Clinton calls for socialized health care

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Why you wanna leave me dying in a ditch, Pang?

I will approve ditch-death only in those specific instances where there are huge posted signs warning you not to fall in the ditch, and also we threw you a rope to climb out of the ditch, but you just pouted and insisted that rather than leaving the ditch we should just build a house around you so you don't have to move, and—

The metaphor becomes unwieldy. At any rate, you can't expect ANY medical system to work for people who actively refuse to improve their health. I'm not leaving them to die in a ditch, I'm offering them a ladder to climb out which they ignore because they're busy gobbling down more Twinkies. And then, after I spend a few days trying to draw their attention to the ladder, I give up in disgust. This is called "killing you for not cooperating", I think?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

If the government can deny you surgery because you smoke, why not deny you surgery or medical treatment because you overeat and don't exercise? Why not deny you treatment if you play a high-contact physical sport that will increase the likelihood of you incurring some kind of debilitating physical injury.

Holy shit, I'm actually agreeing with NP.

Right now, there is no way in hell I'd let this government handle our health care. So its great that the system we have now is so broken and profit-motivated, that soon there'll be no way to get your money's (or your life's) worth out of it. Its a noose that is slowly tightening around our necks, and the end result is a national health care system.

What cunning.

"Here, get this vaccine or we won't treat you."

"Stop smoking or we won't treat you."

What do I know though, I'm crazy.

Government's gonna put chips in all of our skulls at birth under nehmi's national healthcare plan.

They do already implant chips for medical information. What an awesome way to sell the idea to the public.

Originally Posted by Pangalin

The metaphor becomes unwieldy. At any rate, you can't expect ANY medical system to work for people who actively refuse to improve their health. I'm not leaving them to die in a ditch, I'm offering them a ladder to climb out which they ignore because they're busy gobbling down more Twinkies. And then, after I spend a few days trying to draw their attention to the ladder, I give up in disgust. This is called "killing you for not cooperating", I think?

Which is fine, but then it's unreasonable to make these demands while witholding a surgery, such as demanding that someone with a weak heart should maybe lose a few pounds maybe?

Using equitable cost to control behavior opens up a serious can of worms, and "good government" doesn't last forever. Consider for example if a socially conservative government took the helm of NHS and started denying access to AIDs medication to "the Gays" because "they're just going to get it again anyways" and if they're really serious about overcoming their AIDs problem they would stop being "the Gay."

What's hilarious is that Brady is dead certain that an American national health care will regularly make the same faux pas as "denying a risky surgery to a man who may lose his foot as a result of it" that is extrordinarily noteworthy in England.

What's also hilarious is that brady and co think that most poor and middle class people right now have more choice in their health care than a poor sod who can't afford a pack of patches.

He was offered surgery at first you know~

God forbid someone risk losing a foot that would be crippled anyways, right?

What's really hilarious is that you think the same government which gave us medicare, medicaid, the War in Iraq, the gutting of FEMA, and Homeland Security is going to be able to provide us with comprehensive healthcare. But then equalizing misery fine so long as everybody's equally miserable, right? It's not like we're talking about the same government which has turned the medical industry into a cartel or anything. That's the one that'll give us the answers. This is the government which would take care of us.

We can trust Democrats, though, right? I bet they'll be in power, like, forever.

There's not that much wrong with Medicare and Medicaid unless you are already opposed to such a plan. They work fairly well.

I mean, the worst thing about Medicare is Part D, and that was bound to happen when we let Republicans control Congress for a decade and a half.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

What's really hilarious is that you think the same government which gave us medicare, medicaid, the War in Iraq, the gutting of FEMA, and Homeland Security is going to be able to provide us with comprehensive healthcare.

No, bush will be out of office soon.

tell us more about the health care choices Midna has. I'm sure she'll be happy to hear about it, since she doesn't already know how much opportunity she already has.

Because you know - these problems were originated in 1994 when Republicans won the House and Senate and exacerbated by the election of George W. Bush in 2000.

Originally Posted by a lurker

tell us more about the health care choices Midna has. I'm sure she'll be happy to hear about it, since she doesn't already know how much opportunity she already has.

Tell us more about Midna's choices when her son is placed at the bottom of a waiting list for his biopsy.

"YOUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CURRENT SYSTEM ARE UNFOUNDED, MORTAL. KNOW YOU NOT THAT ALTERNATE SYSTEMS ALSO HAVE SOME IMPERFECTIONS? TRULY THOU ART SHOWN AS A FOOL, FOR AS ANY MAN KNOWS ANY ONE NATION MAY ONLY CONTAIN SOCIALIST MEDICINE OR PRIVATE MEDICINE! NEVER BOTH! THEY ARE AS MATTER AND ANTIMATTER, A TERRIFYING CONFLATION OF THESE THINGS CAN NEVER BE!

THE WATCHER HAS SPOKEN."

Can someone tell me what's so wrong with socialism other than the underlying fear of communism?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Can someone tell me what's so wrong with socialism other than the underlying fear of communism?

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat off his brow?

NO, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor.

NO, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to us.

NO, says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone."

And we all know how that turned out. I don't want electric skin and a mouth shaped like a fishhook, Devo. Do you?

Devo, I believe it's been mentioned before that this country spits out more medical advances than anyone else globally, in part because of privatized medicine. I submit that as evidence that someone somewhere should have privatized medicine, if only to keep medical technology advancing.

I would also point out a personal objection I have to it would be the following scenario. I pay a high tax for universal health care. I don't want to deal with waiting lists, so I also choose to pay for private health care. Pang's right, the two can exist together. Except, since I'm choosing to use private health care, why should I be paying for someone else to go to the doctor? National health care isn't something I can opt out of.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

why should I be paying for someone else to go to the doctor?

Well this is one of those basic things that only people with a sense of empathy understand soooooo

let me try to put this real simple like

to be a good person

Does charity enforced at gunpoint remain charity?

Additional Spam:
That said, won't people who wish to opt out of a national health system, and also opt out of paying for it as well, effectively reduce said national health service to just another non-profit insurance company?

But see Pang, that gets back to the choice thing, one. I'm all for charity, but I prefer to be the one to make that choice. The other consideration, which also ties into choice, is the fact that you can't give everyone everything that they think they need. Since that's the case, why should I surrender the decision of who gets my money to an entity who will only reapportion it to a bunch of people, some of whom don't actually need it, while skimming a bit off the top for itself?

I could be a good person by helping out my poor, sick cousin, which would be a more meaningful and effective act all around.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

But see Pang, that gets back to the choice thing, one. I'm all for charity, but I prefer to be the one to make that choice.

By this line of reasoning, I would like to have the choice to not pay for the war.

That's a thing I am being "forced at gunpoint" to do, by this logic.

It seems a lot worse to me, somehow. You know, paying for another nation over our own - losing American lives and dollars for it.