NationStates

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

For the lines and waiting, this is not going to be Canada where they have banned insurance companies so your argument is mute.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

Brewdomia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Buxtahatche wrote:Still wondering if any of the idiots in Washington notice that every time they start talking about screwing with health care, their numbers get WORSE... especially the ones that are pushing the hardest and listening the least?

But then again, Washington is just as disconnected from the populace which the lord over as Rome ever was... and Washington will face the same fall- sooner rather than later if they do not stop running the country bankrupt. As much as bastard as he was, Wallace was right- there's not a dime's difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Both want to rob you; they just use different excuses.

I am afraid it is already too late. Over the coming decades the standard of living will decline by 25% or more. More if cap and trade is passed.

You're not a fortune-teller. What you can show that happens today, or happened yesterday is fair game.

Your prophecy is cute, but not evidence.


As it happens, I basically agree with you about the decline in standard of living- but possibly not for the same reasons.

At least I got cute. And the decline of the standard of living. For whatever reason. I do not really care what causes it. I care that it happens. For, I will not be as well off. And my children will be much worse off. And so on.

Standard of living? Will decline? May I ask how you know?

Jocabia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Are you aware that the Canadian system is not being proposed in the US?

More importantly, I'll ask again, why is waiting in line worse than dying?

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

I Object: Tu quoque fallacy.

Jocabia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Are you aware that the Canadian system is not being proposed in the US?

More importantly, I'll ask again, why is waiting in line worse than dying?

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Show me a source that says we are dying in the streets. This is not about healthcare. It is about losing your home after illness to pay for the healthcare.

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

I Object: Tu quoque fallacy.

WTF?

Sibirsky wrote:

Brewdomia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Buxtahatche wrote:Still wondering if any of the idiots in Washington notice that every time they start talking about screwing with health care, their numbers get WORSE... especially the ones that are pushing the hardest and listening the least?

But then again, Washington is just as disconnected from the populace which the lord over as Rome ever was... and Washington will face the same fall- sooner rather than later if they do not stop running the country bankrupt. As much as bastard as he was, Wallace was right- there's not a dime's difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Both want to rob you; they just use different excuses.

I am afraid it is already too late. Over the coming decades the standard of living will decline by 25% or more. More if cap and trade is passed.

You're not a fortune-teller. What you can show that happens today, or happened yesterday is fair game.

Your prophecy is cute, but not evidence.


As it happens, I basically agree with you about the decline in standard of living- but possibly not for the same reasons.

At least I got cute. And the decline of the standard of living. For whatever reason. I do not really care what causes it. I care that it happens. For, I will not be as well off. And my children will be much worse off. And so on.

Standard of living? Will decline? May I ask how you know?

How will the standard of living improve? Name one policy recently enacted, or proposed that will improve it. It will decline, because of a number of things. Not all of them may come true, but enough (I so fucking hope I am wrong) of them to decline the standard of living. Debt. Immense debt. Which will cause higher taxes. Which will cause lower growth. A declining dollar. Caused by this massive spending. High inflation. Caused by this massive spending. Loss of jobs caused by higher taxes and the coming cap and trade bill (if it gets passed).

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Are you aware that the Canadian system is not being proposed in the US?

More importantly, I'll ask again, why is waiting in line worse than dying?

Show me a source that says we are dying in the streets. This is not about healthcare. It is about losing your home after illness to pay for the healthcare.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

I Object: Tu quoque fallacy.

WTF?

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index. ... opic=28926
Look it up.

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Show me a source that says we are dying in the streets. This is not about healthcare. It is about losing your home after illness to pay for the healthcare.

You are only entitled to emergency care. Thousands of people die in the US every year due to lack of access to care.

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:At least I got cute. And the decline of the standard of living. For whatever reason. I do not really care what causes it. I care that it happens. For, I will not be as well off. And my children will be much worse off. And so on.

How it happens is relevent to how we fix it.

I'd say one of the biggest problems with the solutions that some people are putting forth is that we're required to ignore evidence. We're required to ignore that our current healthcare system is the most expensive in the world and we get less for it. We're supposed to ignore that EVERY more efficient system in history that resulted in improved longevity, quality of life and infant mortality has not been a free market system. I'm sure it's frustrating when the evidence doesn't support the outcome you want, but you can't just throw up your hands and go, "well, I'm guessing it'll have the same result so whatev."

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Are you aware that the Canadian system is not being proposed in the US?

More importantly, I'll ask again, why is waiting in line worse than dying?

Oh and I object: Argumentum ad populum

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Show me a source that says we are dying in the streets. This is not about healthcare. It is about losing your home after illness to pay for the healthcare.

You are only entitled to emergency care. Thousands of people die in the US every year due to lack of access to care.

I Object: Appeal to Emotion

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

I Object: Tu quoque fallacy.

WTF?

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index. ... opic=28926
Look it up.

Are you going to provide an actual argument or play stupid word games?

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Medicare should be abolished. It is a program for the elderly. If you are elderly and poor, and unable to get coverage on your own, than Medicaid should cover you. Otherwise, buy your own coverage like everybody else. Under current law, in 2021 Bill Gates (the richest man in the world) will be eligible for Medicare. Will he use it? Of course not. But should he be eligible? There are many people with means for their own coverage that do use Medicare.

It's a program for the elderly because health insurance is a loser on the elderly. No insurance companies would provide at an even remotely affordable rate. The only reason the elderly can get coverage now is because medicare exists. The design of the medicare and medicaid is similar but their purposes are different and that's why they both exist. They're as independently necessary as welfare and unemployment.

Sibirsky wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:At least I got cute. And the decline of the standard of living. For whatever reason. I do not really care what causes it. I care that it happens. For, I will not be as well off. And my children will be much worse off. And so on.

How it happens is relevent to how we fix it.

I'd say one of the biggest problems with the solutions that some people are putting forth is that we're required to ignore evidence. We're required to ignore that our current healthcare system is the most expensive in the world and we get less for it. We're supposed to ignore that EVERY more efficient system in history that resulted in improved longevity, quality of life and infant mortality has not been a free market system. I'm sure it's frustrating when the evidence doesn't support the outcome you want, but you can't just throw up your hands and go, "well, I'm guessing it'll have the same result so whatev."

That is incorrect. The United States enjoys a relatively high standard of living due to the free market. The government helped, by mainly, staying the fuck out of the way. As far as the cost per person (and total, obviously) for healthcare you are correct. But I propose actual ways to cut costs. And a real way to control the rise of those costs after they have been cut. Congress, or the Senate, propose no such thing.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

I Object: Tu quoque fallacy.

WTF?

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index. ... opic=28926
Look it up.

Are you going to provide an actual argument or play stupid word games?

Hmm. Are you? I did, you used the "you too" arguement. I posted a blog as a source, so did you? So?

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Hmm. Are you? I did, you used the "you too" arguement. I posted a blog as a source, so did you? So?

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Brewdomia wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

Peisandros wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

I Object: Tu quoque fallacy.

WTF?

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index. ... opic=28926
Look it up.

Are you going to provide an actual argument or play stupid word games?

Hmm. Are you? I did, you used the "you too" arguement. I posted a blog as a source, so did you? So?

What? When the fuck did I post a blog as argument?

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Show me a source that says we are dying in the streets. This is not about healthcare. It is about losing your home after illness to pay for the healthcare.

You are only entitled to emergency care. Thousands of people die in the US every year due to lack of access to care.

I Object: Appeal to Emotion