly expensive to maintain, and costs (potentially) increase without limit.
You have had the NICE scoring system explained to you already.

Quote:
4. Lots of life-enhancing procedures are possible but extremely expensive (e.g., artificial hips, knees, shoulders, elbows, knuckles).
See above.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 10:41 AM   #115
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
...What value do you get from paying nearly twice as much for your health care, when compared to those of us in the Great White North?
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
I might have been confusing by using the plural, rather than singular form 'you.'
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You still have not provided any evidence that supports your contention that the reasons you gave are why Americans have decided to pay through the nose for your healthcare.
Where have I argued that my reasons are other people's? Please provide a link to this "contention".

I guess I should feel flattered that some people here suggest that I can read minds. Perhaps, to some extent, we all can. I have exhausted that capacity trying to comprehend socialists' fascination with organized violence (the State) as an instrument of social organization.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 10:47 AM   #116
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,407
1. Perhaps you'd prefer it if instead of "universal health care" we referred to it as "national health care".

2. Your point is? The intent of a national health care system is not to indefinitely prolong life, it is to ensure that through a reasonable cost to everyone that sick and injured members of society are able to resume their roles (be it as bricklayers, sales persons, plumbers, lawyers, students, grand-parents, or what-ever) increasing the overall productivity of society

3. Your point? Other than your obvious feeling that the a person's worth is only related to $

4. Your point again? Should the highly skilled, but low-moderately paid worker who needs such a prosthetic have to say, "Sorry, can't afford it. Guess society now loses my skill set and I need to go starve over here out of sight because I can't earn a living any more."
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 10:48 AM   #117
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
Waffle noted.
Plese try be civil. It's no "waffle" or evasion. I imply a request for definition.
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
...we pay half what you do for comparable clinical outcomes. You have been told this already.
Advocates repeatedly assert this, yes. We also have disputed "comparable".
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
You have had the NICE scoring system explained to you already.
Architect forgets that I introduced NICE to the discussion.
People often assert that some "universal" system "treats everybody", and then abandon that assertion without apology when NICE or other gate keepers are shoved in their face. Yes, there will be death panels. No, not everyone receives needed care (if "need" means "without which they will shortly die").
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 11:23 AM   #118
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,115
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Plese try be civil. It's no "waffle" or evasion. I imply a request for definition.
Perhaps when participating in a discussion entitled "Economic Pros & Cons of US UHC" you should attempt to become familiar with the relevant terms earlier in the thread. Otherwise it gives every appearance of snark and evasion.

But:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+universal
Of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group.

In this case, the particular group being the US (as per the thread title).

Did you really need all this spelled out ?
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 12:05 PM   #119
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Perhaps when participating in a discussion entitled "Economic Pros & Cons of US UHC" you should attempt to become familiar with the relevant terms earlier in the thread. Otherwise it gives every appearance of snark and evasion.
But:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+universal
Of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group.
In this case, the particular group being the US (as per the thread title).
Did you really need all this spelled out ?
Yes. There's a difference between definitions and names. "Pegasus" was a winged horse. If I name a horse "pegasus" will it then be able to fly? Many people in this discussion assert that countries with "UHC" (= "GOD", apparently) "treat everybody". Then someone observes that the NHS has NICE and the Canadian system has something equivalent, and that claim goes by the wayside.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 12:13 PM   #120
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,407
And the US system has nothing.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.