US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[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.

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

Nor is there any proposal for it to be "free".

A better experiment would be to offer fire services. How many people set fire to their houses? Aside from intentional fires, how many fires total? Now eliminate fire services. Do the number of fires go up or down? The answer is pretty obvious.

[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?

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?

Yeah cause everything you stated is pure BS. Canada and UK are probably one of the worst choices to take an example from as the U.S will be nowhere like their systems, if you have even seen what the democrats are proposing.

[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.

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?

[Peisandros]

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

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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.

[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).

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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.

[Brewdomia]

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?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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

[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.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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.

[Brewdomia]

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.

[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.

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.

Uh, no, it isn't. People are dying.

Seriously, dude, if you're going to continually rant about healthcare, then read a book, please?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opini ... .html?_r=1

People are dying from a lack of preventive care, from lack of access to healthcare and from lack of prenatal medicine. All of this is preventable.

[Brewdomia]

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?

[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

[Sibirsky]

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.

[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.

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

Dude, seriously, this is sad. Why exactly do you think it's fallacious to point out the difference in the level of consequences you are proposing to the changes from the consequences of leaving things the same?

I don't think you actually know what a fallacy is and why they apply. Do you?

[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

Overruled, emotion is admissible.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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?

[Sibirsky]

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.

I am not sure that I agree. I will make no statement on that at this point in time. Please, allow me to add, that at the very least, Medicare should be means tested. So, for instance Bill Gates would be ineligible. You liberals are so fond of taking from the rich, why are you so fond of giving to them?

[Jocabia]

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.

We're talking about healthcare not how many TVs one has. When it comes to healthcare, we pay the most and we enjoy a high standard of living only if we compare ourselves to nonindustrialized nations or only free-market healthcare systems. When we compare ourselves to other similar nations, we come in really, really low.

[Brewdomia]

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?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

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.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

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?

Sorry. Mey Culpa. That was Peisandros.

[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.