The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[ScreamingEagle]

A broken leg can be a death sentence without proper treatment. Ever heard of gangrene? And there isn't exactly an epidemic of broken legs in this country.

As I stated before, which you conveniently ignored, 18,000 people a year die because they are uninsured.

Well by all means then let's have Medicare for all…oh, that's right, Medicare is failing too.

No, actually I never claimed that. Go and quote me where I claimed that, or retract it.

Right here, post #252:

We are talking about the people who don't have healthcare. You are trying to say that of the 44 million who have no healthcare, 12 million are illegal immigrants. This is an assumption, and 99% a LIE.

Since it is the Census that counted the illegals and since the poor illegals by and large do not have health care, it stands to reason they are part and parcel of the 44 million.

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe the asinine idea that anyone who supports socialized healthcare is a socialist?

Why wouldn't they be? Or shall we say, a liberal socialist?

And look at it the huge wide gulf between 1996 and 2000 that would account for the difference in poverty increase between those two years...oh wait.

More unsubstantiated bullshit.

The Census counts illegals. The Census counts the poor. You know damn well that illegals make up a good chunk of the poor.

You really want to get your ass kicked, don't you?

Tell me, son, do you think cocaine should be legal? How about heroine. Or even, marijuana. No? Then tell me why dangerous foods should be legal. They have been regulating food since the FDA was introduced. This is why people can't sell coca-cola with cocaine in it anymore (a pity really).

Yes, I looked at the site. Calling it the "food police" is idiotic to the extreme. It is also extremely biased and includes numerous links that either don't work or are to extremely partisan sites. The ones to genuine news agencies that work are generally about such crimes as the FDA making recommendations (omg...a recommendation? I am terrified!), and Disney signing only deals with healthy restaurants (omg...the cads...who do they are to decide who they want to do business with?).

The only thing with a teensiest bit of merit on that idiotic site is the trans fat ban.

And about trans fats...

from Harvard

omg...the police want to save 30,000 people from prematurely dying every year...fucking nazis...

What's the big diff? We got drug police. The legal establishment goes after drug dealers. Today the legal establishment is going after certain food dealers. Nothing at all idiotic about calling them the food police. Some future signs you'll probably see:

STOP! This is a FRENCH FRY FREE ZONE

JUST SAY NO! TO TRANS FATS

Donut Shop Closed: Shut Down Due to Food Crimes

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The government cant save us from ourselves, and anything can be a drug.

I dont believe socialized medicine can work, but that doesnt mean we stop trying to fix the problem, however, illegals getting care is morally reprehensible.

 

[Bern80]

It can't work. At least not the way Larkinn says it will. It certainly can't make the health of the nation better as a whole. I think I proved that (still waiting for your response to post 231, hint, hint). In fact you have responded to very few of my posts recently(except to say I'll respond later, guess what, it's later).

You would be better off trying to resort back to your ethical argument. that it is basically unethical for everyone in the U.S. to not have health insurance. At least you can't technically lose that debate because purely a matter of opinion.

It still would bring up an interesting debat though. In general, for how few do you sacrafice the well being of the whole? Though a wiser man (er Vulcan I guess) has already answered that:

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one."

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I just think this issue is so complicated, it would probably take all of us, government, private sector, and us, the taxpayers, to go through, tons of approaches until one sticks, that actually works.

It can't work. At least not the way Larkinn says it will. It certainly can't make the health of the nation better as a whole. I think I proved that (still waiting for your response to post 231, hint, hint). In fact you have responded to very few of my posts recently(except to say I'll respond later, guess what, it's later).

You would be better off trying to resort back to your ethical argument. that it is basically unethical for everyone in the U.S. to not have health insurance. At least you can't technically lose that debate because purely a matter of opinion.

It still would bring up an interesting debat though. In general, for how few do you sacrafice the well being of the whole? Though a wiser man (er Vulcan I guess) has already answered that:

 

[red states rule]

The government cant save us from ourselves, and anything can be a drug.

I dont believe socialized medicine can work, but that doesnt mean we stop trying to fix the problem, however, illegals getting care is morally reprehensible.

Socialized medicine has failed wherever it has been tried

 

[onedomino]

Socialized medicine would be a diaster for the US; especially if we got results like the EU, Canada, and Australia:

When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world.

Even though American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in other countries, we are less likely to die from the disease. Less than one out of five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but a quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men will.

Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer, AIDS and heart disease. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn't go to France, Canada, Cuba or even an Italian hospital -- he went to the Cleveland Clinic. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070613/OPINION01/706130311/1008

 

[red states rule]

Socialized medicine would be a diaster for the US; especially if we got results like the EU, Canada, and Australia:

Hey, one thing liberalism does is to spread the misery around equally

Why should those in the US have a better chance of living then those in other countries?

That is not fair!!!!

 

[Larkinn]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond to this. It takes me longer when I have to deal with someone who has some semblance of knowledge, then I need to do more research. It is also more difficult since I am recently employed.

Anyway, here we go.

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.

They don't use all of that money to reinvest in the company.

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

Again...they also use that profit for other unrelated things.

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.

Please quote me where I ever complained about the national debt. And the Ad hominem attacks make you look like a fool.

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.

Thats .0005% of the population...every year. And that doesn't factor in all the other qualities that reduce peoples enjoyment of life or cripple them, and doesn't kill them because of a lack of healthcare.

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.

Again...I don't see how the numbers matter because we have no idea how much the healthcare system will decrease by, and hence we are just making up numbers.

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

Right...but to get a sample size we would have to create a mini-system that I am advocating, yes?

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

The numbers are assumptions...

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

Why?

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.

The amount that the care of currently insured people, decreases, matters a lot.

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.

Yes, BUT merely because those are the things that MUST happen in the new system, it still allows for a wide range which allows for very different results.

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.

This makes no sense. The lower the health of the uninsured the lower the overall health in the new system, needs to be to make it worth it.

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.

No...I don't care why they are uninsured. Be it laziness, can't afford it, stupidity, between jobs, etc, etc.

You're wrong, deal with it.

My, aren't we arrogant.

 

[Larkinn]

Well by all means then let's have Medicare for all…oh, that's right, Medicare is failing too.

Bullshit.

[quote[
Right here, post #252:

Since it is the Census that counted the illegals and since the poor illegals by and large do not have health care, it stands to reason they are part and parcel of the 44 million.

by and large? What a wonderfully scientific made up number you have there.
Give me stats, or go home.

Why wouldn't they be? Or shall we say, a liberal socialist?

Because socialism is about a lot more than socialized healthcare and socialized healthcare does not neccessarily have anything to do with socialism.

Socialism is about the state controlling the means of production. Socialized healthcare is about everyone having access to healthcare. Educate yourself, for fucks sake.

The Census counts illegals. The Census counts the poor. You know damn well that illegals make up a good chunk of the poor.

More scientific numbers. "A good chunk".

What's the big diff? We got drug police. The legal establishment goes after drug dealers. Today the legal establishment is going after certain food dealers. Nothing at all idiotic about calling them the food police. Some future signs you'll probably see:

The difference is that calling them food police is inflammatory and misleading. Especially since most of those articles about the "food police" are about public opinion. Since when does the community speaking out against something they don't like equate to "policing"?

Its a site with an overwhelming bias. But then, you don't mind that as long as the bias fits your own bias.

STOP! This is a FRENCH FRY FREE ZONE

JUST SAY NO! TO TRANS FATS

Donut Shop Closed: Shut Down Due to Food Crimes

An example of the inflammatory bullshit that the site is peddling. You fell for it hook line and sinker.

posted by bern
It can't work. At least not the way Larkinn says it will. It certainly can't make the health of the nation better as a whole. I think I proved that (still waiting for your response to post 231, hint, hint). In fact you have responded to very few of my posts recently(except to say I'll respond later, guess what, it's later).

Calm the fuck down. I said I would respond to it, and hey I just did. Merely because I had a few days with nothing to do and so I posted a lot does not mean that will continue. This site isn't exactly high on my list of priorities.

It still would bring up an interesting debat though. In general, for how few do you sacrafice the well being of the whole? Though a wiser man (er Vulcan I guess) has already answered that:

I am a Utilitarian. Whatever helps the most people is what I favor.

Socialized medicine has failed wherever it has been tried

Yay more lies. How fun.

Socialized medicine would be a diaster for the US; especially if we got results like the EU, Canada, and Australia:

The results from the graph you posted are not indiccative of the rates of all cancers. I already posted results that show the opposite of yours. And I found one obvious lie in the article, besides the obvious bias, so I am tempted to disbelieve the authors claims.

Jeez...don't any of you know how to find sources that aren't obviously and completely biased?

 

[Superlative]

Socialized medicine would be a diaster for the US; especially if we got results like the EU, Canada, and Australia:

Ill give you two links that make your graph less impressive.


Why Do Europeans Smoke More than Americans?
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/04/why_do_european.html

Colorectal Cancer Shown to be a Smoking-Related Cancer
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/c...Cancer_Shown_To_Be_Smoking_Related_Cancer.asp

 

[Bern80]

They don't use all of that money to reinvest in the company.

I'm well aware of that and never claimed they did. My point is simply that if a facility does not have the ability to make a profit and thus reinvest in itself and improve itself, what mechanism is going to take it's place? The government/you? It can't compete at that level.

Please quote me where I ever complained about the national debt. And the Ad hominem attacks make you look like a fool.

So you don't mind that the current date will be passed on to our children. you care so little, that you're willing to add to it?

Thats .0005% of the population...every year. And that doesn't factor in all the other qualities that reduce peoples enjoyment of life or cripple them, and doesn't kill them because of a lack of healthcare.

No it doesn't count this. But again I simply don't believe in makeing 85% of the nation worse off for the sake of 15% or less. that is immoral.

Again...I don't see how the numbers matter because we have no idea how much the healthcare system will decrease by, and hence we are just making up numbers.

I said the numbers don't matter at all. It was an example to show how the system would need to perform in order for statement to be correct. teh example showed that it is extremely difficult.

Right...but to get a sample size we would have to create a mini-system that I am advocating, yes?

Correct the system would need to be in place of course to make any comparison.

The numbers are assumptions...

No they aren't. If so how? The only assumptions that come into play are the three criteria I mentioned which you agreed with. And those are very educated assumptions based on the original table you provided. Again use any numbers you feel like using. All they have to do is meet those criteria. If you want to disagree with criteria by all means. then we can have a different debate. But the numbers I used fall within parameters we both agreed on.

The whole point of me doing that mock exercise is to show that if indeed such a system does go into effect you're going to have to prove empiracly that it accomplishes what you said it would. To do that requires hard data. What the exercise does is show what the hard data will have to be for you (or me) to be right.

Why?

Because of those criteria. You claimed that socialized medicine would lead to a healthier nation overall. But what we know is that the overall health of the nation overall after socialzation can't(hell I'll give you extremely unlikely) exceed the overall health of the 85% insured before socilzation due to diminshed quality. So you already have one barrier. Then you look at our insured to uninsured breakdown 85% to15%. mathematically the only way for the entire nation as a whole to healthier than it was before socialzation is for teh uninsured to be only slightly less healthy then the insured. Again at some point you're going to have to emprically prove that can be done meaning your going to have to do a lot of studies for a while grading people's health.

The amount that the care of currently insured people, decreases, matters a lot.

Yes it does. the point was as long as the criteria are agreed on and you choose your numbers accordingly it doesn't matter how big or small they are.
Mathematiclly it is possible for you to be right under those criteria. But only if the health of the insured decreses very little and the health of the uninsured almost doubles.

Yes, BUT merely because those are the things that MUST happen in the new system, it still allows for a wide range which allows for very different results.

I think the example shows that an awful lot of things need to be true for you to be right, such as.

Teh health of the insured can go down very little, which really translates into the quality of our resources, physicianss, technology, etc. going down very little.

And the overall health of the once uninsured almost doubling.

Do you believe that to be likely?

This makes no sense. The lower the health of the uninsured the lower the overall health in the new system, needs to be to make it worth it.

No not correct. The health of the previously uninsured needs to go up dramatically while the health of the insured needs to go down very little in order for the system to be worth while.

No...I don't care why they are uninsured. Be it laziness, can't afford it, stupidity, between jobs, etc, etc.

This makes a big difference actually. And a point I have been trying to make. Am I off in stating that while you are uninsured currently you are not unhealthy?

My, aren't we arrogant.

Fine, extremely unlikely you will be right

 

[ScreamingEagle]

by and large? What a wonderfully scientific made up number you have there.
Give me stats, or go home.

Sure thing. About 30% of people w/o health insurance coverage are HISPANICS. Per the Census Bureau:

People Without Health Insurance Coverage by Race and Hispanic Origin Using 3 Year Average: 2003 - 2005

21,844,000----White, non Hispanic
-7,126,000----Black
---681,000----American Indian and Alaska Native
-2,167,000----Asian
---139,000----Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
13,621,000----Hispanic Origin (any race)

45,615,000----Total - All Races

(hyphens used to line numbers up)
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin05/hi05t9.pdf

Because socialism is about a lot more than socialized healthcare and socialized healthcare does not neccessarily have anything to do with socialism.

Socialism is about the state controlling the means of production. Socialized healthcare is about everyone having access to healthcare. Educate yourself, for fucks sake.

You, like most deluded liberals, think providing socialized medicine is only a simple matter of making health care accessible and equal for all. Your sentimentalism only addresses the inequalities of health care and your hearts bleed for the few who fall through the cracks.

What you don't really think about are the problems that develop under "socialized health care". You don't stop to think how a managed "equal" outcome leads to a huge State-run apparatus that ultimately has control over the life and death of all citizens. It discourages and shuts out the free market. That's part and parcel of socialism and why socialism fails. And who is going to run this hugemongous health care system? Why, politicians of course. Tell me, do you think politicians are really going to have YOUR personal medical care on the top of their to-do list? If you think so, you are really stuck in a sentimental world of make-believe and idealism.

More scientific numbers. "A good chunk".

Yep, a good chunk:
Here's a link from the Census Bureau that describes the Hispanic population in the U.S. Please take note of how more than two out of five Hispanics have not graduated from high schools, how Hispanics are much more likely to be unemployed than non-Hispanic whites, how Hispanics are more likely to live in poverty than non-Hispanic whites.

Hispanics represent about 12 percent of the total population but constituted 23.1 percent of the population living in poverty. Moreover, Hispanic children represented 16.2 percent of all children in the United States but constituted 29.0 percent of all children in poverty.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hispanic/p20-535/p20-535.pdf

The difference is that calling them food police is inflammatory and misleading. Especially since most of those articles about the "food police" are about public opinion. Since when does the community speaking out against something they don't like equate to "policing"?

When it gets to the point that long-time traditional food providers are having lawsuits thrown at them and they are being destroyed by forms of legal "policing" by the liberal community.

"Where's the beef?" is turning into "Where's my freedom?"

An example of the inflammatory bullshit that the site is peddling. You fell for it hook line and sinker.

Hardly. I've been aware of the food police for some time now. In fact, I never read that particular site before until I tried to find a good summary for you to read and hopefully open your mind. However I believe you are in a state of denial… and perhaps low blood sugar. Have a jelly donut.

 

[onedomino]

Ill give you two links that make your graph less impressive.


Why Do Europeans Smoke More than Americans?
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/04/why_do_european.html

Colorectal Cancer Shown to be a Smoking-Related Cancer
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/c...Cancer_Shown_To_Be_Smoking_Related_Cancer.asp

Irrelevant. The chart pertained to survival rates of people diagnosed with cancer. It had nothing to do with who gets cancer and why.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm well aware of that and never claimed they did. My point is simply that if a facility does not have the ability to make a profit and thus reinvest in itself and improve itself, what mechanism is going to take it's place? The government/you? It can't compete at that level.

It can't compete? And why not? It is getting the exact same amount of income AND it doesn't have to do profit sharing.

So you don't mind that the current date will be passed on to our children. you care so little, that you're willing to add to it?

Lets see, before you claimed that income was NOT a factor, and now you are saying that it is. Please try and be consistent.

No it doesn't count this. But again I simply don't believe in makeing 85% of the nation worse off for the sake of 15% or less. that is immoral.

But its moral to make the lives of the 15% much worse to make the 85% a little bit better. Incorrect.

I take it you agreed with slavery then? We made a small segment of the population much worse to help out the great majority. In fact, by your asinine argument, to not have slavery is itself immoral. Wonderful set of ethics you have there.

I said the numbers don't matter at all. It was an example to show how the system would need to perform in order for statement to be correct. teh example showed that it is extremely difficult.

Of COURSE the numbers matter. It is extremely difficult IF and ONLY IF you think that socialized healthcare will greatly decrease peoples access to health care. Going from NO healthcare at all, to good healthcare would obviously be a large jump in care.

Correct the system would need to be in place of course to make any comparison.

No shit sherlock.

No they aren't. If so how? The only assumptions that come into play are the three criteria I mentioned which you agreed with. And those are very educated assumptions based on the original table you provided. Again use any numbers you feel like using. All they have to do is meet those criteria. If you want to disagree with criteria by all means. then we can have a different debate. But the numbers I used fall within parameters we both agreed on.

Geh...YES they are assumptions. You just admitted they were made up. If I say "well there are between 10 and 20 million illegal immigrants in this country", you are taking that to mean that you can assume there are 20 million illegal immigrats. Those are the parameters meaning that it is definitely NOT outside of that range. That does NOT mean that any numbers inside that range are correct.

The whole point of me doing that mock exercise is to show that if indeed such a system does go into effect you're going to have to prove empiracly that it accomplishes what you said it would. To do that requires hard data. What the exercise does is show what the hard data will have to be for you (or me) to be right.

I thought a hypothetical couldn't prove anything?

Because of those criteria. You claimed that socialized medicine would lead to a healthier nation overall. But what we know is that the overall health of the nation overall after socialzation can't(hell I'll give you extremely unlikely) exceed the overall health of the 85% insured before socilzation due to diminshed quality. So you already have one barrier. Then you look at our insured to uninsured breakdown 85% to15%. mathematically the only way for the entire nation as a whole to healthier than it was before socialzation is for teh uninsured to be only slightly less healthy then the insured. Again at some point you're going to have to emprically prove that can be done meaning your going to have to do a lot of studies for a while grading people's health.

No, you just don't get it do you. The higher the current difference between the uninsured and the insured, the more room there is for improvement in the insured. This is obvious and crystal clear. I don't know what block you have in your cognitive capacities, but this is incredibly simple.

Yes it does. the point was as long as the criteria are agreed on and you choose your numbers accordingly it doesn't matter how big or small they are.
Mathematiclly it is possible for you to be right under those criteria. But only if the health of the insured decreses very little and the health of the uninsured almost doubles.

Congratulations on contradicting your previous point. The health of the uninsured goes up dramatically, which it will, and the health of the uninsured does not go down that much.

I think the example shows that an awful lot of things need to be true for you to be right, such as.

Teh health of the insured can go down very little, which really translates into the quality of our resources, physicianss, technology, etc. going down very little.

And the overall health of the once uninsured almost doubling.

Do you believe that to be likely?

Yes. Again, look at other countries. And spare me the bullshit about how its not relevant, you obviously think it is relevant since you were all about it once you found out that the responsiveness in the US is first. But then when the numbers don't support your views, you are saying well there is no way we can compare them. Hypocrisy at its finest.

No not correct. The health of the previously uninsured needs to go up dramatically while the health of the insured needs to go down very little in order for the system to be worth while.

Hi, genius, when you said "no not correct" I would assume you would then go on to say something that disagreed with my quoted point, not something that agreed with it.

This makes a big difference actually. And a point I have been trying to make. Am I off in stating that while you are uninsured currently you are not unhealthy?

You are less likely to be healthy, and more likely to be dead, if you are uninsured.

I am going to quote two things by you right next to each other to show, very clearly, that you don't even agree with yourself. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

mathematically the only way for the entire nation as a whole to healthier than it was before socialzation is for teh uninsured to be only slightly less healthy then the insured

Mathematiclly it is possible for you to be right under those criteria. But only if the health of the insured decreses very little and the health of the uninsured almost doubles.Mathematiclly it is possible for you to be right under those criteria. But only if the health of the insured decreses very little and the health of the uninsured almost doubles.

 

[Larkinn]

Sure thing. About 30% of people w/o health insurance coverage are HISPANICS. Per the Census Bureau:

People Without Health Insurance Coverage by Race and Hispanic Origin Using 3 Year Average: 2003 - 2005

21,844,000----White, non Hispanic
-7,126,000----Black
---681,000----American Indian and Alaska Native
-2,167,000----Asian
---139,000----Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
13,621,000----Hispanic Origin (any race)

45,615,000----Total - All Races

(hyphens used to line numbers up)
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin05/hi05t9.pdf

Ah yes...hispanics are the same as illegal aliens now?

You, like most deluded liberals, think providing socialized medicine is only a simple matter of making health care accessible and equal for all. Your sentimentalism only addresses the inequalities of health care and your hearts bleed for the few who fall through the cracks.

Who said it was simple? You, like most incompetent fuckwits, are unable to make a simple argument without including massive assumptions.

What you don't really think about are the problems that develop under "socialized health care". You don't stop to think how a managed "equal" outcome leads to a huge State-run apparatus that ultimately has control over the life and death of all citizens.

As opposed to the criminal justice system which is not anything like what you just described. Oh wait...yes it is.

It discourages and shuts out the free market. That's part and parcel of socialism and why socialism fails. And who is going to run this hugemongous health care system? Why, politicians of course. Tell me, do you think politicians are really going to have YOUR personal medical care on the top of their to-do list? If you think so, you are really stuck in a sentimental world of make-believe and idealism.

Do you really think corporations are really going to have YOUR personal medical care on the top of their to-do list? etc, etc.

Yep, a good chunk:
Here's a link from the Census Bureau that describes the Hispanic population in the U.S. Please take note of how more than two out of five Hispanics have not graduated from high schools, how Hispanics are much more likely to be unemployed than non-Hispanic whites, how Hispanics are more likely to live in poverty than non-Hispanic whites.

Hispanic!= illegal immigrants.

When it gets to the point that long-time traditional food providers are having lawsuits thrown at them and they are being destroyed by forms of legal "policing" by the liberal community.

I know...its terrible that when people break laws and do unethical things the justice system is there to punish them. We should probably just do away with it altogether.

By the way...please explain again how starting a lawsuit is a police action? Oh wait, its not. Which is why the asinine term doesn't apply.

"Where's the beef?" is turning into "Where's my freedom?"

Wow. What an incredibly stupid phrase. Congrats on that.

Hardly. I've been aware of the food police for some time now. In fact, I never read that particular site before until I tried to find a good summary for you to read and hopefully open your mind. However I believe you are in a state of denial… and perhaps low blood sugar. Have a jelly donut.

You've been into this conspiracy theory bullshit for some time now? Why does that not surprise me....

 

[Bern80]

It can't compete? And why not? It is getting the exact same amount of income AND it doesn't have to do profit sharing.

Because it doesn't have the monetary resources it once had now that it isn't allowed to make a profit. and how do you know what hospitals do or don't use profit sharing? Typically most companies use some percentage of their profits to reinvest in their company in some way. They technological improvements, remodel, give bonuses, increase pay, whatever. How will hospitals do those things, of they aren't allowed to make a profit?

If I understand you correctly under socialized medicine, the goverment would basically cover all of a hospitals expenses. But what system is going to put in place to manage the things usually covered under the profit margin?

Lets see, before you claimed that income was NOT a factor, and now you are saying that it is. Please try and be consistent.

Your falling into a bit of pattern. I honestly can't figure out why you quote some parts of my posts, because you don't even respond to the substance of them.

If i recall the whole point of this was I originally made an argument concerning the expense this would place on the taxpayers. You said there would be no burden to the taxpayers because the government overspends it's tax revenue all ready which was not passed onto taxpayers. All I can read into that is they will do the same for socialized medicine. My response to which was that the left often complains about this huge debt we are passing to our children. I was simply asking if you feel that is okay to add to that debt, given that's what will have to happen for socialized medicine to be properly funded without raising taxes?

But its moral to make the lives of the 15% much worse to make the 85% a little bit better. Incorrect.

I don't undertand this. If we stay the status quo, that is keep the healthcare system as it is now, those numbers should stay the same, right?

I take it you agreed with slavery then? We made a small segment of the population much worse to help out the great majority. In fact, by your asinine argument, to not have slavery is itself immoral. Wonderful set of ethics you have there.

Yes owning a human being and haveing access to health care are exactly the same thing (sarcasm).

Of COURSE the numbers matter. It is extremely difficult IF and ONLY IF you think that socialized healthcare will greatly decrease peoples access to health care.

No, I don't think that. The above seems to be a contradiction which you may have to clear up for me. Under socilaized medicine people will have less access to health care? If it's a social system everyone has access to healthcare. Why would anyone thing otherwise?

I think you are confusing what I'm saying. The whole big picture with the math examples I tried to show and all that was that it would be prudent at some point to see if the system you propose would actually yield positive results before we just up and do it.

No shit sherlock.

It is difficult to debate people when they continue to be condescending even when they try to agree with you.

Geh...YES they are assumptions. You just admitted they were made up. If I say "well there are between 10 and 20 million illegal immigrants in this country", you are taking that to mean that you can assume there are 20 million illegal immigrats. Those are the parameters meaning that it is definitely NOT outside of that range. That does NOT mean that any numbers inside that range are correct.

An assumption is a guess based on some evidence, accurate or otherwise, of something that isn't known.

I thought a hypothetical couldn't prove anything?

It's not a hypothetical. It's a framework to test the outcomes of different variable and their reaction to each other.

No, you just don't get it do you. The higher the current difference between the uninsured and the insured, the more room there is for improvement in the insured.

I agree with the first part of that. But part of it I thought we also agreed on was that under socialized medicine the quality of care for the currently insured will not likely improve, did we not agree on that?

If we don't agree on that, could you specifcally explain how your statement would be true?

Congratulations on contradicting your previous point. The health of the uninsured goes up dramatically, which it will, and the health of the uninsured does not go down that much.

I'm not contradicting myself. If your done telling me how stupid I am, allow me to point out something you aren't grasping.

I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT CAN OR CAN'T HAPPEN. I AM MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT WILL NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOUR ARGUMENT TO BE CORRECT. WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITHIN SOME PARAMETERS. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT GIVEN MANY CURRENT FACTORS IT ISN'T LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

Yes. Again, look at other countries. And spare me the bullshit about how its not relevant, you obviously think it is relevant since you were all about it once you found out that the responsiveness in the US is first. But then when the numbers don't support your views, you are saying well there is no way we can compare them. Hypocrisy at its finest.

I believe I have said on multiple occasions the numbers do support my views. that hasn't changed. My view, which the numbers back up, is that in terms of our facilities, physicians and technology, (what am I calling quality of care) the U.S. is near the top. Which comes at the expense of unequal distribution of healthcare cost as well as coverage, which the numbers also back up. The socialized medicine countries show the opposite; that healthcare burden is more evenly distributed and provides universal coverage at teh expense of phyisicians, facilities and technology (again my defintion of quality of care)

Hi, genius, when you said "no not correct" I would assume you would then go on to say something that disagreed with my quoted point, not something that agreed with it.

Sorry, it was a response to a statement I really didn't understand in the first place. At the very least I think we have determined with both agree with the above?

If so, what I'm really trying to get is that likely given the factors in place?

I am going to quote two things by you right next to each other to show, very clearly, that you don't even agree with yourself. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Then you're gonna have to spell it out for me like I'm a 5 yr old cause I don't see the contradiction. We both agreed with the first statement you quoted there, right?

How is the second one a contradiction? The first statement says this is what needs to be true for you to be correct.

the second statement says it is possible for you to be correct under the parameters I used.

Did your brain somehow stick an 'im' in front of the 'possible'?

In an attempt to steer this back on course I'll ask; am I still right in saying that your claim is that socialized medicine will lead to overall healthier nation?

If so, I was simply trying to show that what needs to be the case for that be correct. I am not making any statement that it can't be done or is completely impossible. What I am saying is there are many factors that are greatly impeding the likely hood that that statement would turn out to be correct.

All I am trying to show is that at some point you have scientifically prove that you accomplished what you said it would. The numbers exercise I did was one possible method of doing that.

You still have yet to explain how the numbers I used are assumptions. They aren't assumption there just number that fall within parameters and is simply meant to show what the numbers need to be in order for the system to work as you say it will.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ah yes...hispanics are the same as illegal aliens now?

I was pointing out to you that 30% of those without health insurance are Hispanic….which equates to about 15 million. 15 mil is about HALF of all Hispanics (30 mil) in the United States. Are you going to tell me that all Hispanics in the U.S. are legal? Remember, the Census Bureau counts ALL…whether they are legal or illegal.

Who said it was simple? You, like most incompetent fuckwits, are unable to make a simple argument without including massive assumptions.

If it is not simple then please explain the not-so-simple parts of your big Socialist plan for health care. Specifically, can you explain how you are going to provide continuous top notch care without increasing costs?

As opposed to the criminal justice system which is not anything like what you just described. Oh wait...yes it is.

What does that have to do with it? But hey, I'm all for a privatized jail system...we could outsource criminals to the Chinese and save a bundle.

Do you really think corporations are really going to have YOUR personal medical care on the top of their to-do list? etc, etc.

No, corporations always have profit at the top of their list. HOWEVER, if I have control of where to spend my dollar, the corporations are going to have to CHASE my dollar which means they will have to provide competitive care in order to stay in business. That means I get the best bang for my buck.

Hispanic!= illegal immigrants.

Yes, it does appear to be about 50% of them.

I know...its terrible that when people break laws and do unethical things the justice system is there to punish them. We should probably just do away with it altogether.

By the way...please explain again how starting a lawsuit is a police action? Oh wait, its not. Which is why the asinine term doesn't apply.

Wow. What an incredibly stupid phrase. Congrats on that.

You've been into this conspiracy theory bullshit for some time now? Why does that not surprise me....

I think I will refrain from discussing this topic with you anymore as your mind is totally closed to it and nothing but mindless gibberish and juvenile insults seep out.

 

[red states rule]

Talking to Larkin is like lowering your head, running full speed, and crashing your head into the wall

It hurts like hell, and accomplishes nothing

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ah yes...hispanics are the same as illegal aliens now?

I was pointing out to you that 30% of those without health insurance are Hispanic….which equates to about 15 million. 15 mil is about HALF of all Hispanics (30 mil) in the United States. Are you going to tell me that all Hispanics in the U.S. are legal? Remember, the Census Bureau counts ALL…whether they are legal or illegal.

Who said it was simple? You, like most incompetent fuckwits, are unable to make a simple argument without including massive assumptions.

If it is not simple then please explain the not-so-simple parts of your big Socialist plan for health care. Specifically, can you explain how you are going to provide continuous top notch care without increasing costs?

As opposed to the criminal justice system which is not anything like what you just described. Oh wait...yes it is.

What does that have to do with it? But hey, I'm all for a privatized jail system...we could outsource criminals to the Chinese and save a bundle.

Do you really think corporations are really going to have YOUR personal medical care on the top of their to-do list? etc, etc.

No, corporations always have profit at the top of their list. HOWEVER, if I have control of where to spend my dollar, the corporations are going to have to CHASE my dollar which means they will have to provide competitive care in order to stay in business. That means I get the best bang for my buck.

Hispanic!= illegal immigrants.

Yes, it does appear to be about 50% of them.

I know...its terrible that when people break laws and do unethical things the justice system is there to punish them. We should probably just do away with it altogether.

By the way...please explain again how starting a lawsuit is a police action? Oh wait, its not. Which is why the asinine term doesn't apply.

Wow. What an incredibly stupid phrase. Congrats on that.

You've been into this conspiracy theory bullshit for some time now? Why does that not surprise me....

I think I will refrain from discussing this topic with you anymore as your mind is totally closed to it and nothing but mindless gibberish and juvenile insults seep out.

 

[Larkinn]

Because it doesn't have the monetary resources it once had now that it isn't allowed to make a profit. and how do you know what hospitals do or don't use profit sharing? Typically most companies use some percentage of their profits to reinvest in their company in some way. They technological improvements, remodel, give bonuses, increase pay, whatever. How will hospitals do those things, of they aren't allowed to make a profit?

We are talking about Insurance companies who make massive profits. And the government has the monetary resources to make improvements.

If I understand you correctly under socialized medicine, the goverment would basically cover all of a hospitals expenses. But what system is going to put in place to manage the things usually covered under the profit margin?

There are many different ways of doing it. And the government can take care of that as well.

Your falling into a bit of pattern. I honestly can't figure out why you quote some parts of my posts, because you don't even respond to the substance of them.

What substance? You making assumptions about my beliefs because I tend to agree ideologically with contemporary liberals? Sorry, that doesn't count as substance.

If i recall the whole point of this was I originally made an argument concerning the expense this would place on the taxpayers. You said there would be no burden to the taxpayers because the government overspends it's tax revenue all ready which was not passed onto taxpayers. All I can read into that is they will do the same for socialized medicine. My response to which was that the left often complains about this huge debt we are passing to our children. I was simply asking if you feel that is okay to add to that debt, given that's what will have to happen for socialized medicine to be properly funded without raising taxes?

Yes, it is ok to add to the debt if it means saving lives.

I don't undertand this. If we stay the status quo, that is keep the healthcare system as it is now, those numbers should stay the same, right?

Yes...which is why I was saying that is NOT moral...hence the "incorrect" at the end of my statement.

Yes owning a human being and haveing access to health care are exactly the same thing (sarcasm).

No, they aren't. But the argument you are using can easily be used to justify slavery.

No, I don't think that. The above seems to be a contradiction which you may have to clear up for me. Under socilaized medicine people will have less access to health care? If it's a social system everyone has access to healthcare. Why would anyone thing otherwise?

Waiting lists and such.

I think you are confusing what I'm saying. The whole big picture with the math examples I tried to show and all that was that it would be prudent at some point to see if the system you propose would actually yield positive results before we just up and do it.

And we can't do that. Not me and you, and not anyone who hasn't done an extensive study on it to try and quantify such things as how many people die from waiting lists, how many people will be saved/helped by having access when before they didn't, etc, etc. Things that me and you can't quantify. Sure, we can make up numbers that will be within large sets...but we have no idea really.

It is difficult to debate people when they continue to be condescending even when they try to agree with you.

You were agreeing with me after disagreeing with me and saying we could crunch the numbers and do a comparison BEFORE we tried it.

An assumption is a guess based on some evidence, accurate or otherwise, of something that isn't known.

Incorrect. An assumption is a guess...sometimes based on evidence, sometimes not. Also sometimes people make assumptions about things that are known...they just don't have the knowledge to make them accurately.

It's not a hypothetical. It's a framework to test the outcomes of different variable and their reaction to each other.

Using imaginary numbers...a.k.a. hypothetical.

I agree with the first part of that. But part of it I thought we also agreed on was that under socialized medicine the quality of care for the currently insured will not likely improve, did we not agree on that?

I said it badly...it would be the newly insured. That is people who were previously uninsured and are now insured.

I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT CAN OR CAN'T HAPPEN. I AM MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT WILL NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOUR ARGUMENT TO BE CORRECT. WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITHIN SOME PARAMETERS. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT GIVEN MANY CURRENT FACTORS IT ISN'T LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

It isn't likely to happen if you make up the numbers to support your view.

I believe I have said on multiple occasions the numbers do support my views. that hasn't changed. My view, which the numbers back up, is that in terms of our facilities, physicians and technology, (what am I calling quality of care) the U.S. is near the top. Which comes at the expense of unequal distribution of healthcare cost as well as coverage, which the numbers also back up. The socialized medicine countries show the opposite; that healthcare burden is more evenly distributed and provides universal coverage at teh expense of phyisicians, facilities and technology (again my defintion of quality of care)

And we've already gone over that I think it is a stupid definition of quality of care. Who cares if you've got the best surgeons in the world if nobody can afford them?

Then you're gonna have to spell it out for me like I'm a 5 yr old cause I don't see the contradiction. We both agreed with the first statement you quoted there, right?

How is the second one a contradiction? The first statement says this is what needs to be true for you to be correct.

the second statement says it is possible for you to be correct under the parameters I used.

In the first you claim that the only way for me to be right is for the curretly insured be "slightly less" healthy than the uninsured. This is incorrect. It is contradicted by the claim that "But only if the health of the insured decreses very little and the health of the uninsured almost doubles.Mathematiclly it is possible for you to be right under those criteria. But only if the health of the insured decreses very little and the health of the uninsured almost doubles.". The health of the previously insured must decrease a percentage of the gain for the newly insured (The insured need to decrease about 20% of the increase for the newly insured).

In an attempt to steer this back on course I'll ask; am I still right in saying that your claim is that socialized medicine will lead to overall healthier nation?

Yes.

If so, I was simply trying to show that what needs to be the case for that be correct. I am not making any statement that it can't be done or is completely impossible. What I am saying is there are many factors that are greatly impeding the likely hood that that statement would turn out to be correct.

You seem to think that if I say that the possibilities for something are between 0 and 100 that they will always average towards 50. This is incorrect. We have no idea what it will average towards.

All I am trying to show is that at some point you have scientifically prove that you accomplished what you said it would. The numbers exercise I did was one possible method of doing that.

I can't scientifically prove it. Thats why I am arguing it....thats why it is open for discussion (err then again evolution and global warming might be points against that)

You still have yet to explain how the numbers I used are assumptions. They aren't assumption there just number that fall within parameters and is simply meant to show what the numbers need to be in order for the system to work as you say it will.

[/quote]

You were giving numbers and saying my system won't work because the numbers you assumed don't make it work.