US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Sibirsky]

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?

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.

That's economics. Liberals and economics do not mix.

[Jocabia]

Sorry. Mey Culpa. That was Peisandros.

It was his way of pointing out that your source is easily countered with a similar better source and calling for a better one from you. Again, stop using those fallacies. You don't understand them.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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

Ignoring the author confusion for a moment, he did it to prove a point, specifically, that the burden of proof is still on you. So no, he didn't engage in any logical fallacies. Fail.

I cant use a blog as a source? OK then I rescind my answer until I can find a more suitable source? Fair?

[Brewdomia]

Sorry. Mey Culpa. That was Peisandros.

That wasn't a blog.

[Jocabia]

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?

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.

That's economics. Liberals and economics do not mix.

Ah, and here we go. Your arguments failed so now you're resorting to insults.

You don't notice that the person you're now cheerleading isn't actually talking about the system being proposed or making a remotely valid comparison? Any friend in a firefight, eh?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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

Like I said, it's clear you don't know what the purpose of pointing out a fallacy is.

How many people die in a healthcare system is a relevant measure of the system. I really think you're over your head and you're not sure what to do about it, so I'll give you a hint: start addressing the arguments instead of avoiding them.

He said we were dying in the streets. Show me a source for that.

[Jocabia]

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

Like I said, it's clear you don't know what the purpose of pointing out a fallacy is.

How many people die in a healthcare system is a relevant measure of the system. I really think you're over your head and you're not sure what to do about it, so I'll give you a hint: start addressing the arguments instead of avoiding them.

He said we were dying in the streets. Show me a source for that.

He did? Where? He only said they were dying and I provided a source for that. It provides reference to studies on the matter. It's pretty well accepted that our current system is killing people. There is some debate as to how many. Again, please, please, educate yourself on this subject before continuing.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

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

Like I said, it's clear you don't know what the purpose of pointing out a fallacy is.

How many people die in a healthcare system is a relevant measure of the system. I really think you're over your head and you're not sure what to do about it, so I'll give you a hint: start addressing the arguments instead of avoiding them.

He said we were dying in the streets. Show me a source for that.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 8.157685v1


It's not a blog either!

[Sibirsky]

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?

Plenty and abound. Really, there is no question based just on the Canadian health tourism industry to the US. Obviously, Canadians with means to pay for it, but it happens. Because of the shorter wait times. On average, Canada has 1 MRI machine per 2 million residents, vs the US' 160 thousand. Try to get an MRI real quick in Canada

[Peisandros]

Sorry. Mey Culpa. That was Peisandros.

Indeed. Now, the onus is on you to provide a reliable source. I'm still waiting. A source that shows that waiting times in countries that have universal healthcare are longer than they are in America currently.

[Jocabia]

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).

All evidence suggests that a universal system will increase our general health. That's an increase in the standard of living. Frankly, I don't care if I can afford a fourth television if I have to run the risk of being bankrupted or killed by our healthcare system.

[Peisandros]

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?

Plenty and abound. Really, there is no question based just on the Canadian health tourism industry to the US. Obviously, Canadians with means to pay for it, but it happens. Because of the shorter wait times. On average, Canada has 1 MRI machine per 2 million residents, vs the US' 160 thousand. Try to get an MRI real quick in Canada

Canada is one country with a pretty fucked up system. If that's the only source you have, it's amazingly ignorant.

[Brewdomia]

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?

Plenty and abound. Really, there is no question based just on the Canadian health tourism industry to the US. Obviously, Canadians with means to pay for it, but it happens. Because of the shorter wait times. On average, Canada has 1 MRI machine per 2 million residents, vs the US' 160 thousand. Try to get an MRI real quick in Canada

Or he could try France which is the closest to the system being proposed in the US.

[Sibirsky]

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.

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

Waiting time increase - thank you for admitting it.
Decrease of cost of services - how do we know, it is not because of lower quality? We can decrease costs by other means.
Increase of result - do you mean more people covered? If not, please elaborate.
I never said, what we have now is the prefect system, and needs no reform.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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

Like I said, it's clear you don't know what the purpose of pointing out a fallacy is.

How many people die in a healthcare system is a relevant measure of the system. I really think you're over your head and you're not sure what to do about it, so I'll give you a hint: start addressing the arguments instead of avoiding them.

He said we were dying in the streets. Show me a source for that.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 8.157685v1


It's not a blog either!

Thanks. I hope you dont consider WebMD a blog cause:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200807 ... by-country

Says that American cancer survival rates exceed that of other countries.
"Survival in the USA is high on a global scale but varies quite widely among individual states as well as between blacks and whites within the USA," he tells WebMD."

[Peisandros]

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?

Plenty and abound. Really, there is no question based just on the Canadian health tourism industry to the US. Obviously, Canadians with means to pay for it, but it happens. Because of the shorter wait times. On average, Canada has 1 MRI machine per 2 million residents, vs the US' 160 thousand. Try to get an MRI real quick in Canada

Or he could try France which is the closest to the system being proposed in the US.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04 ... ld-france/

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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

Like I said, it's clear you don't know what the purpose of pointing out a fallacy is.

How many people die in a healthcare system is a relevant measure of the system. I really think you're over your head and you're not sure what to do about it, so I'll give you a hint: start addressing the arguments instead of avoiding them.

He said we were dying in the streets. Show me a source for that.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 8.157685v1


It's not a blog either!

Thanks. I hope you dont consider WebMD a blog cause:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200807 ... by-country

Says that American cancer survival rates exceed that of other countries.
"Survival in the USA is high on a global scale but varies quite widely among individual states as well as between blacks and whites within the USA," he tells WebMD."

Here too in pictures even:
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interfac ... tes39.html

[Brewdomia]

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

Like I said, it's clear you don't know what the purpose of pointing out a fallacy is.

How many people die in a healthcare system is a relevant measure of the system. I really think you're over your head and you're not sure what to do about it, so I'll give you a hint: start addressing the arguments instead of avoiding them.

He said we were dying in the streets. Show me a source for that.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 8.157685v1


It's not a blog either!

Thanks. I hope you dont consider WebMD a blog cause:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200807 ... by-country

Says that American cancer survival rates exceed that of other countries.
"Survival in the USA is high on a global scale but varies quite widely among individual states as well as between blacks and whites within the USA," he tells WebMD."

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 8.157685v1


It's not a blog either!

You can't tell much from an abstract, but the correlation does seem to become weaker as they adjust for risk factors. Maybe the proper conclusion is that unhealthy people die more often than healthy people. Maybe there is something to the correlation. And in the abstract, it would be nice to let everyone have free medical care. But the significance is not enough to justify the kinds of destruction that are being proposed.

[Sibirsky]

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.

A good number of them (it is close to impossible to estimate actual numbers) will be unable to compete. Because of a significantly lower cost of the public option. And the fact that insurers will be taxed. And to pay for the program, they will tax private health insurers (increasing their cost, causing more people to drop coverage and join the public option).

[Jocabia]

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.

First of all, NO proposal is offering free healthcare. It would help if you started with that understanding, because you're not talking about reality.

Now that we're back to reality, let's actually look at it. Examining the other countries in the world that have engaged in universal healthcare the result is pretty obvious. Yes, there is some waiting for certain services in some places. However, there is an accompanied decrease in cost of services (not to the consumer alone, but overall) and there is an increase in the result.

So tell me why the line is a problem as opposed to the very real people are dying problem we currently have?

Waiting time increase - thank you for admitting it.
Decrease of cost of services - how do we know, it is not because of lower quality? We can decrease costs by other means.
Increase of result - do you mean more people covered? If not, please elaborate.
I never said, what we have now is the prefect system, and needs no reform.

Um, you do realize we're not all arguing about the same thing, right? Trying to paint your opposition as all one person just so you can strike the weakest is a weak strategy and won't work. Do better.

We know that we pay more than the rest of the world with similar economic systems but healthcare systems more like we propose. There is tons more evidence of a decrease in cost than there is for your claimed decrease in the standard of living.

The increase in result is that universal systems tend use preventive care. Any expert in preventive care (and it doesn't have to be healthcare, ask a maintenance organization about the value of preventive care on their equipment) will tell you that preventive care is cheaper than emergent care. It's provable that our system encourages emergent care over preventive care and I provided a source for that. Also, we can expect an improved life expectancy and infant mortality given that every system that does better than us provides universal care and focuses on preventive care (which again is a definitive reason for increase in quality of life).

[Peisandros]

Sorry. Mey Culpa. That was Peisandros.

Indeed. Now, the onus is on you to provide a reliable source. I'm still waiting. A source that shows that waiting times in countries that have universal healthcare are longer than they are in America currently.

Just when you're ready.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... 8.157685v1


It's not a blog either!

You can't tell much from an abstract, but the correlation does seem to become weaker as they adjust for risk factors. Maybe the proper conclusion is that unhealthy people die more often than healthy people. Maybe there is something to the correlation. And in the abstract, it would be nice to let everyone have free medical care. But the significance is not enough to justify the kinds of destruction that are being proposed.

The abstract isn't there to trick you, feel free to read the whole thing http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/2009_harvard_health_study.pdf

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Those cancers are also the easiest to treat among all the cancers.

You were watching Al Franken, weren't you? So what? Why can't the rest of the world treat the easy stuff as well as we can in the U.S.? Show me some examples where the U.S. fails to treat the hard cancers as well as countries with government run care programs.

[Sibirsky]

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).

Honestly this is an educated guess, which (Obviously) will be known if it is right when Time tells us.

At least I got educated