The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[Larkinn]

Wrong, I am against government running the entire industry. Most states, have some form of state run issureance program for people temporarily out of work and things of that nature. i don't have a problem with that. So my numbers still apply.

I would be fine with it if there was a federal program for low income individuals as well. But there isn't...there is also people in my situation where i am poor for only a short period of time. Look, I don't care how it gets done, I just think its ethically wrong for people in the richest country in the world to not have healthcare.

No I'm not, but your statement helps a little. I think you can agree that if what you areinterest is the healthiest population possible that is a vastly differerent than debating the quality of our physicians, facilities and technology.

Why is it different? The only palatable way to make the population healther is to provide everyone with the best access and care to physicians, facilities, and technology.

And what you say you want is inaccurate as well. the healthiest populatin possible? that isn't really what you mean. You mean the healthiest population possible provided everyone in that populatin has healthcare of some type. You are willing to sacrafice the quality of our doctors and the facilites thus sacraficing the quality of care for 85% as long as 15% have not even actual care of some type, just access to it. That is unethical.

No, I mean the healthiest population possible. It follows that the healthiest population possible would have everyone have access to care.

15% don't have actual care, just access to it? That doesn't make any sense.

Government would then have to pay a fair market price of that labor. Do you believe the fair market price is more or less then what it currently is?

If we needed more doctors? More.

I know I wouldn't want to work very long for a for profit company that can't turn a profit. that's a sign that it is a poorly run business.

Who cares, as long as you have a guarantee that they won't go under?

The government can only pay them what the taxpayers give them.

Incorrect. The government spends more than the taxpayers give them pretty much every year.

Okay then lets compare that to how people normally pay for their healthcare. Usually the employer picks up part and the employee picks up part with teh employer usually paying a higher portion. now that gets transferred to the govt. You still pay your share and the governmetn covers the rest. but that's not what you want. You want health care to cost the consumer less or be free even. So the government now has to come up with even more money than what your employer pays. How do you suspect their going to accomplish that?

I think the government can come up with more money than every employer in the US. Its the federal fucking government...do you think they are poor or something?

And if they need to, raise raxes. That should be acceptable to you, right?...after all you've said that cost is irrelevant.

Neither work very well without the other, yes?

Well depends on the other side, really. It IS possible to do it without the supplies...it is NOT possible to do it without the people. At least not yet ;p.

I don't believe it is ethical to make the whole suffer for the sake of the few.

The few?

44 million people?

yes how very selfish of me to want to live

It is, if by living you kill other people who have done no harm to you.

To argue that it's okay for my health care to suffer in minnesota because it might allow someone in california to get better is ludicrous

No, its not.

You say your for equality so why is his health more important than mine? We're equal right? Lastly there is no real link between my health and his in the first place.

Err what? Its not more important than yours...hence why you would get EQUAL coverage, and not have one of you have better coverage and one not at all.

so how will government make peolpe give a shit?

It can't...hence I am looking to the other part of prevention, which is allowing everyone to go to the doctors.

Your definition of success or well off enough is slightly skewed. Taking a test to get into law school isnt' exactley the bottom the barrel in terms of the ability to pay for healthcare.

I wasn't claiming they were poor...just an example of people who worked their hearts out for something they wanted really badly, and still failed.

And my hypothecial proves you incorrect. there is nothing wrong with the numbers I used either. You can use any nubmers you want. It's what happens to the numbers when you switch systems. Under our current system there is x% of people that will die no matter what. Under your system that percent goes up because of a lack of quality in physicians, facilities and technology. The only way then for there to be fewer deaths is for that 15% with not coverage at all to somehow overcome the difference. that's pretty tough unless your assumption is that all or close to all are gonna die for not other reason than not haveing coverage.

Do the math with a 10% death rate for your ideal of covered persons and 11% death rate of my ideal of covered persons. Then my system is better.

As I said...you are making up numbers and depending on the numbers you pick, you will get different anwsers.

Of course it does, not everyone gets to start on an equal playing field much as you would like them too. Most great things are born out of trying circumstances, not mediocrity.

Really?

In the past few thousand years most inventions, philosophies, movements, art, etc, stemmed from the intellectual elite.

And you achieved something. You're going to become a lawyer. Do you think you are so special that few others can do the same?

I was born into privilege. I also happen to be quite intelligent. I also happen to be super intelligent in the particular very narrow type of intelligence required to get into law school. It was easy for me...not everyone is in my situation. The large large majority aren't.

yes and my hypothetical shows that that isn't wahat will happen given the current proportion to people with access to healthcare and those without. the math simply doesn't work out. If it weren't almost a 9:1 ration I might start to think about it government intereventin as I viable solution, but sacrafcing the quality of care of the 85% so that everyone can now get just mediocre care is ridiculous.

It does not have to be the same as Europe. Besides...you still haven't shown me anything that says Europe has "mediocre" quality care. Even if we accept that responsiveness is the only thing that matters, I doubt theirs are so much below ours.

There's nothing elitist about it. You're trying to measure quality in a segement of a population where there is no quality to measure. On top of that your saying the fact that you can't measure it means it's bad quality. What you really mean is what you said above. You don't mean overall quality of care you mean over all health of the population, those are different things.

I disagree.

One most hospitals are for profit so they have access to lots of money. Second, again government only has what you give it.

The federal government spent over 2 trillion dollars in 2006. Tell me a for profit hospital that has access to anything close to that kind of money.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Illegals aren't people now? I see.

Also the correct statistic is that 1/3 of the people in the US do not have private healthcare. Luckily the government is willing to pick up some of that slack.

To begin with, you are playing around with misleading words. I said with or without health care. You are saying one third don't have private health care. Just because they may not have private health care does not mean they don't have health care from other sources, such as from current government programs.

I'd also like to see your source for your claim of "one third" of the people not having private health care. Again is that the one third of families with children under age 12? That kind of skews the figures. The figure bandied around today for people without health care of some form is about 44 million unless you can show different.

Illegals are people of course. However, why should we count them in our U.S. statistics when they are not even U.S. citizens?

The Left screams about how so many people lack health care but when you look at the facts we can pretty much whittle down your bogus claims of one third without health care.

Just for kicks let's see how many people are really suffering so terribly with our current health care system because they can't get health care.

(I've assigned an arbitrary 4 million per group (44-12/8groups) after taking out 12 mil illegals (ref post #208))

Let's start with 44 million Americans supposedly dying on the streets because they don't have health care...
Then subtract the groups who basically "opt out":

-12 million illegals (they're the ones breaking down the system!)
-4 million adults under 35 (they typically think they don't need it)
-4 million chronically uninsured (they also choose not to get insurance for various reasons)
-4 million wealthy (they pay for their own care)
-4 million spenders (they'd rather spend their money on toys)
-4 million "wised up" consumers (they pay cash for a cheaper rate than the insurance rate)
-4 million low income people (who haven't bothered to sign up for already available care)
________
8 million left without health care....or about 3% of the entire population. Big frikkin' deal.

Of that number 4 million are children of parents who will not or cannot provide health care for them and 4 million are people who are out of a job and thus their health care coverage (if even for one day). Seems to me we should target these two problem groups instead of changing the nature of the whole frikkin' health system (plus deal with illegal aliens).

What makes you think I'm not poor? I'm not impoverished, but I definitely can't afford to pay for private health insurance. Not even "not afford" but very simply "don't have the money". I suppose I could try and get a loan for it, but that seems fairly risky.

You don't need a loan for it. At your age you can get health insurance for a very low rate. Probably for not much more than you spend on a few lattes and a couple nights out. In fact I looked up quotes on ehealthinsurance.com and for a 23yo male, full time college student, you can get insurance for as low as $33/mo. (not as good coverage but better than nothing). Please don't cry and claim you can't get health insurance. If it's important enough to you, I'm sure you can find a way to finance it along with all the other stuff you are paying for. You just need to make it a priority.

So they should die for their stupidity? If we are going to let people die for their stupidity, can we at least do it across the board and kill everyone under a certain IQ?

Are people under age 35 dying for their stupidity? I think not.

By the way SE...whats YOUR IQ?

Why? Coming from a liberal I always find that question rather suspect.

 

[Bern80]

I would be fine with it if there was a federal program for low income individuals as well. But there isn't...there is also people in my situation where i am poor for only a short period of time. Look, I don't care how it gets done, I just think its ethically wrong for people in the richest country in the world to not have healthcare.

But you do care how it gets done. You have stated you want government to have complete control over the heatlh care industry. And what's the difference if the states run it or the federal government for the low income individuals. there's another solution I'd be okay with. Why make the quality of the 85% go down at all. Simply institute a program for those that don't have access o health care.

Why is it different? The only palatable way to make the population healther is to provide everyone with the best access and care to physicians, facilities, and technology.

I guess this is something you just can' wrap your head around, but I'll try once more. you are sick. Yuo are also a member of the population. As a member of the population your health is a factor of the populations health. You go to see a doctor. when your done seeing the doctor you can gauge your quality fo care on many levels. How long did yuo have to wait? Was the physician educated enough to handle your illness? Did he have access to the best possible resources to treat you?

That is much different different then your day to day health as it contributes to the popluation.

I hope you can see on the face of it how completely false and silly it is to say the only way to keep people healthy is to go see doctors.

No, I mean the healthiest population possible. It follows that the healthiest population possible would have everyone have access to care.

No you mean on average. Meaning the health of 85% is going to go down so that 15% can go up. that is obviously not the healthiest population possible. that;s the healthiest population possible while providing teh abil;ity to pay for healthcare to everyone. and you are still using the flawed assumption that those thate can't pay are also inherently illl because of that.

15% don't have actual care, just access to it? That doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. All it means is that they can now afford to see a physician. It doesn't mean they will need to. So you have lowerd the quality of care for 85% of the population simply to allow 15% of the population to afford something they may or may not use at all.

If we needed more doctors? More.

Which we will due to increased demand, which will be paid for how?

Who cares, as long as you have a guarantee that they won't go under?

Because not making a profit is how you go under.

Incorrect. The government spends more than the taxpayers give them pretty much every year.

and your willing to enable that?

I think the government can come up with more money than every employer in the US. Its the federal fucking government...do you think they are poor or something?

And if they need to, raise raxes. That should be acceptable to you, right?...after all you've said that cost is irrelevant.

No it isn't acceptable to me. Because I don't beleive the favor of a never ending hand out is a favor at all.

44 million people?

as in not the majority.

It is, if by living you kill other people who have done no harm to you.

And how in that specific case do you beleive that could possibly happen?

No, its not.

Yes it is. All You've done is changed who has to pay the consequences. Instead of him dieing, i do. You exchanged one life for another. You deprived one person of beign cured for cancer so another can get cough syrup. You've accomplished nothing.

Do the math with a 10% death rate for your ideal of covered persons and 11% death rate of my ideal of covered persons. Then my system is better.

As I said...you are making up numbers and depending on the numbers you pick, you will get different anwsers.

10 people a gain of 1%. Highly efficient. i think this illustrates even more how important the numbers are. You chose a 1% decrease in quality and i chose 5% decrease. Mine resulted in more death per 1000 while yours resulted in less. What does that mean? that means in order for you to accomplish your goal of fewer overall deaths, quality can go down by now more than somewher between 1% and less than 5%. Can you garuntee that?

Really?

In the past few thousand years most inventions, philosophies, movements, art, etc, stemmed from the intellectual elite.

What does intellectually elite mean? they were smart? No you mean they were only smart because they came from priviledged backgrounds. Can you prove that?

It does not have to be the same as Europe. Besides...you still haven't shown me anything that says Europe has "mediocre" quality care. Even if we accept that responsiveness is the only thing that matters, I doubt theirs are so much below ours.

I don't need to compare it to anything. All that matters is what will happen here.

I disagree.

You just said there can be no disagreement of facts. tell me how my statement is factually incorrect.

The federal government spent over 2 trillion dollars in 2006. Tell me a for profit hospital that has access to anything close to that kind of money.

and you want to enable them to spend even more. the goal is to government to spen less.

 

[Larkinn]

To begin with, you are playing around with misleading words. I said with or without health care. You are saying one third don't have private health care. Just because they may not have private health care does not mean they don't have health care from other sources, such as from current government programs.

I acknowledged it was a mistake. I'm fully aware of what it means...as I already stated...but thanks for pointing it out...again...

I'd also like to see your source for your claim of "one third" of the people not having private health care. Again is that the one third of families with children under age 12? That kind of skews the figures. The figure bandied around today for people without health care of some form is about 44 million unless you can show different.

I'd also like to see your source for your claim of "one third" of the people not having private health care. Again is that the one third of families with children under age 12? That kind of skews the figures. The figure bandied around today for people without health care of some form is about 44 million unless you can show different.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

Just for kicks let's see how many people are really suffering so terribly with our current health care system because they can't get health care.

Yes, lets.

(I've assigned an arbitrary 4 million per group (44-12/8groups) after taking out 12 mil illegals (ref post #208))

Let's start with 44 million Americans supposedly dying on the streets because they don't have health care...
Then subtract the groups who basically "opt out":

-12 million illegals (they're the ones breaking down the system!)
-4 million adults under 35 (they typically think they don't need it)
-4 million chronically uninsured (they also choose not to get insurance for various reasons)
-4 million wealthy (they pay for their own care)
-4 million spenders (they'd rather spend their money on toys)
-4 million "wised up" consumers (they pay cash for a cheaper rate than the insurance rate)
-4 million low income people (who haven't bothered to sign up for already available care)
________
8 million left without health care....or about 3% of the entire population. Big frikkin' deal.

You challenge my stats and then have the nerve to make yours up? I will disprove this load of bullshit with one single actual stat.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

There are 8.3 million people without healthcare...who are merely under the age of 18. So, no, your stats aren't right, in fact they are horribly horribly wrong.

Oh, and by the way, what assumption made you think that no illegals have health care?

Of that number 4 million are children of parents who will not or cannot provide health care for them and 4 million are people who are out of a job and thus their health care coverage (if even for one day). Seems to me we should target these two problem groups instead of changing the nature of the whole frikkin' health system (plus deal with illegal aliens).

No...actually people who are out of a job and health care coverage (if even for one day) figured about 82 million people...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-06-16-uninsured-rise_x.htm

When you've done a bit of research and know what you are talking about, come back. But stop talking out of your ass.

Why? Coming from a liberal I always find that question rather suspect.

If you don't get it, than your IQ is probably below the mandatory level...kill em boys!

originally posted by bern

But you do care how it gets done. You have stated you want government to have complete control over the heatlh care industry

No...I just said socialized medicine is the best way to go. That means a lot of different things.

And what's the difference if the states run it or the federal government for the low income individuals.

Well the difference is that the states will do a better job...the problem is I doubt mississippi will start a healthcare program...

Why make the quality of the 85% go down at all. Simply institute a program for those that don't have access o health care

Sure. You would have to raise taxes though.

I guess this is something you just can' wrap your head around, but I'll try once more. you are sick. Yuo are also a member of the population. As a member of the population your health is a factor of the populations health. You go to see a doctor. when your done seeing the doctor you can gauge your quality fo care on many levels. How long did yuo have to wait? Was the physician educated enough to handle your illness? Did he have access to the best possible resources to treat you?

That is much different different then your day to day health as it contributes to the popluation.

Ok...why do we care about healthcare. Its purpose is to save lives, right? I am unconcerned with only the lives of the rich, I am concerned with everyones lives. Hence, as my concern ecompasses everyone, not merely those wealth. As a result of that, if I were to only look at those who had actually been treated, I would be missing a large segment of the population.

I hope you can see on the face of it how completely false and silly it is to say the only way to keep people healthy is to go see doctors.

You had cancer, right? Tell me a way that you would be alive today without access to doctors. You wouldn't. You would be dead.

No you mean on average

The healthiest population possible and on average are the exact same things.

Jesus...when we say population we mean EVERYONE. Not just you and your rich friends, everyone.

Sure it does. All it means is that they can now afford to see a physician. It doesn't mean they will need to. So you have lowerd the quality of care for 85% of the population simply to allow 15% of the population to afford something they may or may not use at all.

According to the Institute of Medicine, some 18,000 people die prematurely every year as a result of being uninsured.

Right...they may not use it...

...

Which we will due to increased demand, which will be paid for how?

I thought you said cost didn't matter?

Because not making a profit is how you go under.

Umm you are aware we are talking about the US government, right? Its not going to go under. Its the most powerful government in the world...I think it might have a wee chance it'll survive.

No it isn't acceptable to me. Because I don't beleive the favor of a never ending hand out is a favor at all.

Sorry but I consider healthcare a basic right. Getting basic rights aren't hand outs...they are fucking basic rights.

You know...right to life and all that jazz? You like the liberty bit, but the life bit you aren't so fond of. Why is that?

and your willing to enable that?

To save lives? Definitely.

as in not the majority

Ah well, not the majority, so we can just let them die off. You ok with slavery as well? After all blacks aren't the majority, so we can fuck them over however, right?

What happened to the great ideals of liberty and equality?

And how in that specific case do you beleive that could possibly happen?

You both have slow moving cancer...you both wait 3 weeks to see a doctor...see one...get surgery...get it cured...as opposed to you going into a doctor...getting cured...while he does not and dies.

Yes it is. All You've done is changed who has to pay the consequences. Instead of him dieing, i do. You exchanged one life for another. You deprived one person of beign cured for cancer so another can get cough syrup. You've accomplished nothing.

Jesus christ...this is getting ridiculous...please explain the reason for your assumption that you will die because someone in california has a cold.

10 people a gain of 1%. Highly efficient. i think this illustrates even more how important the numbers are. You chose a 1% decrease in quality and i chose 5% decrease. Mine resulted in more death per 1000 while yours resulted in less. What does that mean? that means in order for you to accomplish your goal of fewer overall deaths, quality can go down by now more than somewher between 1% and less than 5%. Can you garuntee that

If the same things happen here as happens in Europe, yes.

As I said...the numbers matter.

What does intellectually elite mean? they were smart? No you mean they were only smart because they came from priviledged backgrounds. Can you prove that?

Well no, actually they were all intelligent. I can prove that by pointing to the breakthroughs they achieved. However the intellectual elite were educated, not necessarily intelligent, although there is a correlation.

I don't need to compare it to anything. All that matters is what will happen here.

Considering that I am using theres as a model, yes, it does matter.

You just said there can be no disagreement of facts. tell me how my statement is factually incorrect.

Err what you said was an opinion, not a fact. I disagree, that does not mean you are wrong. If you were, I would have said you were wrong.

and you want to enable them to spend even more. the goal is to government to spen less.

Your goal is. My goal is to save lives. So it seems that you must retract your statement that cost is irrelevant.

 

[Bern80]

No...I just said socialized medicine is the best way to go. That means a lot of different things.

Can you forsee a from of socialized medicine where government doesn't have a very large role? if not then you have nothing to say no to.

Well the difference is that the states will do a better job...the problem is I doubt mississippi will start a healthcare program...

True which why that's why many states are doing that now. Btw Mississippi does have a state sponsored insurance program.

Sure. You would have to raise taxes though.

Yes but for less then full blown socialized medicine.

Ok...why do we care about healthcare. Its purpose is to save lives, right? I am unconcerned with only the lives of the rich, I am concerned with everyones lives. Hence, as my concern ecompasses everyone, not merely those wealth. As a result of that, if I were to only look at those who had actually been treated, I would be missing a large segment of the population.

Wrong. Again your working under this faulty black and white assumption then peole are totally healthy or dieing. now I know you know that's not true but those are the examples your using. It's purpose is not to save lives, it's purpose is to keep people healthy.

You had cancer, right? Tell me a way that you would be alive today without access to doctors. You wouldn't. You would be dead.

Correct I had a life threatening illness. But for your statement to work that teh only way to keep peolpe healthy is to see doctors assumes that everybody's ilness is a life threatening one. That simply isn't true.

The healthiest population possible and on average are the exact same things.

Jesus...when we say population we mean EVERYONE. Not just you and your rich friends, everyone.

Since we're talking about averages then obviously we have to use numbers of some type. so you would have to do somethign like give a numerical value to the health of everyone. Under your argument the poeple with coverage are probably going to be ranked higher than those with out. remeber that is 85% compared to 15%. Now once socialized medicine kicks in we are going to have to go back and re rank everyone. the ranking for the 85% is now going to go down. the 15% is going to go up. The question will be will the increase in rank of the 15% be enough to counteract the decrease of the 85% and rasie the average? Probably not. If we're only talking about 15% then no it won't raise the average of the whole group. Your plan will lower the average of the group as a whole.

Right...they may not use it...

It depends, I suppose. If we are spending exorbitant amount of money to in truth provide better health care to only 15% of the nation then yes I think we have to look at how wisely we are spending our money. Cause you have to remember the 85% get nothign out of socialized medicine. They get jipped in fact.

Umm you are aware we are talking about the US government, right? Its not going to go under. Its the most powerful government in the world...I think it might have a wee chance it'll survive.

the u.S. government is not a business. it doesn't produce and sell a commodity. it takes people's money and spends it.

Sorry but I consider healthcare a basic right. Getting basic rights aren't hand outs...they are fucking basic rights.

You know...right to life and all that jazz? You like the liberty bit, but the life bit you aren't so fond of. Why is that?

Quit being so dramatic. it's not like either your perfectly healthy or dead. the majority of ailments are not life threatening. just because you're ill doesn't mean your gonna lose your life.

Ah well, not the majority, so we can just let them die off. You ok with slavery as well? After all blacks aren't the majority, so we can fuck them over however, right?

What happened to the great ideals of liberty and equality?

Again under the false assumption that those not covered are bound for death just because they have not inusurance. Get real.

You both have slow moving cancer...you both wait 3 weeks to see a doctor...see one...get surgery...get it cured...as opposed to you going into a doctor...getting cured...while he does not and dies.

Wrong, because under the first scenario I have greater chance of dieing anyway. Again accomploshing nothing.

Jesus christ...this is getting ridiculous...please explain the reason for your assumption that you will die because someone in california has a cold.

Simple because the money went to providing the basics to everyone instead of going toward the best cutting edge technology that could save others.

If the same things happen here as happens in Europe, yes.

As I said...the numbers matter.

But there is no logical reason or basis of comparison between us and them.

Err what you said was an opinion, not a fact. I disagree, that does not mean you are wrong. If you were, I would have said you were wrong.

yes it is a fact. it is a fact that you can't quanitfy something that can't be measured.

Your goal is. My goal is to save lives. So it seems that you must retract your statement that cost is irrelevant.

I believe you took my cost statement out of context.

As far is I can tell there were bascially three goals you wanted to accomplish:

1) Provide for some means for everyone to afford healthcare

2) Lower the number of deaths.

3) Increase the overall health of the population

You can accomplish the first through socialized medicine, but I believe there are far more efficient ways as well.

the second can only be accomplished if quality goes down very little. your table shows that in socialized vs. unsocialized certain factors of quality will go down for socialized so you know going in this will happen the question is can you keep the decrease low enough to make a difference. Given our governments ability to beuracratize and red tape up everything it touches that'll be tough.

The third can't be accomplished because the improved quality(your 'quality') wont' be enough to offeset the decrease of the 85%

That the second two goals are likely to fail is a direct result of accomplishing the first through government.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You challenge my stats and then have the nerve to make yours up? I will disprove this load of bullshit with one single actual stat.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm
There are 8.3 million people without healthcare...who are merely under the age of 18. So, no, your stats aren't right, in fact they are horribly horribly wrong.

Make up what? Looks like my figure of 44 million coincides correctly with the Census Bureau showing that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. I'm still curious how you got one third. 15% is a far cry from one third. It's more like the one sixth that I originally stated.

My breakdowns to one tenth and subsequently to 3% were based upon an exercise making certain arbitrary assumptions which I specifically pointed out to you. The Census Bureau points out the same problem with uninsured children (8.3 mil) even though my number (4 mil) did not match - in any case I wasn't claiming a hard stat on that. Looking over your link I do not see any specific breakdown for 46 million uninsured similar to what I did.

Oh, and by the way, what assumption made you think that no illegals have health care?

I'm saying they shouldn't have it - take them out of the equation. There are many illegals who are getting health care at the expense of American citizens who would otherwise be covered by what they're getting.

No...actually people who are out of a job and health care coverage (if even for one day) figured about 82 million people...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...red-rise_x.htm

When you've done a bit of research and know what you are talking about, come back. But stop talking out of your ass.

Well, first you link the Census Bureau that says we have 46 million uninsured.
Then you link an article that says we have 82 million uninsured.
If anybody is blowing it out of his ass I'd say you are.

If you don't get it, than your IQ is probably below the mandatory level...kill em boys!

Spoken like a typical pinheaded liberal. What's your feeble IQ?

 

[Larkinn]

Make up what? Looks like my figure of 44 million coincides correctly with the Census Bureau showing that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. I'm still curious how you got one third. 15% is a far cry from one third. It's more like the one sixth that I originally stated.

Try reading my links. Its actually closer to 30%...but close enough.

My breakdowns to one tenth and subsequently to 3% were based upon an exercise making certain arbitrary assumptions which I specifically pointed out to you. The Census Bureau points out the same problem with uninsured children (8.3 mil) even though my number (4 mil) did not match - in any case I wasn't claiming a hard stat on that. Looking over your link I do not see any specific breakdown for 46 million uninsured similar to what I did.

Yes and your arbitrary assumptions make your entire point useless and irrelevant. If you want to try to make the point that those numbers are just lazy people, do your own damn research. I disagree and that is not an assumption you can make. If you think that, find the stats to back it up.

I'm saying they shouldn't have it - take them out of the equation. There are many illegals who are getting health care at the expense of American citizens who would otherwise be covered by what they're getting.

You are "taking them out of the equation" by assuming they all are included in the statistic of people with no health insurance as a justification for knocking off 12 million of those without health care. That is a faulty assumption, hence knocking off 12 million people for that reason is incorrect.

Well, first you link the Census Bureau that says we have 46 million uninsured.
Then you link an article that says we have 82 million uninsured.
If anybody is blowing it out of his ass I'd say you are.

Maybe if you read the articles you would understand the distinction they are making.

Spoken like a typical pinheaded liberal. What's your feeble IQ?

Jesus...do I really need to explain this to you?

You posted your opinion that some are lazy or stupid and hence don't have health insurance. I said that people should not die for being stupid, and then asked what your IQ was. The inference you should have made was that by advocating a system which effectively kills off people who make a stupid mistake you are basically saying stupid people deserve to die...and hence me asking what your IQ was since if it was low, you would be advocating a system which naturally tended to kill off people like yourself.

My "feeble" IQ? I don't know actually. But I do score high enough to get into MENSA....by a very wide margin. Which is fairly stupid that they let you get into MENSA from the test I took.

originally posted by berm
Can you forsee a from of socialized medicine where government doesn't have a very large role? if not then you have nothing to say no to.

Very large role and "controlling everything" are two very different animals.

True which why that's why many states are doing that now. Btw Mississippi does have a state sponsored insurance program.

Trust me to pick a state that doesn't seem like it would have one, but does. Alright then Texas...which does not have one.

Yes but for less then full blown socialized medicine.

Yes...but I'm unconvinced that full blown socialized medicine would be less money than the consumers+employers pay now for full blown private medicine.

In the top 20 revenue making companies in 2006, two were health insurers...that is over $1 billion per year in health costs that goes...not to health services, but to profits. Thats just two companies, by the way.

Wrong. Again your working under this faulty black and white assumption then peole are totally healthy or dieing. now I know you know that's not true but those are the examples your using. It's purpose is not to save lives, it's purpose is to keep people healthy.

Err, no, healthcare is to both save peoples lives AND keep people healthy.

Correct I had a life threatening illness. But for your statement to work that teh only way to keep peolpe healthy is to see doctors assumes that everybody's ilness is a life threatening one. That simply isn't true.

Well there are 44 million people who, had they been in your situation, would be dead now.

Since we're talking about averages then obviously we have to use numbers of some type. so you would have to do somethign like give a numerical value to the health of everyone.

Sure, we can do that. One easy way to determine it is the DALE...which is basically life expectancy.

The question will be will the increase in rank of the 15% be enough to counteract the decrease of the 85% and rasie the average? Probably not

Look at other countries! THIS is why we are 37th in the world in healthcare...because it IS enough to raise the average.

It depends, I suppose. If we are spending exorbitant amount of money to in truth provide better health care to only 15% of the nation then yes I think we have to look at how wisely we are spending our money. Cause you have to remember the 85% get nothign out of socialized medicine. They get jipped in fact.

Not at all...they are still getting healthcare.

the u.S. government is not a business. it doesn't produce and sell a commodity. it takes people's money and spends it.

Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious. The point at the beginning was that doctors won't want to work for something that isn't profitable...I assert that they will because there is no need for the government to be profitabe, its the fuckin government.

Quit being so dramatic. it's not like either your perfectly healthy or dead. the majority of ailments are not life threatening. just because you're ill doesn't mean your gonna lose your life.

If you have cancer...yeah it pretty much means you will lose your life without healthcare.

Again under the false assumption that those not covered are bound for death just because they have not inusurance. Get real.

Go ask around. Most people over 50 have had surgery for something either that would have been debilitating, or killed them.

I had to play around with numbers to get this figure because I couldn't find anything direct...if you can find something all the more power to you...but what I got was that assuming a population of 300 million Americans, there will be 178 million cases of cancer diagnosed...now some people get more than one cancer or get diagnosed more than once...but that is a huge fucking number for one single disease...that kills you if you don't have surgery.

Wrong, because under the first scenario I have greater chance of dieing anyway. Again accomploshing nothing.

Err, no, not wrong. You asked me for a single case where it would be beneficial overall and I provided one. It had nothing to do with your original hypothetical.

But there is no logical reason or basis of comparison between us and them.

So you think the WHO is just blowing smoke out of its ass?

yes it is a fact. it is a fact that you can't quanitfy something that can't be measured.

You can measure the effectiveness of healthcare when its not used on someone. The effectiveness is 0. Quantifiable quite easily.

As far is I can tell there were bascially three goals you wanted to accomplish:

1) Provide for some means for everyone to afford healthcare

2) Lower the number of deaths.

3) Increase the overall health of the population

You can accomplish the first through socialized medicine, but I believe there are far more efficient ways as well.

the second can only be accomplished if quality goes down very little. your table shows that in socialized vs. unsocialized certain factors of quality will go down for socialized so you know going in this will happen the question is can you keep the decrease low enough to make a difference. Given our governments ability to beuracratize and red tape up everything it touches that'll be tough.

The third can't be accomplished because the improved quality(your 'quality') wont' be enough to offeset the decrease of the 85%

That the second two goals are likely to fail is a direct result of accomplishing the first through government.

Yes, the first is accomplished through socialized healthcare.

The second and the third, however, are related. The lower the overall health of the population, the more deaths there will be...the higher the overall health, the less deaths there will be. So to say that one can be accomplished and one is impossible...you are clearly missing something.

 

[Bern80]

Very large role and "controlling everything" are two very different animals.

In terms of what your proposing no it isn't.

Trust me to pick a state that doesn't seem like it would have one, but does. Alright then Texas...which does not have one.

I'll take your word for it. The point was that states providing low cost insurance is a much for efficient solution then resorting to government take over of the industry. Why is that not a more reasonable solution over your proposal?

Yes...but I'm unconvinced that full blown socialized medicine would be less money than the consumers+employers pay now for full blown private medicine.

In the top 20 revenue making companies in 2006, two were health insurers...that is over $1 billion per year in health costs that goes...not to health services, but to profits. Thats just two companies, by the way.

Did you mean to say unconvinced that socialized medicine would be more? Cause the way you stated it there doesn't make sense

I don't see the point in citing the insurance industries profits. That's the purpose of privat business.

Even if you do go to socialized medicine all the same stuff still has to get paid for. The only thing that changes is where the money will come from. If it isn't gonna come from the consumers (because you've reduced or eliminated their premiums) it still has get paid for. Don't even say the government will pay for it. the government can't pay for anything. This also is a fact. Whenever you catch yourself saying the goveernment will pay for it simply substitute that with you or the taxpayers because that's where the money comes from.

Err, no, healthcare is to both save peoples lives AND keep people healthy.

True enough, but more people see the doctor of life threatening or non-life threatening reasons?

To make your argument you keep insisting that everyone who sees a doctor or doesn't have coverage is dieing. You know that isnt accurate.

Well there are 44 million people who, had they been in your situation, would be dead now.

Most likely, but we really can't have a conversation about this if you can't be realistic.

Sure, we can do that. One easy way to determine it is the DALE...which is basically life expectancy.

I suppose you could. You woudl have to find the life expectancy of te 15% w/o coverage then find the life expectacny of the 85% with coverage. Weight it out, then compare it to what the life expectancy would be for the entire group under socialized medicine.

I don't know how accurate or realastic using that would be though, cause I dont' know the factors involved. Do none medical reasons for death get counted in there?

The most accurate way to do it would be to take a sample size of each group. And have each persons in the sample overall health rated. You would ahve to wait I guess for the effects of socialized medicine again and then have the same sample groups rate their overall health again.

Look at other countries! THIS is why we are 37th in the world in healthcare...because it IS enough to raise the average.

That can't be known because we would have to know the health level of the countries before socialized medicine. In that case you wouldn't compare the country to us. You have to comapre teh country to itself before it instituted socialized medicine and see if the overall health went up or down.

That still woudn't be comparable to the U.s. because the other country would have to have the same preportion of insured to uninsured to mean anything.

Lastly i did the math and your simply incorrect. Play with some numbers. I did my best to make you right even. How did I do that? okay here goes.

our 85% is assigned a value for their overall health. the 15% are assigned a value for their overall health. The values you assign don't matter at all. the only thing that matters is that obviously the value for th 15% has to be less than that of the 85%(because the 15% is not as healthy). the arbitrary part is figureing out how much of a difference you want to make between the two values. if you think the 85% is significantly healthier than the 15% you make the gap bigger between the two values, you get the drift.

How I thought about was okay what would the numbers need to be for the value of the overall health of the group need to be in order for the value to be greater under socialized medicine, that's the goal. well since it's hard mathematically for the 15% to compensate for the 85% you can start by using values that are very close to each other. In real world terms that would mean the health of the uninsured is not that much lower than that of the insured. I used very small numbers. I assigned the 85% a value of 1.1. our 15% has to be close to that to give them a fighting change of makeuing up the difference so I gave them a value of 1. I assume you know how wighted averages work. so what you get when you do the math is an average health score of 1.085 for the entire group.

Now we move to socilzied medicine. So now the value placed on overall health is the same for everyone. You can pick any number you want as long as that number meets the following peramaters: Obviously it can't be lower than 1. It also can't be greater than 1.1 because we know the overall health of the 85% is going to go down. This part is easy then all you have to do is pick a number between 1 and 1.1. If it is greater than 1.085 then socialized medicine has raised the value of the health score for the population, if it's lower it hasn't. But what you can see is that the 15% have to have an 85% increase in their over all health to counteract the decrease of the 85% that originally had their own private coverage.

Now lets get real about teh numbers I used for second. Again I put the values very close to together to see if 15% could in fact counteract the fall of the 85% and actually raise the overall value for all 100%. You'll be happy to know that it is possible. Unfortunately in reality it is extremely unlikley. First I'll call an opinion when it is one. i think socialized medicine will lead to a significant drop in the overall value(quality of care) for the 85%. and for socialized to have the chance of improving the value for the overall health of the population that hit can not be greater than a 15% decrease. With our government i don't think that is reasonable. Seconldy the overall health value of the uninsured has to go up at least 85% with the numbers I used.

But the real reason the 15% can't compensate for 85% is this. I used numbers very close together because that's what you would have to do for the 15% to have a chance of rising enough to increase the health score for the population as a whole. In real life terms what it means is a the overall health of the 15% was graded and the overall health of the 85% and the nubmers I used in real life translate into the health value of the 85% being only 10% more than the uninsured. To paraphrase I gave a value representing the over all health to each group. And the score I gave to group with coverage was only 10% better than that with no coverage. Meaning the insured are only 10% healthier than the uninsured. Now I hope you can see the problem. unless of course you think the 10% is accurate. But if our insured is much more than 10% healthier than our uninisured than their is not way to increase the value for the group as a whole with socialized medicine.


okay that got really long so you'll have pardon me for not reasponding to teh rest.

Well accept for one point

You can measure the effectiveness of healthcare when its not used on someone. The effectiveness is 0. Quantifiable quite easily.

No it isn't but I'm done arguing this point. tell you what, you go ask a science or math prof if you can measure the effectiveness of something that didn't happen and let me know what they say and I'll accept it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Try reading my links. Its actually closer to 30%...but close enough.

Seems we're caught in the same repetitive loop.

Yes and your arbitrary assumptions make your entire point useless and irrelevant. If you want to try to make the point that those numbers are just lazy people, do your own damn research. I disagree and that is not an assumption you can make. If you think that, find the stats to back it up.

It only makes the figure of 4 million for each group a starting point, not an exact figure. What is missing are the real figures for each group which nobody has investigated or published yet as far as I can tell. The point of the exercise is to show that there are many people who opt out of the current system for reasons of their own. I never said they were just lazy people although some probably are.

You are "taking them out of the equation" by assuming they all are included in the statistic of people with no health insurance as a justification for knocking off 12 million of those without health care. That is a faulty assumption, hence knocking off 12 million people for that reason is incorrect.

If there were no illegals using/not using our health care system, there would be a heck of a lot less strain and cost to the system and/or a lot less people without insurance.

Maybe if you read the articles you would understand the distinction they are making.

The distinction is that the numbers are hyped up when you count someone without coverage for one day.

Jesus...do I really need to explain this to you?

You posted your opinion that some are lazy or stupid and hence don't have health insurance. I said that people should not die for being stupid, and then asked what your IQ was. The inference you should have made was that by advocating a system which effectively kills off people who make a stupid mistake you are basically saying stupid people deserve to die...and hence me asking what your IQ was since if it was low, you would be advocating a system which naturally tended to kill off people like yourself.

My "feeble" IQ? I don't know actually. But I do score high enough to get into MENSA....by a very wide margin. Which is fairly stupid that they let you get into MENSA from the test I took.

I still fail to see where I started out saying they are "lazy and stupid"... I believe that was your interpretation. Then you jump to the assumption that people will die because they are stupid. Because you think you're smart you think you need to take care of stupid people? That's typical liberal "elitist" thinking.

Do you also think government should provide homes for everybody? Isn't shelter also a human right? Everybody should have a home provided to them.

How about free government-provided cars for everyone too?

It's certainly a human right to be able to eat….why not have the government provide everybody with the food they need? You just pay your (increased) taxes and then go to the local grocery store with your government coupons to pick up some delicious government cheese.

A socialist paradise!

 

[Larkinn]

In terms of what your proposing no it isn't.

Sure it is. You yourself specified the large difference before between the government controlling something and the government paying private companies to control something.

I'll take your word for it. The point was that states providing low cost insurance is a much for efficient solution then resorting to government take over of the industry. Why is that not a more reasonable solution over your proposal?

It is...IF you can get states to provide health insurance. Texas does not, and i doubt it ever will, and there is no way to force it too...so how do we get around that?

Did you mean to say unconvinced that socialized medicine would be more? Cause the way you stated it there doesn't make sense

Yes, sorry.

I don't see the point in citing the insurance industries profits. That's the purpose of privat business.

I'm aware of the purpose. The point is, when you as an individual pay for healthcare you are not only paying to save your life, you are paying a massive overhead to private companies in the form of profits. Why?

ven if you do go to socialized medicine all the same stuff still has to get paid for.

No...the $1 billion+ in profits don't need to get paid for.

The only thing that changes is where the money will come from. If it isn't gonna come from the consumers (because you've reduced or eliminated their premiums) it still has get paid for. Don't even say the government will pay for it. the government can't pay for anything. This also is a fact. Whenever you catch yourself saying the goveernment will pay for it simply substitute that with you or the taxpayers because that's where the money comes from.

In 2004 the US spent 400 billion dollars that it didn't have. That means that no, it did not come from me or you or the taxpayers.

True enough, but more people see the doctor of life threatening or non-life threatening reasons?

To make your argument you keep insisting that everyone who sees a doctor or doesn't have coverage is dieing. You know that isnt accurate.

No, not everyone, but a lot of people. As I posted before 18,000 people die every year because they don't have health coverage in this country. Doesn't that matter at all to you?

Most likely, but we really can't have a conversation about this if you can't be realistic.

Obviously they all aren't in that situation, but some of them are.

I suppose you could. You woudl have to find the life expectancy of te 15% w/o coverage then find the life expectacny of the 85% with coverage. Weight it out, then compare it to what the life expectancy would be for the entire group under socialized medicine.

Umm, no, you would just do it before and after. There is no reason to treat the 15% and 85% differently in the first example.

I don't know how accurate or realastic using that would be though, cause I dont' know the factors involved. Do none medical reasons for death get counted in there?

In DALE? I don't think so...but our healthcare system definitely makes a huge difference on how long people live.

The most accurate way to do it would be to take a sample size of each group. And have each persons in the sample overall health rated. You would ahve to wait I guess for the effects of socialized medicine again and then have the same sample groups rate their overall health again.

Umm yes, the most accurate way of doing it would be to do that, but that is completely unrealistic.

That can't be known because we would have to know the health level of the countries before socialized medicine. In that case you wouldn't compare the country to us. You have to comapre teh country to itself before it instituted socialized medicine and see if the overall health went up or down.

Why? Only if you are assuming the natural health levels of the US is very different from other countries, which I see no reason to believe.

Lastly i did the math and your simply incorrect. Play with some numbers. I did my best to make you right even. How did I do that? okay here goes.

I am incorrect...if you make assumptions that favor your point of view. Sure. But otherwise there is no reason to think that.

Now we move to socilzied medicine. So now the value placed on overall health is the same for everyone. You can pick any number you want as long as that number meets the following peramaters: Obviously it can't be lower than 1. It also can't be greater than 1.1 because we know the overall health of the 85% is going to go down. This part is easy then all you have to do is pick a number between 1 and 1.1. If it is greater than 1.085 then socialized medicine has raised the value of the health score for the population, if it's lower it hasn't. But what you can see is that the 15% have to have an 85% increase in their over all health to counteract the decrease of the 85% that originally had their own private coverage.

Not at all...this is only true if the health of the original 85% go down as much as you think it will.

I gave a value representing the over all health to each group. And the score I gave to group with coverage was only 10% better than that with no coverage. Meaning the insured are only 10% healthier than the uninsured. Now I hope you can see the problem. unless of course you think the 10% is accurate. But if our insured is much more than 10% healthier than our uninisured than their is not way to increase the value for the group as a whole with socialized medicine.

This entire exercise is useless because you are making up numbers. Neither you, nor I, have any idea how correct they are, nor how they will represent the general population.

No it isn't but I'm done arguing this point. tell you what, you go ask a science or math prof if you can measure the effectiveness of something that didn't happen and let me know what they say and I'll accept it.

I don't have access to any, I am not in school.

t only makes the figure of 4 million for each group a starting point, not an exact figure. What is missing are the real figures for each group which nobody has investigated or published yet as far as I can tell. The point of the exercise is to show that there are many people who opt out of the current system for reasons of their own. I never said they were just lazy people although some probably are.

The figure of 4 million is not a "starting point" its a completely 100% arbitrary figure that you made up. The number could be..12 or 100,000 or 4,232. If you can't find the figures for them then why do you think they are significant numbers? . They aren't.

If there were no illegals using/not using our health care system, there would be a heck of a lot less strain and cost to the system and/or a lot less people without insurance.

Thats nice. Also irrelevant to the point.

The distinction is that the numbers are hyped up when you count someone without coverage for one day.

Congratulations...and that means what about the 44 million (some of whom you claimed were only out of insurance for 1 day)?

I still fail to see where I started out saying they are "lazy and stupid"... I believe that was your interpretation. Then you jump to the assumption that people will die because they are stupid. Because you think you're smart you think you need to take care of stupid people? That's typical liberal "elitist" thinking.

Yes, I consider it stupid not to have health insurance when it is easily available, or you can afford it.

And who said because I'm smart? I never mentioned my intelligence until you inquired. That is typical asinine over generalization.

Do you also think government should provide homes for everybody? Isn't shelter also a human right? Everybody should have a home provided to them.

Yup.

How about free government-provided cars for everyone too?

What are you, stupid?

It's certainly a human right to be able to eat….why not have the government provide everybody with the food they need? You just pay your (increased) taxes and then go to the local grocery store with your government coupons to pick up some delicious government cheese.

Are there people starving in this country? No. Hence the government does not need to step in.

 

[Bern80]

I'm aware of the purpose. The point is, when you as an individual pay for healthcare you are not only paying to save your life, you are paying a massive overhead to private companies in the form of profits. Why?

and why do companies need to make a profit? so they can reinvest in their company after they've paid all their expensese. How will hospitals improve their technology? Obviously you will have to.

No...the $1 billion+ in profits don't need to get paid for.

Unless you want the technology of the facilities to stagnate, yes they need to make a profit.

In 2004 the US spent 400 billion dollars that it didn't have. That means that no, it did not come from me or you or the taxpayers.

So let's just make it a little worse huh? Amazing comeing from a liberal when all they do is piss and moan about debt we're passing on to our children.

No, not everyone, but a lot of people. As I posted before 18,000 people die every year because they don't have health coverage in this country. Doesn't that matter at all to you?

This really helps the conversation a lot actually. As a percent that's .0005% of the population without insurance who's death is directly caused due to lack of coverage. All the more proof tht socialized medicine is far from the most efficient (or effective for that matter) in dealing with this problem.

Umm, no, you would just do it before and after. There is no reason to treat the 15% and 85% differently in the first example.

Weighted avg and average of the whole is basically the same thing. As far as doing the math what you can't do is take the average of 1.1 and 1 that's 1.05, because there are are more 1.1s in the 85% then there are 1s. Picture at seein 85, 1.1s and 15, 1s. I did it both ways and got the same numbers. You can either multiply 1.1 by .85 and 1 by .15 and add the products together which 1.085 (that's the wighted avg method) or take 85 times 1.1 and 15 times 1 and those two together and divide by 100 and you still get 1.085.

I know what your getting at and the reason you treat the two groups differnently is well because you said so. You said because they are uninsured the 15% should have a lower avg health than the 85%

Umm yes, the most accurate way of doing it would be to do that, but that is completely unrealistic.

Not really we do studies liek that all the time. We take sample sizes of gorups as a representative of teh whole. Science has proven the sample if done correctly is a cery close inidicator of the whole. And at some point you will have to be able to empircally prove that you are correct in order to even under take this. So far it hasn't withstood the scrutiny

I am incorrect...if you make assumptions that favor your point of view. Sure. But otherwise there is no reason to think that.

I mad no assumptions at all. if so point out where. I used numbers based on your argument.

Not at all...this is only true if the health of the original 85% go down as much as you think it will.

True and I even said as much in my example. It's just not realistic to think it won't happen.

This entire exercise is useless because you are making up numbers. Neither you, nor I, have any idea how correct they are, nor how they will represent the general population.

You're not listening. The numbers I pick make no difference at all. Do the exact same thing yourself if you want. you can pick .0001 or a billion it makes absolutely no difference. the only criteria for these numbers were set by you.

YOU claimed the overall health of the 15% would be lower than that of the 85% so I picked numbers reflecting that.

You claimed the health of the 15% would go up after socialized medicine. So I made sure it did

You admitted that the overall health of the 85% would go down because their now doiminshed quality of care. So the increase can't exceed the overall health of the 85% before socialization. I made sure it didn't.

The only way the avg health of the entire populatin can go up with socialized medicine is the uninsured are only slightly less healthier than the insured. By like 10% or less to put a value on it. And if that's the case that it an awful waste, especially when their are far better soultions.

Lastly there are some unrealisitc assumptions about the 15% that had to made that don't help your cause either. Mainly that the 44 million people are all uninsured because they can't afford it. We know that's not true. So really the group you are tallking about are those that are uninsured because they can't afford it. that lowers are percentage even more. You would have 85% insured. Some percentage that is uninusred because they can't afford and a category for all other reasons not insured, like between jobs, in school, etc. I'll be nice and say now the group you wish to target is only 14% and now the law of averages is working against you even more.

You're wrong, deal with it.

I don't have access to any, I am not in school.

Fine my sister's in dental school. i'll let you know.

 

[mattskramer]

Are there people starving in this country? No. Hence the government does not need to step in.

Wake up, get out of your shell, and look around you.

There are hungry people in America.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5023829

Some 38 million people in America are considered "food insecure" -- they have trouble finding the money to keep food on the table.

See a charity trying to do something about it:

http://www.hungerinamerica.org/

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The only difference between a liberal and the Pope is, the Pope asks you to kiss his ring

You are quite right, mate

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The figure of 4 million is not a "starting point" its a completely 100% arbitrary figure that you made up. The number could be..12 or 100,000 or 4,232. If you can't find the figures for them then why do you think they are significant numbers? . They aren't.

I never said they were "significant" numbers. Where did you get that? However, the 44 million number is significant. The various groups of people who don't have health insurance are significant. The various reasons why they opt out are significant. I can't assign specific significant numbers to each group but I can divide the number of groups into 44 million and get an average for each group, which may or may not be the actual figure for that specific group. To sum it up I am breaking down the 44 million into arbitarily numbered groups showing WHY they don't have health insurance and thus showing you that the problem may not be as critical as you think. Can you even admit that as a possibility?

Thats nice. Also irrelevant to the point.

How can 12 million illegals using our health care system be irrelevant?

Congratulations...and that means what about the 44 million (some of whom you claimed were only out of insurance for 1 day)?

And thus that makes the problem even less critical than you believe.

Yes, I consider it stupid not to have health insurance when it is easily available, or you can afford it. And who said because I'm smart? I never mentioned my intelligence until you inquired. That is typical asinine over generalization.

You're the one who claimed to be a mensa member. In any case I hope you go get yourself some health insurance. I suggest you might look into getting a Health Savings Account (HAS) plan. The pretax money you save up over the years could build into a very nice chunk of change and you will be the one always be in control of your health care as you are never dependent on an employer's choice of plan or the government's.

Yup.

So you think the government should provide housing to all….have you ever seen government housing? Later in life after you've worked your butt off to become a hot shot lawyer... under socialized housing you might be able to get the crackerbox with the new windows.

What are you, stupid?

No, I didn't really think you'd warm up to that one about cars but you never know…even though liberals are out to force everyone they can into mass transit they might want to control the issuance of vehicles in order to prevent global warming.

Are there people starving in this country? No. Hence the government does not need to step in.

Well, according to mattskramer you aren't up to snuff on this one. But let's say you're right….what about the next step? Since liberals are so concerned about the types of food that people eat - which have consequences regarding their health - I thought you'd jump at the chance to control the intake of people's food. Not to mention eradicating food insecurity for 38 million people...

 

[actsnoblemartin]

My problem is, I dont believe socialized medicine will work, and unless we get rid of the 12-20 million illegal aliens, we will never be able to take care of the million of legal americans that need healthcare.

In other words, we are wasting our money, and bankrupting our selves on illegals, in many ways, rather then taking care of our own first.

I never said they were "significant" numbers. Where did you get that? However, the 44 million number is significant. The various groups of people who don't have health insurance are significant. The various reasons why they opt out are significant. I can't assign specific significant numbers to each group but I can divide the number of groups into 44 million and get an average for each group, which may or may not be the actual figure for that specific group. To sum it up I am breaking down the 44 million into arbitarily numbered groups showing WHY they don't have health insurance and thus showing you that the problem may not be as critical as you think. Can you even admit that as a possibility?


How can 12 million illegals using our health care system be irrelevant?


And thus that makes the problem even less critical than you believe.


You're the one who claimed to be a mensa member. In any case I hope you go get yourself some health insurance. I suggest you might look into getting a Health Savings Account (HAS) plan. The pretax money you save up over the years could build into a very nice chunk of change and you will be the one always be in control of your health care as you are never dependent on an employer's choice of plan or the government's.


So you think the government should provide housing to all….have you ever seen government housing? Later in life after you've worked your butt off to become a hot shot lawyer... under socialized housing you might be able to get the crackerbox with the new windows.


No, I didn't really think you'd warm up to that one about cars but you never know…even though liberals are out to force everyone they can into mass transit they might want to control the issuance of vehicles in order to prevent global warming.


Well, according to mattskramer you aren't up to snuff on this one. But let's say you're right….what about the next step? Since liberals are so concerned about the types of food that people eat - which have consequences regarding their health - I thought you'd jump at the chance to control the intake of people's food. Not to mention eradicating food insecurity for 38 million people...

 

[Larkinn]

Bern- I am not responding to your post right now. This is not a slur against you, it is actually the opposite. I've had a long day and your posts actually make me think. It is an actual debate which I respect, but which also means that it is much more tiring that just responding to garbage. I will respond when I get a chance and am not so exhausted. If I don't feel free to bump it or send me a pm...or if you don't feel like continuing on, thanks for the convo.

As for you SE....

I never said they were "significant" numbers. Where did you get that? However, the 44 million number is significant. The various groups of people who don't have health insurance are significant. The various reasons why they opt out are significant. I can't assign specific significant numbers to each group but I can divide the number of groups into 44 million and get an average for each group, which may or may not be the actual figure for that specific group. To sum it up I am breaking down the 44 million into arbitarily numbered groups showing WHY they don't have health insurance and thus showing you that the problem may not be as critical as you think. Can you even admit that as a possibility?

You said that some of the categories had 4 million people in them. I consider that a significant amount of people. May or may not be the actual number? Considering you are basically picking a random number out of 44 million I can pretty much guarantee its actually not the number.

Yes its a possibility, everything is a possibility. But I don't see any reason to believe its a reality. So until you provide that evidence, I am going to discount it as an uninformed opinion with nothing to back it up.

How can 12 million illegals using our health care system be irrelevant?

To the point of how many people have health insurance or not? Please, explain to me how that is relevant.

And thus that makes the problem even less critical than you believe.

Umm no. It means that the 44 million don't include people who were uninsured only for one day...if you used that stat it would be 82 million. So one of your assumptions about the 44 million number is incorrect.

You're the one who claimed to be a mensa member. In any case I hope you go get yourself some health insurance. I suggest you might look into getting a Health Savings Account (HAS) plan. The pretax money you save up over the years could build into a very nice chunk of change and you will be the one always be in control of your health care as you are never dependent on an employer's choice of plan or the government's.

It is not easily available for me. I don't have pretax money, I don't have any money. I will also have health insurance in about 2 months. Despite the fact that my not having health insurance may have been stupid (I definitely don't preclude that possibility), I don't think I deserve death, nor possible death, for that possible mistake.

No, I never said I was a MENSA member. I'm not. I said I qualified for MENSA, which I do, but which I also stated is ridiculous that I do. At least in the way that I did.

So you think the government should provide housing to all….have you ever seen government housing? Later in life after you've worked your butt off to become a hot shot lawyer... under socialized housing you might be able to get the crackerbox with the new windows.

Government housing is shit because there is no money in it because nobody in this country gives a fuck about the poor.

And no, I won't be a hot shot lawyer. I am uninterested in making shitloads of money being a corporate shill. I will be doing public interest law, or hopefully, international humanitarian law.

No, I didn't really think you'd warm up to that one about cars but you never know…even though liberals are out to force everyone they can into mass transit they might want to control the issuance of vehicles in order to prevent global warming

This is a lie. Its annoying. Please don't do it again.

Well, according to mattskramer you aren't up to snuff on this one.

I know its a foreign concept to you because you seem to have no idea what a liberal is, or what liberalism entails, but liberals often disagree with each other.

Since liberals are so concerned about the types of food that people eat - which have consequences regarding their health - I thought you'd jump at the chance to control the intake of people's food. Not to mention eradicating food insecurity for 38 million people..

Do a little bit of research of what being a liberal is before approaching me with bullshit like this. Really, controlling what people eat? Oh, wait, you probably think we eat babies too, right?

 

[red states rule]

Wake up, get out of your shell, and look around you.

There are hungry people in America.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5023829

Some 38 million people in America are considered "food insecure" -- they have trouble finding the money to keep food on the table.

See a charity trying to do something about it:

http://www.hungerinamerica.org/

Hell, I thought most Americans were overweight

 

[mattskramer]

Hell, I thought most Americans were overweight

“Most” is over 50 percent. That still leaves less that 50 percent who are hungry. I don’t know the percentage of Americans who are hungry. 38 million is probably less than half of the USA population. Larkinn said that there are no starving people in America. In other words, according to Larkinn, there is not even one person starving in America. He is clearly incorrect. It may be that most people are overweight. Assuming that to be true, it does not negate my claim that there are hungry people in America.

 

[red states rule]

“Most” is over 50 percent. That still leaves less that 50 percent who are hungry. I don’t know the percentage of Americans who are hungry. 38 million is probably less than half of the USA population. Larkinn said that there are no starving people in America. In other words, according to Larkinn, there is not even one person starving in America. He is clearly incorrect. It may be that most people are overweight. Assuming that to be true, it does not negate my claim that there are hungry people in America.

Are they US citizens?

Libs love to inflate the number of the uninsured by including illegals in the overall number - I suspect that is what is happening here

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“Most” is over 50 percent. That still leaves less that 50 percent who are hungry. I don’t know the percentage of Americans who are hungry. 38 million is probably less than half of the USA population. Larkinn said that there are no starving people in America. In other words, according to Larkinn, there is not even one person starving in America. He is clearly incorrect. It may be that most people are overweight. Assuming that to be true, it does not negate my claim that there are hungry people in America.

The USA has a bit over 300 million LEGAL residents. Add in 11 to 20 million illegals and go from there.