The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[red states rule]

Yawn

 

[Bern80]

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

then why have other countries with socialized medicine not been able to stay on the cutting edge of technology like the U.S. has?

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

Have you looked at government approval rating lately? You really want to to rely on them to to keep the medical industry in tip top shape?

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

And you don't see the downward spiral that will create in terms of the amont of income people get to keep for themselves?

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

One could try I suppose. I doubt they would succeed

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.

And that is what you refuse to accept. I have tried to explain the math it in extremely simplistic terms.

There is an avg level of health for 100% of the population. that can be quanitifed or be given a score of some type.

that is not an assumption.

The score of that 100% is comprised of 85% of that are insured and 15% that are not insured.

that is not an assumption.

Now all we have left is the question. Under those parameters how is it possible to raise the avg health score of 100% of the population under socialized medicine? We don't know exactley what would happen, but we do know some of the factors in play.

The following I believe you have agreed to, correct me if Im wrong.

Under socialized medicine the quality of care for the 85% insured is not likely to improve. Articles on socialzed medicine show that socialized medcine coutnries lag behind in terms of technology the original table you presented reflects this as well.

I think you can see that that makes what you are claiming that much more difficult to achieve.

And even if none of the above is true, why would you want to jump head long into a reform not knowing whether or not it will work?

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

and again the numbers are not imaginary. You don't even need to use numbers. You can use an equation as long as the equation falls within the paramters we agreed on. Once you have the equation set up then you can play with numbers to see which ones need to be used to make you correct. When you find that out you can apply that to real life and determine if the numbers you used are pracitcal or nto. I also showed numbers that can be used where you would be correct. The numbers set to do that however is much smaller than the set of numbers that could be used where you would be incorrect. This isn't imaginary at all. At some point it is what someone is going to actually do. And it was a simple example of the many possiblities that the data may reveal once that study is done.

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

Again I also showed numbers that support yours. The problem is the numbers you need to use to make that so are fewer than the ones that need to be used to not make it so.

And we've already gone over that I think it is a stupid definition of quality of care.

Think whatever you want. On this one you're wrong. You can't measure nothing.

Who cares if you've got the best surgeons in the world if nobody can afford them?

quality of something is a measurement of whether something is good or bad. Maybe the surgeon is the best surgeon in the world, but by your argument because no one can afford him he is a bad surgeon, right?

Whether a product or service is affordable or not has nothing to do with the product's quality.

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).

That sounds about right, sorry if it was confusing (or if I confused myself accidentally) the real question is is that likely? And will the increase in health of the newly insured overcome that drop enough to make 100% of the population healthier over all?

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.

They should. Do the math sometime. If you have 100 cards numbered 1 -100 and you draw say 50 out of the hat (or how ever many you want) and you draw out x number of cards, x number of times, the avg of the sum of those x number of cards drawn x number of time is going to be about 50.

But what we have in real life is not 100 cards numbers 1 - 100. We have still have a hundred cards with numbers on them between 1 and 100, but 85 of them have an avg of x on them and 15 of them have an avg of something less than x on them. If you do the same exercise I think you can see the numbers are most likely going to be something greater then 50

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)

Not right now no. But if the system is put in place some will then be able to. And the chances of you being right simply aren't that good.

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

What I'm saying is that the set of numbers that need to be used to make your argument work is much smaller than the set of numbers that make my argument work. I can as easlily find the numbers that make your argument work. There are fewer mathematical ways that prove your argument correct under the parameters than their are mine. the quesition is, is it reasonable to beleive that those odds can be overcome in your favor.

The two main reason I say it is unlikely is because 1)Our government has shown how completely inept it is at running anything efficiently and 2) the proportion of insured to uninsured makes it very difficult for your statement to be correct.

 

[red states rule]

Do you need some Tylenol yet?

You have been banging your head against the wall all day

 

[Annie]

Nothing new, but the post does imply, along with Will's article, that Roosevelt was dealing with the present, not perhaps long term. He's thinking and actions were as innovative as those of the Founding Fathers. It didn't work, but has lasted. Links at site, the Will's column is certainly worth reading:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010469.php

July 8, 2007
Culture Of Entitlements Started With FDR

George Will reminds us of when we began moving towards federal bankruptcy, and why, in today's column about Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Long admired as the man who saved America from economic disaster and potential revolution, FDR also begat the large-scale government spending programs that failed to reolve the economic crisis, but instead set us on the path for another:

In 1937, during the depression within the Depression, there occurred the steepest drop in industrial production ever recorded. By January 1938 the unemployment rate was back up to 17.4 percent. The war, not the New Deal, defeated the Depression. Franklin Roosevelt's success was in altering the practice of American politics.

This transformation was actually assisted by the misguided policies -- including government-created uncertainties that paralyzed investors -- that prolonged the Depression. This seemed to validate the notion that the crisis was permanent, so government must be forever hyperactive.

In his second inaugural address, Roosevelt sought "unimagined power" to enforce the "proper subordination" of private power to public power. He got it, and the fact that the federal government he created now seems utterly unexceptional suggests a need for what Amity Shlaes does in a new book. She takes thorough exception to the government he created.

Republicans had long practiced limited interest-group politics on behalf of business with tariffs, gifts of land to railroads and other corporate welfare. Roosevelt, however, made interest-group politics systematic and routine. New Deal policies were calculated to create many constituencies -- labor, retirees, farmers, union members -- to be dependent on government.​

Will's prinary point isn't to discredit FDR, a president faced with an unprecedented catastrophe when elected to office, but to explore the failures of government imposition of scarcity. In the Depression, everything became scarce -- goods, food, even work itself. Rather than attempt to bolster capital investment in the economy, FDR decided instead to assume federal control of the economy and ration on the basis of scarcity.

In taking that approach, FDR deliberately grew the federal government into a huge bureaucracy in order to control the economy down to the smallest level. At the end of his first term, the federal government surpassed the spending of all states and localities inside the US combined, for the first time in peacetime history -- and it has done so continuously since.

Seeing jobs as a scarce resource, FDR provided Social Security to get older workers to retire and free up jobs for young adults. Given the restless nature of unemployed youth, this could be seen as a completely different kind of security program. It may have been intended to head off a Bolshevik overthrow of the US, considered a real threat at the time. That, at least, would be a reasonable basis for what turned into a Ponzi scheme over the next few decades.

However, it didn't work as promised. By 1938, the Depression had only lengthened and deepened. Despite all of the WPA programs, Social Security, and other top-down solutions offered by FDR in his scarcity-management program, unemployment rose again to over 17% -- meaning one in six American workers had no job. In desperation and faced with an antagonistic Congress, FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court in order to bypass the legislature -- certainly another pattern that would arise again in American politics. Wendell Wilkie scolded FDR for his attempt to rule by fiat, and the notion died.

What saved us from the Depression? World War II. Even before our entry, the US began tooling up for war as the "arsenal of democracy". We skirted the legal strictures of neutrality through the Lend-Lease Act and began providing military supplies for Britain, and later the Soviet Union. FDR also started building up the American military, seeing clearly that war would soon come to the US from one direction or the other. Unlike FDR's other economic policies, this buildup utilized the private sector for competition and ingenuity -- and it put America back to work.

Ever since, we have struggled with the legacy of the overmighty federal government. FDR's radical approach to economic disaster, which ultimately failed, remains a millstone on our economy and our liberties. It's time to rethink the FDR approach and return to a streamlined and properly scaled federal government.

 

[red states rule]

FDR did lay the foundation to the entitlement mentality we have today

 

[Bern80]

Do you need some Tylenol yet?

You have been banging your head against the wall all day

Nah, not yet.

At some point you have to have an actual plan for these ideas and actually test them out via a model of some sort to see if they'll work. I'm not a scientist but I am plenty confident in my example. We already know plenty of the factors in place, so we can really make a reasonable hypothesis as to whether socialized medicine would work here. Maybe it works in other countries great, but some things you can compare and some things you can't. We aren't other countries. To think that because it works in France it will work here for no other reason than that it works in France makes no sense. Their are too many other variables in play.

 

[red states rule]

Nah, not yet.

At some point you have to have an actual plan for these ideas and actually test them out via a model of some sort to see if they'll work. I'm not a scientist but I am plenty confident in my example. We already know plenty of the factors in place, so we can really make a reasonable hypothesis as to whether socialized medicine would work here. Maybe it works in other countries great, but some things you can compare and some things you can't. We aren't other countries. To think that because it works in France it will work here for no other reason than that it works in France makes no sense. Their are too many other variables in play.

RJK Jr says it is treason if you don't beleive in global warming.(and other liberal causes) Yes, they do walk among us

 

[Bern80]

RJK Jr says it is treason if you don't beleive in global warming.(and other liberal causes) Yes, they do walk among us

Your Michael Moore link was particularily timely given this thread. At least Larkinn and I should be able to agree on the numbers seeing as how Moore cited the exact same ones.

 

[red states rule]

Your Michael Moore link was particularily timely given this thread. At least Larkinn and I should be able to agree on the numbers seeing as how Moore cited the exact same ones.

Libs never stop providing great material

 

[Bern80]

Feel free to respond to post 302 if you like larkinn, but it eventually got me to wondering why your still interested in proving that particular point: That socialized medicine will mean a healthier nation overall.

Many of your posts have a claimed a level of morality and ethics in the debate, why not stick to that? If your claiming this is best on ethical grounds shouldn't it be enough that everyone has access to healthcare whether the quality - as I, pretty much everyone else and the dictionary define it - goes down or not?

 

[red states rule]

Feel free to respond to post 302 if you like larkinn, but it eventually got me to wondering why your still interested in proving that particular point: That socialized medicine will mean a healthier nation overall.

Many of your posts have a claimed a level of morality and ethics in the debate, why not stick to that? If your claiming this is best on ethical grounds shouldn't it be enough that everyone has access to healthcare whether the quality - as I, pretty much everyone else and the dictionary define it - goes down or not?

Hope you packed a lunch - it will be awhile

 

[Bern80]

Hope you packed a lunch - it will be awhile

I saw him sneak in here briefly today, but alas I seem to have lost my sparring partner.

 

[red states rule]

I saw him sneak in here briefly today, but alas I seem to have lost my sparring partner.

There are plenty of libs on the board right now you can beat up

 

[Larkinn]

I haven't been posting as much because I, as I said before, have been working. It also gets annoying when rsr shits on every thread in existence and very few people here seem to be able to have an argument without referring to the evil liberals who seem to embody every evil in existence merely because of their ideological view. But, since you seem to be so insistent, here you go.

then why have other countries with socialized medicine not been able to stay on the cutting edge of technology like the U.S. has?

The US spends vastly more than any other country does.

Have you looked at government approval rating lately? You really want to to rely on them to to keep the medical industry in tip top shape?

That is Congressional approval ratings. Make it a completely independent body and it will do much better.

And you don't see the downward spiral that will create in terms of the amont of income people get to keep for themselves?

I am not an economist. There are many who say that debt is good, and many who say it is bad. I reserve judgement considering I haven't studied the economy nor do I have an education in economics like these folks do.

One could try I suppose. I doubt they would succeed

Actually its a perfectly logical justification of slavery. If you believe that principle you ought to believe slavery is acceptable.

Under socialized medicine the quality of care for the 85% insured is not likely to improve. Articles on socialzed medicine show that socialized medcine coutnries lag behind in terms of technology the original table you presented reflects this as well.

I think you can see that that makes what you are claiming that much more difficult to achieve.

And even if none of the above is true, why would you want to jump head long into a reform not knowing whether or not it will work?

Err if the quality for the 85% doesn't improve, it doesn't matter. What matters is if it goes down, and how much it goes down.

You never know exactly how a reform will work or not. Thats life.

The numbers set to do that however is much smaller than the set of numbers that could be used where you would be incorrect. This isn't imaginary at all. At some point it is what someone is going to actually do. And it was a simple example of the many possiblities that the data may reveal once that study is done.

This is true if and only if each number has the same probability of happening, which I don't think is the case.

Think whatever you want. On this one you're wrong. You can't measure nothing.

I think its been pretty well established by now that zero is a number.

They should. Do the math sometime. If you have 100 cards numbered 1 -100 and you draw say 50 out of the hat (or how ever many you want) and you draw out x number of cards, x number of times, the avg of the sum of those x number of cards drawn x number of time is going to be about 50.

How much the health improves/decreases for various groups is not a random probability, it is something that happens as a result of actions.

The lack of information about how much things will increase/decrease does not justify you acting as if its random. Its not. It has to do with a variety of factors.

 

[red states rule]

I haven't been posting as much because I, as I said before, have been working. It also gets annoying when rsr shits on every thread in existence and very few people here seem to be able to have an argument without referring to the evil liberals who seem to embody every evil in existence merely because of their ideological view. But, since you seem to be so insistent, here you go.



Libs are not evil - just arrogant fools who think they know it all

 

[Larkinn]

I haven't been posting as much because I, as I said before, have been working. It also gets annoying when rsr shits on every thread in existence and very few people here seem to be able to have an argument without referring to the evil liberals who seem to embody every evil in existence merely because of their ideological view. But, since you seem to be so insistent, here you go.



Libs are not evil - just arrogant fools who think they know it all

As opposed to you who posts in every single thread because you feel as if you always have something meaningful to say?

 

[red states rule]

As opposed to you who posts in every single thread because you feel as if you always have something meaningful to say?

Libs never want to hear the truth about what they really stand for and they want to do to America

 

[Larkinn]

You called me arrogant, but yet you think that you can tell others "what they really stand for, and what they want to do" ?

 

[red states rule]

You called me arrogant, but yet you think that you can tell others "what they really stand for, and what they want to do" ?

Liberals do that everyday

and if you disagree with them you are guilty of treason

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Many of your posts have a claimed a level of morality and ethics in the debate, why not stick to that? If your claiming this is best on ethical grounds shouldn't it be enough that everyone has access to healthcare whether the quality - as I, pretty much everyone else and the dictionary define it - goes down or not?

He claims "higher moral authority" but he has not explained why that gives anyone the RIGHT TO TAKE from the rich (and the middle class) and forcefully give to the poor or to anybody who prefers to not to work for a living. In our country everyone has the freedom and the right to get rich if he so chooses to make the effort. Including doctors. People also have the freedom to be poor if that is how they choose to live their life. Being poor does not give you the RIGHT to take things from others. Socialized medicine is just another sentimental socialist scam to redistribute wealth and to control people.