Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Greece proves Wall Street turns everything it touches into shit. It's a textbook case for how bankers, bondholders, speculators, and politicians can offload the cost of bad assets onto the shoulders of the non-rich, crushing their medical system and their society for the benefit of a few rich parasites.Some societies drown female infants.Single payer, anyone?
"Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1]
"Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).
"The term 'single-payer' thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work."
When I turned 65 two years ago and became eligible for Medicare I was able to afford preventive health care for the first time in my life. I no longer had to wait to get sick to see a doctor. As a consequence, my physical and mental health is better today than it has been in the last twenty five years, at least.
Single-payer health care - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Yeah, the people of Greece said the same thing, until the system went broke, and hospitals couldn't even get bandages anymore.
Same with the people of Cuba, until they couldn't get Aspirin anymore.
Yes, Medicare is great as long as the tax payers keep paying higher and higher taxes, and the government borrows trillions. What happens when people get fed up paying more tax, and the government can't borrow anymore?
Then you end up screwed. Then you end up with doctors killing off patients.
Top doctor s chilling claim The NHS kills off 130 000 elderly patients every year Daily Mail Online
Why would they do that? Because when you don't pay for your own treatment, and there are limited funds.... you are no longer a paying customers, you are just a burden. You can talk about how that's morally wrong, and we have a duty to the elderly.... that's all fine... but this is the reality. In a socialized system, where you don't pay for your own treatment, you become a burden on society, and many societies euthanize burdens.
The biggest burden facing the US and Greece, for example, is the greed of their richest citizens:
"Life in Greece has been turned on its head since the debt crisis took hold. But in few areas has the change been more striking than in health care.
"Until recently, Greece had a typical European health system, with employers and individuals contributing to a fund that with government assistance financed universal care.
"People who lost their jobs still received unlimited benefits.
"That changed in July 2011, when Greece signed a loan agreement with international lenders to ward off financial collapse.
"Now, as stipulated in the deal, Greeks who lose their jobs receive benefits for a maximum of a year. After that, if they are unable to foot the bill, they are on their own, paying all costs out of pocket."
While the rich get richer.
Health care insurance lessons from Greece - PNHP s Official Blog
Yeah dude. That's what I've been talking about. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money to spend. Greece setup their own disasters.
Now, I get it... you leftists never want to accept that your system fails, and instead you need to find someone to blame. So of course, it's not the fact socialism fails that caused this.... no it's "poor get poorer and rich get richer", it's the typical universal class warfare argument from the left.
If you really believe that the problem wasn't the system, but rather this loan deal, then why not just refuse to accept the loans??
"Because their would be fiscal crash and the economy would be ruined, and Greece would have collasped!"
Right, but how did they get into that position?
Because they engaged in socialism, and ran out of other people's money to spend.
Your system doesn't work. Greece is proof.
The key thing is to revoke government's power to grant special favors to any of these groups. The reason they spend so much money to influence politics is because they get something for their money. If they didn't, they wouldn't.
Government doesn't have the power to grant special favors, in fact, that is a really big no-no in Federal government, or any kind of government I am aware of in a free constitutional republic. If you know of criminal activity happening, it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities because criminal prosecution is highly in order.
Now, people, organizations, companies, special interest groups, political action committees, unions, lobbies... yeah... they all spend money supporting all kinds of politicians. Are they attempting to buy special favors? Again, if they are, this is criminally prosecutable action.
Are they trying to buy influence? Again, it skirts the boundaries of legality if that's the case.
So we have to believe that mostly, they support candidates because they believe in what the candidate is saying he/she will do, if elected. Perhaps this candidate favors policies that are favorable to the donor? Or maybe this candidate is more likely to defeat the candidate who's policies are harmful to the donor?
The problem with trying to somehow restrict or limit the money in politics is really simple to define and hard to overcome. You can never make something less important by limiting or restricting it. Free people should have the right to financially support the politicians they want elected. Money restrictions are the same as freedom restrictions in politics.
Unfortunately, the current conception of "equal protection" (or lack thereof) does grant government the power to selectively hand out favors and assess penalties to select groups, which can often be characterized specifically enough to amount to a single corporation or individual. It happens most egregiously in the tax code, but also in the wide realm of the regulatory regime. And wealthy interests lobby aggressively for these favors. If government has less power to intervene in our economic affairs, there would be less incentive for that sort of lobbying.
Again, there is not a quid pro quo. Government agents are not allowed to exchange money for favors in any respect. Yes, government agencies do have the power to initiate certain actions that may or may not favor a donor. Yes, groups do attempt to influence candidates with piles of money. Yes, the inner workings of the grinding wheels of government does potentially favor different groups over others. But politicians are not being literally bought off.
Wealthy interests DO lobby, along with special interests, unions, CPACs, etc. Lots of money, lots of voices. How do you determine what the boundaries are between their freedom to lobby, fund candidates, support political policies, and your ability to remove people from that process?
Now, I am all for government not having the power to intervene in our economic affairs, but unfortunately, that is a different universe that we don't currently live in, so I can't worry too much about that. Government DOES have the power to intervene in our economic affairs and does so regularly. But whether it's economic affairs, social issues, foreign policy, or whatever, people will always have the freedom to financially support who they want to politically.
Wall Street had everything to do with the previous Greek government's secret debts and the 2008 global debt crisis. Despite the fact that thirty years of neoliberalism resulted in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, bankers and their useful idiots continue to push austerity and privatization as solutions to a problem they created and continue to profit from.Greece proves Wall Street turns everything it touches into shit. It's a textbook case for how bankers, bondholders, speculators, and politicians can offload the cost of bad assets onto the shoulders of the non-rich, crushing their medical system and their society for the benefit of a few rich parasites.Some societies drown female infants.Single payer, anyone?
"Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1]
"Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).
"The term 'single-payer' thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work."
When I turned 65 two years ago and became eligible for Medicare I was able to afford preventive health care for the first time in my life. I no longer had to wait to get sick to see a doctor. As a consequence, my physical and mental health is better today than it has been in the last twenty five years, at least.
Single-payer health care - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Yeah, the people of Greece said the same thing, until the system went broke, and hospitals couldn't even get bandages anymore.
Same with the people of Cuba, until they couldn't get Aspirin anymore.
Yes, Medicare is great as long as the tax payers keep paying higher and higher taxes, and the government borrows trillions. What happens when people get fed up paying more tax, and the government can't borrow anymore?
Then you end up screwed. Then you end up with doctors killing off patients.
Top doctor s chilling claim The NHS kills off 130 000 elderly patients every year Daily Mail Online
Why would they do that? Because when you don't pay for your own treatment, and there are limited funds.... you are no longer a paying customers, you are just a burden. You can talk about how that's morally wrong, and we have a duty to the elderly.... that's all fine... but this is the reality. In a socialized system, where you don't pay for your own treatment, you become a burden on society, and many societies euthanize burdens.
The biggest burden facing the US and Greece, for example, is the greed of their richest citizens:
"Life in Greece has been turned on its head since the debt crisis took hold. But in few areas has the change been more striking than in health care.
"Until recently, Greece had a typical European health system, with employers and individuals contributing to a fund that with government assistance financed universal care.
"People who lost their jobs still received unlimited benefits.
"That changed in July 2011, when Greece signed a loan agreement with international lenders to ward off financial collapse.
"Now, as stipulated in the deal, Greeks who lose their jobs receive benefits for a maximum of a year. After that, if they are unable to foot the bill, they are on their own, paying all costs out of pocket."
While the rich get richer.
Health care insurance lessons from Greece - PNHP s Official Blog
Yeah dude. That's what I've been talking about. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money to spend. Greece setup their own disasters.
Now, I get it... you leftists never want to accept that your system fails, and instead you need to find someone to blame. So of course, it's not the fact socialism fails that caused this.... no it's "poor get poorer and rich get richer", it's the typical universal class warfare argument from the left.
If you really believe that the problem wasn't the system, but rather this loan deal, then why not just refuse to accept the loans??
"Because their would be fiscal crash and the economy would be ruined, and Greece would have collasped!"
Right, but how did they get into that position?
Because they engaged in socialism, and ran out of other people's money to spend.
Your system doesn't work. Greece is proof.
Wall street didn't have a thing to do with Greece's current predicament. Public Sector unions and outrageous benefits are the reason Greece can't pay its bills. The government made promises it couldn't possibly keep and now the bill has come due. In typical fashion the appologists for socialism are all looking for a scapegoat they can blame when the blame belongs with them.
Nonsense. What you are is a Marxist who supports Marxist policies.
If you think we're becoming a Plutocracy, that's fine... you were shown the list of the top 20 political contributors, they mostly fund Democrats. Stop voting for Democrats, would be my suggestion. Personally, I don't think we're going to ever become a Plutocracy just as we won't ever become a Theocracy, the Constitution prevents that.
Let me explain why you are so upset over the Roberts court ruling in Citizen's... it's because corporations were given the same freedom of speech rights as unions and special interest groups who fund the Democrat Party.
Wrong. CU v. FEC didn't level any playing field, you are parroting Limbaugh or other talking heads and thus expose your ignorance.
See:
Political action committee - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I'm not parroting anyone. What does a wiki link to PACs have to do with Citizen's United? [READ THE LINK, or Remain Ignorant!] I never said Citizen's leveled any playing field, the field was already leveled by the 1st Amendment, the SCOTUS simply reaffirmed that it would remain level. Freedom of political speech is an inalienable right endowed to the people and can't be stripped away because they belong to a group, which is what a corporation represents.
Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.
Neither is the AFL/CIO, yet I'm sure you see nothing wrong with them throwing billions into the ring of politics. You want to eliminate corporations from having a say, that won't happen without the likewise removal of unions from the political arena.
The key thing is to revoke government's power to grant special favors to any of these groups. The reason they spend so much money to influence politics is because they get something for their money. If they didn't, they wouldn't.
Wall Street had everything to do with the previous Greek government's secret debts and the 2008 global debt crisis. Despite the fact that thirty years of neoliberalism resulted in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, bankers and their useful idiots continue to push austerity and privatization as solutions to a problem they created and continue to profit from.Greece proves Wall Street turns everything it touches into shit. It's a textbook case for how bankers, bondholders, speculators, and politicians can offload the cost of bad assets onto the shoulders of the non-rich, crushing their medical system and their society for the benefit of a few rich parasites.Some societies drown female infants.Yeah, the people of Greece said the same thing, until the system went broke, and hospitals couldn't even get bandages anymore.
Same with the people of Cuba, until they couldn't get Aspirin anymore.
Yes, Medicare is great as long as the tax payers keep paying higher and higher taxes, and the government borrows trillions. What happens when people get fed up paying more tax, and the government can't borrow anymore?
Then you end up screwed. Then you end up with doctors killing off patients.
Top doctor s chilling claim The NHS kills off 130 000 elderly patients every year Daily Mail Online
Why would they do that? Because when you don't pay for your own treatment, and there are limited funds.... you are no longer a paying customers, you are just a burden. You can talk about how that's morally wrong, and we have a duty to the elderly.... that's all fine... but this is the reality. In a socialized system, where you don't pay for your own treatment, you become a burden on society, and many societies euthanize burdens.
The biggest burden facing the US and Greece, for example, is the greed of their richest citizens:
"Life in Greece has been turned on its head since the debt crisis took hold. But in few areas has the change been more striking than in health care.
"Until recently, Greece had a typical European health system, with employers and individuals contributing to a fund that with government assistance financed universal care.
"People who lost their jobs still received unlimited benefits.
"That changed in July 2011, when Greece signed a loan agreement with international lenders to ward off financial collapse.
"Now, as stipulated in the deal, Greeks who lose their jobs receive benefits for a maximum of a year. After that, if they are unable to foot the bill, they are on their own, paying all costs out of pocket."
While the rich get richer.
Health care insurance lessons from Greece - PNHP s Official Blog
Yeah dude. That's what I've been talking about. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money to spend. Greece setup their own disasters.
Now, I get it... you leftists never want to accept that your system fails, and instead you need to find someone to blame. So of course, it's not the fact socialism fails that caused this.... no it's "poor get poorer and rich get richer", it's the typical universal class warfare argument from the left.
If you really believe that the problem wasn't the system, but rather this loan deal, then why not just refuse to accept the loans??
"Because their would be fiscal crash and the economy would be ruined, and Greece would have collasped!"
Right, but how did they get into that position?
Because they engaged in socialism, and ran out of other people's money to spend.
Your system doesn't work. Greece is proof.
Wall street didn't have a thing to do with Greece's current predicament. Public Sector unions and outrageous benefits are the reason Greece can't pay its bills. The government made promises it couldn't possibly keep and now the bill has come due. In typical fashion the appologists for socialism are all looking for a scapegoat they can blame when the blame belongs with them.
Greece proves Wall Street turns everything it touches into shit. It's a textbook case for how bankers, bondholders, speculators, and politicians can offload the cost of bad assets onto the shoulders of the non-rich, crushing their medical system and their society for the benefit of a few rich parasites.
Wall street didn't have a thing to do with Greece's current predicament. Public Sector unions and outrageous benefits are the reason Greece can't pay its bills. The government made promises it couldn't possibly keep and now the bill has come due. In typical fashion the appologists for socialism are all looking for a scapegoat they can blame when the blame belongs with them.
The VA scandal is not evidence that government can't effectively run our healthcare system. You cons have this ongoing fallacy in your simple minds that government is inherently useless. Private businesses fail and are riddled with controversies all the time. Should we abolish capitalism? Of course not....our healthcare system?
Already there is a big money in healthcare. If corporations run our healthcare system, they can charge whatever they want. Seriously what good is having state of the art healthcare if poor people can't afford the most basic of cancer treatment?
Why would it not be better to create a system that insures proper treatment for everyone? Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but if you take away profit as an incentive you are less likely to have corruption. Let's stop wasting billions a year on useless defense expenses and focus that money on socialized medicine.
Here's a fun fact: polls show 92% of Canadians prefer the Canadian healthcare system over the US system.
Because there is no system that insures proper treatment. Did you just miss the VA scandal? You want to force EVERYONE into a system that kills it's patients?
Canada routinely sends people to the US for treatment, and Canadian citizens routinely come here for treatment. They have massive wait times, and people often die waiting......... just like the VA.
Our system is better than Canada's regardless of your opinion poll.
Yes, people like a system they don't have to pay for. That doesn't mean it's a better system.
But when people have to face the option of dying for free-care, or paying and living, most choose to come to the US, and pay for care.
The VA scandal is not evidence that government can't effectively run our healthcare system. You cons have this ongoing fallacy in your simple minds that government is inherently useless. Private businesses fail and are riddled with controversies all the time. Should we abolish capitalism? Of course not.
You people also struggle with statistical relevance. HOW MANY Canadians come here for our healthcare? How much money do they make a year? These factors matter.
The key thing is to revoke government's power to grant special favors to any of these groups. The reason they spend so much money to influence politics is because they get something for their money. If they didn't, they wouldn't.
Government doesn't have the power to grant special favors, in fact, that is a really big no-no in Federal government, or any kind of government I am aware of in a free constitutional republic. If you know of criminal activity happening, it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities because criminal prosecution is highly in order.
Now, people, organizations, companies, special interest groups, political action committees, unions, lobbies... yeah... they all spend money supporting all kinds of politicians. Are they attempting to buy special favors? Again, if they are, this is criminally prosecutable action.
Are they trying to buy influence? Again, it skirts the boundaries of legality if that's the case.
So we have to believe that mostly, they support candidates because they believe in what the candidate is saying he/she will do, if elected. Perhaps this candidate favors policies that are favorable to the donor? Or maybe this candidate is more likely to defeat the candidate who's policies are harmful to the donor?
The problem with trying to somehow restrict or limit the money in politics is really simple to define and hard to overcome. You can never make something less important by limiting or restricting it. Free people should have the right to financially support the politicians they want elected. Money restrictions are the same as freedom restrictions in politics.
Unfortunately, the current conception of "equal protection" (or lack thereof) does grant government the power to selectively hand out favors and assess penalties to select groups, which can often be characterized specifically enough to amount to a single corporation or individual. It happens most egregiously in the tax code, but also in the wide realm of the regulatory regime. And wealthy interests lobby aggressively for these favors. If government has less power to intervene in our economic affairs, there would be less incentive for that sort of lobbying.
Again, there is not a quid pro quo. Government agents are not allowed to exchange money for favors in any respect. Yes, government agencies do have the power to initiate certain actions that may or may not favor a donor. Yes, groups do attempt to influence candidates with piles of money. Yes, the inner workings of the grinding wheels of government does potentially favor different groups over others. But politicians are not being literally bought off.
Wealthy interests DO lobby, along with special interests, unions, CPACs, etc. Lots of money, lots of voices. How do you determine what the boundaries are between their freedom to lobby, fund candidates, support political policies, and your ability to remove people from that process?
You don't. We shouldn't try, in any case.
Now, I am all for government not having the power to intervene in our economic affairs, but unfortunately, that is a different universe that we don't currently live in, so I can't worry too much about that. Government DOES have the power to intervene in our economic affairs and does so regularly. But whether it's economic affairs, social issues, foreign policy, or whatever, people will always have the freedom to financially support who they want to politically.
That's what I'm saying. Government does have that power, and that's the problem. We won't solve this by limiting free speech or the freedom of people to support candidates they believe in, financially or otherwise. It won't change until we change our 'universe' to limit government's ability to determine winners and losers in economic matters.
"Patients routinely rank the veterans system above the alternatives", according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index. In 2008, the VHA got a satisfaction rating of 85 for inpatient treatment, compared with 77 for private hospitals. In the same report VHA outpatient care scored 3 points higher than for private hospitals.[19]
Veterans Health Administration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The VA scandal is not evidence that government can't effectively run our healthcare system. You cons have this ongoing fallacy in your simple minds that government is inherently useless. Private businesses fail and are riddled with controversies all the time. Should we abolish capitalism? Of course not.
You people also struggle with statistical relevance. HOW MANY Canadians come here for our healthcare? How much money do they make a year? These factors matter.
Scandal doesn't matter, we will always have scandal in public or private systems, it's a fact of life. Most of the time, in a government system, there is more scandal and potential for scandal because scandal can so easily be hidden behind politics.
The VA itself is evidence the government can't effectively run a health care system. Veterans waiting for months to have urgent surgeries or not being seen in a timely manner. Subpar treatment in subpar facilities, not even to the standards of the rest of the health care system. Now, their doctors and surgeons make a lot of money. If you check in your state, the highest paid federal employees are the surgeons at VA hospitals. The job pays about $300k per year.
It's not like one way is about the same as the other and just a matter of how we pay for it. In a private capitalist system you have the element of competition. Because capitalists can compete for business, this effectively controls costs. Note, I didn't say it makes it cheap, I said "controls costs." Health care is very expensive because of what it is. In a government system, there is no means of cost control, things operate on an appropriated budget. This budget is granted by politicians who don't want to be the guy who cuts funds to sick people.
With a government health care system, like a mail and parcel delivery system, you end up with a system that is bloated and wasteful, full of overpaid employees and redundancy, offering a sub-par service to the private sector and expecting you to be grateful for having the privilege to be listened to by an official government employee.
There are no options... "Single Payer" basically means Monopoly.
Billy, you're the biggest moron on this board.The VA scandal is not evidence that government can't effectively run our healthcare system. You cons have this ongoing fallacy in your simple minds that government is inherently useless. Private businesses fail and are riddled with controversies all the time. Should we abolish capitalism? Of course not.
You people also struggle with statistical relevance. HOW MANY Canadians come here for our healthcare? How much money do they make a year? These factors matter.
Scandal doesn't matter, we will always have scandal in public or private systems, it's a fact of life. Most of the time, in a government system, there is more scandal and potential for scandal because scandal can so easily be hidden behind politics.
The VA itself is evidence the government can't effectively run a health care system. Veterans waiting for months to have urgent surgeries or not being seen in a timely manner. Subpar treatment in subpar facilities, not even to the standards of the rest of the health care system. Now, their doctors and surgeons make a lot of money. If you check in your state, the highest paid federal employees are the surgeons at VA hospitals. The job pays about $300k per year.
It's not like one way is about the same as the other and just a matter of how we pay for it. In a private capitalist system you have the element of competition. Because capitalists can compete for business, this effectively controls costs. Note, I didn't say it makes it cheap, I said "controls costs." Health care is very expensive because of what it is. In a government system, there is no means of cost control, things operate on an appropriated budget. This budget is granted by politicians who don't want to be the guy who cuts funds to sick people.
With a government health care system, like a mail and parcel delivery system, you end up with a system that is bloated and wasteful, full of overpaid employees and redundancy, offering a sub-par service to the private sector and expecting you to be grateful for having the privilege to be listened to by an official government employee.
There are no options... "Single Payer" basically means Monopoly.
Ok here is not what you aren't getting. Both private industry and government have scandalous problems. If the VA was privately funded, what is to stop those at the top exploiting their patients for profit? What would stop them from denying expensive treatment for chronic illnesses for the sake of saving money? Have you not heard of the word greed before? Evil breeds more in private industry than in government.
The VA just needs reforms with the right people at its leadership.
After the failures of GM, should we let government take a who at running the company? No. Of course not.
When it comes to basic human services, they must be run by the government with the right people involved.
Your ignorance astounds me. Businesses evade legal punishment for serious crimes all the fucking time with pathetic fines they pay instead. How? Money talks.Billy, you're the biggest moron on this board.The VA scandal is not evidence that government can't effectively run our healthcare system. You cons have this ongoing fallacy in your simple minds that government is inherently useless. Private businesses fail and are riddled with controversies all the time. Should we abolish capitalism? Of course not.
You people also struggle with statistical relevance. HOW MANY Canadians come here for our healthcare? How much money do they make a year? These factors matter.
Scandal doesn't matter, we will always have scandal in public or private systems, it's a fact of life. Most of the time, in a government system, there is more scandal and potential for scandal because scandal can so easily be hidden behind politics.
The VA itself is evidence the government can't effectively run a health care system. Veterans waiting for months to have urgent surgeries or not being seen in a timely manner. Subpar treatment in subpar facilities, not even to the standards of the rest of the health care system. Now, their doctors and surgeons make a lot of money. If you check in your state, the highest paid federal employees are the surgeons at VA hospitals. The job pays about $300k per year.
It's not like one way is about the same as the other and just a matter of how we pay for it. In a private capitalist system you have the element of competition. Because capitalists can compete for business, this effectively controls costs. Note, I didn't say it makes it cheap, I said "controls costs." Health care is very expensive because of what it is. In a government system, there is no means of cost control, things operate on an appropriated budget. This budget is granted by politicians who don't want to be the guy who cuts funds to sick people.
With a government health care system, like a mail and parcel delivery system, you end up with a system that is bloated and wasteful, full of overpaid employees and redundancy, offering a sub-par service to the private sector and expecting you to be grateful for having the privilege to be listened to by an official government employee.
There are no options... "Single Payer" basically means Monopoly.
Ok here is not what you aren't getting. Both private industry and government have scandalous problems. If the VA was privately funded, what is to stop those at the top exploiting their patients for profit? What would stop them from denying expensive treatment for chronic illnesses for the sake of saving money? Have you not heard of the word greed before? Evil breeds more in private industry than in government.
The VA just needs reforms with the right people at its leadership.
After the failures of GM, should we let government take a who at running the company? No. Of course not.
When it comes to basic human services, they must be run by the government with the right people involved.
When private companies screw up, they go out of business. Unless they are heavily invested with unions, in which case the Obama Administration gives the company to the union and props it up with government cash.
But generally private business has no incentive to cheat because the penalties for doing so are enormous. The customers can fire them by going elsewhere.
Where are dissatisfied veterans going to go?
Government is not responsive because government has clients, business has customers.
Seriously? That's your response?Your ignorance astounds me. Businesses evade legal punishment for serious crimes all the fucking time with pathetic fines they pay instead. How? Money talks.Billy, you're the biggest moron on this board.The VA scandal is not evidence that government can't effectively run our healthcare system. You cons have this ongoing fallacy in your simple minds that government is inherently useless. Private businesses fail and are riddled with controversies all the time. Should we abolish capitalism? Of course not.
You people also struggle with statistical relevance. HOW MANY Canadians come here for our healthcare? How much money do they make a year? These factors matter.
Scandal doesn't matter, we will always have scandal in public or private systems, it's a fact of life. Most of the time, in a government system, there is more scandal and potential for scandal because scandal can so easily be hidden behind politics.
The VA itself is evidence the government can't effectively run a health care system. Veterans waiting for months to have urgent surgeries or not being seen in a timely manner. Subpar treatment in subpar facilities, not even to the standards of the rest of the health care system. Now, their doctors and surgeons make a lot of money. If you check in your state, the highest paid federal employees are the surgeons at VA hospitals. The job pays about $300k per year.
It's not like one way is about the same as the other and just a matter of how we pay for it. In a private capitalist system you have the element of competition. Because capitalists can compete for business, this effectively controls costs. Note, I didn't say it makes it cheap, I said "controls costs." Health care is very expensive because of what it is. In a government system, there is no means of cost control, things operate on an appropriated budget. This budget is granted by politicians who don't want to be the guy who cuts funds to sick people.
With a government health care system, like a mail and parcel delivery system, you end up with a system that is bloated and wasteful, full of overpaid employees and redundancy, offering a sub-par service to the private sector and expecting you to be grateful for having the privilege to be listened to by an official government employee.
There are no options... "Single Payer" basically means Monopoly.
Ok here is not what you aren't getting. Both private industry and government have scandalous problems. If the VA was privately funded, what is to stop those at the top exploiting their patients for profit? What would stop them from denying expensive treatment for chronic illnesses for the sake of saving money? Have you not heard of the word greed before? Evil breeds more in private industry than in government.
The VA just needs reforms with the right people at its leadership.
After the failures of GM, should we let government take a who at running the company? No. Of course not.
When it comes to basic human services, they must be run by the government with the right people involved.
When private companies screw up, they go out of business. Unless they are heavily invested with unions, in which case the Obama Administration gives the company to the union and props it up with government cash.
But generally private business has no incentive to cheat because the penalties for doing so are enormous. The customers can fire them by going elsewhere.
Where are dissatisfied veterans going to go?
Government is not responsive because government has clients, business has customers.
Oh and guess what assclown? Self regulation is a myth. Corporations screw over the public without it even realizing. Don't you think those long ingredients you are too stupid to pronounce in your processed foods have health consequences?
Yeah as usual you have no argument. Why do you bother? You never win.Seriously? That's your response?Your ignorance astounds me. Businesses evade legal punishment for serious crimes all the fucking time with pathetic fines they pay instead. How? Money talks.Billy, you're the biggest moron on this board.The VA scandal is not evidence that government can't effectively run our healthcare system. You cons have this ongoing fallacy in your simple minds that government is inherently useless. Private businesses fail and are riddled with controversies all the time. Should we abolish capitalism? Of course not.
You people also struggle with statistical relevance. HOW MANY Canadians come here for our healthcare? How much money do they make a year? These factors matter.
Scandal doesn't matter, we will always have scandal in public or private systems, it's a fact of life. Most of the time, in a government system, there is more scandal and potential for scandal because scandal can so easily be hidden behind politics.
The VA itself is evidence the government can't effectively run a health care system. Veterans waiting for months to have urgent surgeries or not being seen in a timely manner. Subpar treatment in subpar facilities, not even to the standards of the rest of the health care system. Now, their doctors and surgeons make a lot of money. If you check in your state, the highest paid federal employees are the surgeons at VA hospitals. The job pays about $300k per year.
It's not like one way is about the same as the other and just a matter of how we pay for it. In a private capitalist system you have the element of competition. Because capitalists can compete for business, this effectively controls costs. Note, I didn't say it makes it cheap, I said "controls costs." Health care is very expensive because of what it is. In a government system, there is no means of cost control, things operate on an appropriated budget. This budget is granted by politicians who don't want to be the guy who cuts funds to sick people.
With a government health care system, like a mail and parcel delivery system, you end up with a system that is bloated and wasteful, full of overpaid employees and redundancy, offering a sub-par service to the private sector and expecting you to be grateful for having the privilege to be listened to by an official government employee.
There are no options... "Single Payer" basically means Monopoly.
Ok here is not what you aren't getting. Both private industry and government have scandalous problems. If the VA was privately funded, what is to stop those at the top exploiting their patients for profit? What would stop them from denying expensive treatment for chronic illnesses for the sake of saving money? Have you not heard of the word greed before? Evil breeds more in private industry than in government.
The VA just needs reforms with the right people at its leadership.
After the failures of GM, should we let government take a who at running the company? No. Of course not.
When it comes to basic human services, they must be run by the government with the right people involved.
When private companies screw up, they go out of business. Unless they are heavily invested with unions, in which case the Obama Administration gives the company to the union and props it up with government cash.
But generally private business has no incentive to cheat because the penalties for doing so are enormous. The customers can fire them by going elsewhere.
Where are dissatisfied veterans going to go?
Government is not responsive because government has clients, business has customers.
Oh and guess what assclown? Self regulation is a myth. Corporations screw over the public without it even realizing. Don't you think those long ingredients you are too stupid to pronounce in your processed foods have health consequences?
smh.
There's no winning against someone with such poor skills and knowledge base. You generalize based on nothing but your own opinion and then move the goalposts when proven wrong.Yeah as usual you have no argument. Why do you bother? You never win.Seriously? That's your response?Your ignorance astounds me. Businesses evade legal punishment for serious crimes all the fucking time with pathetic fines they pay instead. How? Money talks.Billy, you're the biggest moron on this board.Scandal doesn't matter, we will always have scandal in public or private systems, it's a fact of life. Most of the time, in a government system, there is more scandal and potential for scandal because scandal can so easily be hidden behind politics.
The VA itself is evidence the government can't effectively run a health care system. Veterans waiting for months to have urgent surgeries or not being seen in a timely manner. Subpar treatment in subpar facilities, not even to the standards of the rest of the health care system. Now, their doctors and surgeons make a lot of money. If you check in your state, the highest paid federal employees are the surgeons at VA hospitals. The job pays about $300k per year.
It's not like one way is about the same as the other and just a matter of how we pay for it. In a private capitalist system you have the element of competition. Because capitalists can compete for business, this effectively controls costs. Note, I didn't say it makes it cheap, I said "controls costs." Health care is very expensive because of what it is. In a government system, there is no means of cost control, things operate on an appropriated budget. This budget is granted by politicians who don't want to be the guy who cuts funds to sick people.
With a government health care system, like a mail and parcel delivery system, you end up with a system that is bloated and wasteful, full of overpaid employees and redundancy, offering a sub-par service to the private sector and expecting you to be grateful for having the privilege to be listened to by an official government employee.
There are no options... "Single Payer" basically means Monopoly.
Ok here is not what you aren't getting. Both private industry and government have scandalous problems. If the VA was privately funded, what is to stop those at the top exploiting their patients for profit? What would stop them from denying expensive treatment for chronic illnesses for the sake of saving money? Have you not heard of the word greed before? Evil breeds more in private industry than in government.
The VA just needs reforms with the right people at its leadership.
After the failures of GM, should we let government take a who at running the company? No. Of course not.
When it comes to basic human services, they must be run by the government with the right people involved.
When private companies screw up, they go out of business. Unless they are heavily invested with unions, in which case the Obama Administration gives the company to the union and props it up with government cash.
But generally private business has no incentive to cheat because the penalties for doing so are enormous. The customers can fire them by going elsewhere.
Where are dissatisfied veterans going to go?
Government is not responsive because government has clients, business has customers.
Oh and guess what assclown? Self regulation is a myth. Corporations screw over the public without it even realizing. Don't you think those long ingredients you are too stupid to pronounce in your processed foods have health consequences?
smh.
I can't believe you cons are so naive. Corporations actively try to deceive consumers for the sake of profit. Why are you so convinced these "job creators" aren't corrupt? Cigarettes kill countless millions every year from their products. They actively fight to limit the health warning regulations on their products. Where's your outrage there?There's no winning against someone with such poor skills and knowledge base. You generalize based on nothing but your own opinion and then move the goalposts when proven wrong.Yeah as usual you have no argument. Why do you bother? You never win.Seriously? That's your response?Your ignorance astounds me. Businesses evade legal punishment for serious crimes all the fucking time with pathetic fines they pay instead. How? Money talks.Billy, you're the biggest moron on this board.Ok here is not what you aren't getting. Both private industry and government have scandalous problems. If the VA was privately funded, what is to stop those at the top exploiting their patients for profit? What would stop them from denying expensive treatment for chronic illnesses for the sake of saving money? Have you not heard of the word greed before? Evil breeds more in private industry than in government.
The VA just needs reforms with the right people at its leadership.
After the failures of GM, should we let government take a who at running the company? No. Of course not.
When it comes to basic human services, they must be run by the government with the right people involved.
When private companies screw up, they go out of business. Unless they are heavily invested with unions, in which case the Obama Administration gives the company to the union and props it up with government cash.
But generally private business has no incentive to cheat because the penalties for doing so are enormous. The customers can fire them by going elsewhere.
Where are dissatisfied veterans going to go?
Government is not responsive because government has clients, business has customers.
Oh and guess what assclown? Self regulation is a myth. Corporations screw over the public without it even realizing. Don't you think those long ingredients you are too stupid to pronounce in your processed foods have health consequences?
smh.
Companies go out of business all the time due to mistakes, lawsuits and the like.
When was the last time a corrupt government agency went out of business? Typically they get more money.
"Patients routinely rank the veterans system above the alternatives", according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index. In 2008, the VHA got a satisfaction rating of 85 for inpatient treatment, compared with 77 for private hospitals. In the same report VHA outpatient care scored 3 points higher than for private hospitals.[19]
Veterans Health Administration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok here is not what you aren't getting. Both private industry and government have scandalous problems. If the VA was privately funded, what is to stop those at the top exploiting their patients for profit? [You mean, other than the law?] What would stop them from denying expensive treatment for chronic illnesses for the sake of saving money? [You mean, other than the law?] Have you not heard of the word greed before? Evil breeds more in private industry than in government.
The VA just needs reforms with the right people at its leadership.
After the failures of GM, should we let government take a who at running the company? No. Of course not.
When it comes to basic human services, they must be run by the government with the right people involved.
