Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

[Tom Sweetnam]

"I'm so emotional just thinking of all the soldiers that died"

Me too. I knew a Canadian soldier who died. Well actually he wasn't a Canadian soldier in the Canadian military sense. He was a Ranger in the US Army. He served with me in Lima Company Rangers, 75th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam in 1970. He was killed in one of our more infamous gun battles: the Team Polar Bear mission. 20 books have been written about our company. He's in most of them. Sad to die at 19, but then he certainly secured his place in history. Given the choice between so dramatic an exit or waning away as an old fart like me, he probably would have chosen the former over the latter.

We had four Canadians in the company. They were warriors one and all. One of them retired from a major police department in Canada, then at age 57 he went to Baghdad to train paramilitary police. That had to be the most dangerous job in that entire fucking lunatic asylum. It was exactly what he was looking for. He came to...not our last reunion, but the one before that. He'd made a lot of money in Iraq, but that's not why he went there. He looked bored.

So what are you looking for, hoser?

 

[Rikurzhen]

"I'm so emotional just thinking of all the soldiers that died"

Me too. I knew a Canadian soldier who died. Well actually he wasn't a Canadian soldier in the Canadian military sense. He was a Ranger in the US Army. He served with me in Lima Company Rangers, 75th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam in 1970. He was killed in one of our more infamous gun battles: the Team Polar Bear mission. 20 books have been written about our company. He's in most of them. Sad to die at 19, but then he certainly secured his place in history. Given the choice between so dramatic an exit or waning away as an old fart like me, he probably would have chosen the former over the latter.

We had four Canadians in the company. They were warriors one and all. One of them retired from a major police department in Canada, then at age 57 he went to Baghdad to train paramilitary police. That had to be the most dangerous job in that entire fucking lunatic asylum. It was exactly what he was looking for. He came to...not our last reunion, but the one before that. He'd made a lot of money in Iraq, but that's not why he went there. He looked bored.

So what are you looking for, hoser?

A better world for my children. What liberals have done to this one is tantamount to a crime against humanity.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

A better world for my children. What liberals have done to this one is tantamount to a crime against humanity.

Yes it is. The greatest crime against humanity is the fact that they made us quit shooting the bastards when we came home.

 

[Rotagilla]

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's a fun fact: polls show 92% of Canadians prefer the Canadian healthcare system over the US system.

If that was the case, why are there Canadians who would rather seek treatment in the United States?

Long wait times are increasingly driving patients south, including two Albertans who underwent surgery on the same day last month, and commiserated about feeling abandoned by an ailing system back home.

Their Florida surgeon has seen the number of Canadian patients grow by a staggering 800 per cent in the past decade.

Long Canadian wait times send patients south for surgery Video

Because this fails as a false comparison fallacy.


An expanded Medicare program would ensure all Americans have access to both health maintenance and affordable healthcare when needed, and would function nothing like the Canadian system.

There is no comparison, Einstein.
He's making an argument: the Canadian socialist system sucks for many and that's why they seek treatment here in the U.S.
We'd be idiots to want to replicate a system that people flee.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol random googling is a common conservative USMB tactic when they know they are losing the argument.

Similar to the common leftist tactic of ignoring responses they know they cannot effectively address.

EDIT: My bad - you did respond.
Ineffectively, but a response none the less.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about quality?
.

Yes obviously quality matters. Sure our system is state of the art. Again that's not enough to make it a good system if poor people can't afford basic cancer treatment.

You have every right to whatever health care you can afford.
That you cannot afford any particular level of health care does not give you the right to have the state force other people to pay for it, or provide it for free.

So those kids growing up in poor families shouldn't get proper healthcare because it is too expensive?

OooOOoooh... an appeal to emotion.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude, regardless of the reason behind it.

Now, do you have an actual argument against what I said, or are you just going to sling logical fallacies?

Let's pretend for a moment you were born to a poor family and you get a life threatening illness at a young age. Should everyone just tell you "sorry son you're SOL!"

Oh look ... ANOTHER appeal to emotion.

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude, regardless of the reason behind it.

Now, do you have an actual argument against what I said, or will you simply continue to sling logical fallacies?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A reason? Lol. Seriously?! 17 trillion in debt. Incompetent leaders. The list is endless.

 

[asterism]

Oh really? Is that why WHO ranks our healthcare system as one of the worst for the developed world? According to them our system ranks right above Slovenia's.

The problem is that instead of measuring results only, the WHO includes relative disparity as a measure of quality.

The report breaks new ground in the way that it helps us understand the goals of health
systems. Clearly, their defining purpose is to improve and protect health – but they have
other intrinsic goals. These are concerned with fairness in the way people pay for health
care, and with how systems respond to people’s expectations with regard to how they are
treated. Where health and responsiveness are concerned, achieving a high average level is
not good enough: the goals of a health system must also include reducing inequalities, in
ways that improve the situation of the worst-off. In this report attainment in relation to
these goals provides the basis for measuring the performance of health systems.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf?ua=1

So a completely backwards system like Oman ranks higher than the US because it's crappy for everyone (and despite the UN's report, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything approaching first world medical care there).

You've made a circular reference. You advocate for single-payer using quality and disparity as the primary reason and then your proof measures quality and disparity. So billionaires get the best care in the US while the very poor get better care than almost everyone else in the world, but since billionaires do not get the best care in Oman it's not considered part of the equation.

There's a reason people in other countries travel here if they can afford it.

 

[asterism]

I am not denying that our healthcare system is sophisticated. The obvious problem is that only the financially secure can afford it and only rich people can afford the really good stuff.

That is absolutely false.

Leukemia patients on Medicaid track very closely to non-Medicaid patients.

PubMed Central Image Viewer.

 

[asterism]

You have no clue how Canada achieves its cost efficiencies. I'd like though for you to educate us about your vision of how the US can achieve the same cost efficiencies as the Canadian system.

Here's the income statement for a large health provider - United Health. They earned only a 4.32% profit on their operations and to earn that profit they had to manage their financial operations very carefully in order to reduce waste and fraud, something that Medicare administrators don't have to do because they don't risk losing their jobs via bankruptcy if they lose money.

IN order to earn that 4.32% profit, the shareholders of United Health have had to invest billions of dollars. The profit that was earned on operations amounted to a 4.38% return on invested capital.

So if you took over the operations of United Health and put the whole shebang under government control you'd also have to supply the billions of dollars for the capital needed to operate the system and now you could keep that 4.32% profit from operations for the government.

Now that private enterprise is out of the equation, other than than 4.32% what else are you going to do to bring American expenditures down to Canadian levels?

I'm all eyes and ears awaiting your lesson for me.

That assumes the government operates at the same efficiency as United Health. Show me any government department that operates as efficiently as the private sector.

 

[kaz]

Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

...our healthcare system?

No one should "run our healthcare system." Patients should have the freedom to chose the best care for the money they are willing to spend.

 

[asterism]

More from the WHO report:

Stewardship is the last of the four health systems functions examined in this report,
and it is arguably the most important. It ranks above and differs from the others –
service delivery, input production, and financing – for one outstanding reason: the ultimate
responsibility for the overall performance of a country’s health system must always lie with
government.

So this is why government systems rank higher in the WHO report, it's intentionally biased in favor of government systems. That means that any government system will by default be better than any private system in this area according to their methodology.

 

[kaz]

More from the WHO report:

Stewardship is the last of the four health systems functions examined in this report,
and it is arguably the most important. It ranks above and differs from the others –
service delivery, input production, and financing – for one outstanding reason: the ultimate
responsibility for the overall performance of a country’s health system must always lie with
government.

So this is why government systems rank higher in the WHO report, it's intentionally biased in favor of government systems. That means that any government system will by default be better than any private system in this area according to their methodology.

Micheal Moore saying Cuba has a better healthcare system was classic

 

[asterism]

You're a Rightwinger so I don't expect you to understand nuance. A healthcare system must be judged based on affordability and accessibility.

Which is why socialized systems of lower average quality rank higher than the US in the WHO report you linked. Lower quality and lower disparity is better according to them (and you it seems).

 

[kaz]

You're a Rightwinger so I don't expect you to understand nuance. A healthcare system must be judged based on affordability and accessibility.

Which is why socialized systems of lower average quality rank higher than the US in the WHO report you linked. Lower quality and lower disparity is better according to them (and you it seems).

Which country are you more likely to die of cancer or heart disease? The wild west USA or the gold standard of modern, efficient, government run healthcare, Canada?

The answer to both is ... Canada ... And that's even with people with means coming to the ... USA ... for healhcare ...

 

[asterism]

Starting on Page 154 of the WHO report, the bias is clear.

Oman ranks higher than the US overall, but ranks much lower than the US in any of the quality measures.

 

[The Rabbi]

And it looks like Billy Triple Nought has thrown in the towel on his own troll thread.
Ten pages of solid cogent arguments and his response can be summed up by "nuh-uh".

 

[Harry Dresden]

how come michael did not show the other side of Cuba?.....you know the one were all the poor people live?.....i delivered mail to a Cuban guy whos brother in Canada had to send family there Neosporin because they cant get it there.....

I liked the fact that every time Moore was introduced to some poor soul fucked over by the health insurance racket, and then tried to contact anyone at the company (much less get them to go on video), they ran like scalded dogs. They ran and skulked like the criminals they are. As to your reference to Cuba, I have no idea what you mean. It's been awhile since I've seen 'Sicko'. I don't remember any part of it being filmed in Cuba or even any references to Cuba. As I recall, the film was shot in the US, Canada, Britain, and France. You'll have to spell it out for me. I'm kind of a dumbass sometimes.

If it's an allegorical reference to the fact that the government is in control of national healthcare in Cuba as it is in Canada, well, it's not a very apt analogy. Canada isn't Cuba. It's a free market capitalist economy with one of the highest standards of living in the world...if not the highest.

The man who dragged Canada kicking and screaming into nationalized healthcare was named Tommy Douglas. He was premier of Saskatchewan at the time. There were a lot of people in Saskatchewan who didn't want anything that smacked of socialism. There was a doctor's strike. Things got ugly. Douglas declared martial law and put tanks on the streets of Regina. Eventually the entire country adopted his healthcare model. He was a champion middleweight boxer, a PhD in sociology from the University of Chicago, and an ordained minister. He was tough, compassionate, and wise.

Canadians love their healthcare system as has been noted by poll results in previous posts here. Canada's oldest and most widely read periodical, Macleans Magazine, conducted a poll a few years back in which subscribers were presented with a list of 100 prominent Canadians from 450 years of history, and asked to rank them as to their importance to Canadian history and their impact on society overall. Douglas was ranked #1. The philosophical paradigm is this: the most important commodity to any civilization is its people, and the most important issue for the people is their health. That should be the central tenet of enlightened nations, the one from which everything else evolves. The US is being dragged kicking and screaming just like Canada did, but we'll get there...eventually.

they did a little about Cuba....but i am wrong about the film....Moore talked about Cuba during his promotion of the film as to how great they are too....

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a fun fact: polls show 92% of Canadians prefer the Canadian healthcare system over the US system.

If that was the case, why are there Canadians who would rather seek treatment in the United States?

Long wait times are increasingly driving patients south, including two Albertans who underwent surgery on the same day last month, and commiserated about feeling abandoned by an ailing system back home.

Their Florida surgeon has seen the number of Canadian patients grow by a staggering 800 per cent in the past decade.

Long Canadian wait times send patients south for surgery Video

Because this fails as a false comparison fallacy.


An expanded Medicare program would ensure all Americans have access to both health maintenance and affordable healthcare when needed, and would function nothing like the Canadian system.

There is no comparison, Einstein.
He's making an argument: the Canadian socialist system sucks for many and that's why they seek treatment here in the U.S.
We'd be idiots to want to replicate a system that people flee.

The Canadian system works great for those who are under 50 and have never had a serious medical condition. That's why they love it: they almost never use it. However, when people get older they start needing a lot of medical care. That's when they find out how badly the Canadian system sucks. That's when they discover that the government has decided their condition isn't worth treating because they are too old. Those are the people who go to the US for treatment, if they can afford it.

The bottom line: the vast majority of Canadians think their system is great only because they don't use it.