Disqus - Latest Comments for freakwent

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:55:28 -0000

Broken? Can you please cite studies/sources that explain how it's broken?

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:34:46 -0000

"Public Health Services are designed to deliver health care to everyone at the same level at a reduced cost. This can only be done through rationing and providing a one size fits all plan."

No. It can be also done also by refusing to accept Pfizer's drug into the plan unless they sell it at a price we want to pay. It can also be done by removing redundant beurocracies for multiple insurance providers. It can also be done by economies of scale.

Australia has had extraodinary success by refusing to subsidise various drugs unless the price is right; companies are free to sell their drugs at the chemist at full price, but usually don't bother.

Why do you people just make assertions (this can only be done...) without even trying to prove them?

"Take a look at any country providing Public Health Care Services"

Canada. Oh and I add that you have to show that the alleged degredation was caused by the public health care.

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:30:09 -0000

You compared one fire dept with many hospitals.
You compared cancer with a single fire. You could comapre with an oil refinery fire, or a blevy.

Please cite your source on the OWI case assertions you made up.

"When you consider the amount of patients that the government will be handling at once, it is impossible to argue that public healthcare will be no worse than our current healthcare system."

That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen yet. That's basically saying that the Government can't govern because there are too many people.

The nation currently 'handles' 945,199 hospital beds (http://www.aha.org/aha/reso...

The Government handles:

1,473,900 active armed forces (with beds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

2,300,000 prisoners in the prison system (with beds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

138 million taxpayers (they don't get govt beds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

So what makes you think that the glorious USA can't count to 950 million? Before you suggest that most health care doesn't need a hospital bed, I'll offer that a system that only covered hospital beds would make many people happy enough, that many more searches and arrests are shown than the incaceration numbers, that the armed forces figure does not include all personell with some sort of security clearance, and that many more people are registered with the IRS than currently pay tax.

Stop being an ass and take the issue seriously.

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:13:01 -0000

food, cleaning supplies, transportation, housing?

Typically most nations fix these problems by providing a minimum welfare payment sufficient to provide a basic level of dignified life. The details vary.

Health is a special case, you can eat for $1.50 a day, clean with water, old bicycles are cheap and housing can be had very cheaply if you aren't fussy.

Medical care is a special case because a broken arm from falling off a bike (or a heart attack...) has a bigger impact on your life than missing a meal or a week on the streets, AND it's a thousand times more expensive, a double whammy.

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:07:25 -0000

"Clever attempt, but until you really understand how conservatives view the role of government, you won't be able to argue well with them."

Perhaps, but you haven't explained how the house on fire differs from the leukemia-stricken child. I'll answer; because the fire threatens the property of other people, but the sick child doesn't.

It's the same with the police force and public education. All three services are paid for by everyone, but disproportionately protect or enhance the property of the rich. With education we see a system which strongly promotes ignorance, obedience and narcissim, exactly what you want from employees and consumers.

So when there's a cost to private enterprise, it's socialised. Mining subsidies, agricultural subsidies, military subsudies, anything to support industry and the flow of resources.

However, when it comes to allocating to citizens directly; individuals instead of sectors; suddenly it doesn't pay to live in the USA. There are more people than oppportunities so the dream that anyone can succeed (and afford proper medical care) is one thing, but for the society as a whole what matters is what the average gets.

It's not a conspiracy, it's an emergent property of a skewed society.

If you want to talk about positive rights, I'll point out the limits on free speech and on voting, and the rights of people to organise a union.

If you want to talk about freedoms, I'll laugh in your face loudly about the restrictions on drug use and nudity in the USA.

I don't agree with you that the battle over slavery was based on morality.

Equating socialism (the common agreement of many people to pool resources for the common good) with slavery (the sale of humans as animals) is like comparing an agreement to split a dinner bill evenly with a mugging.

Quite frankly, it's a democracy, so if the majority vote for nationalised health care then that's what you should damn well have, no matter what you think about it, and if you aren't willing to abide by the mechanisms of your society, _legally_ implemented that result in a decision you don't agree with, then you're not really showing any dedication to the democratic process.

Implying that historically we have been moving towards more freedom does nothing to suggest that this is a good thing. A complete lack of all government power, total anarchy, is not really where conservatives are going, so don't pretend that it is.

You have a quarter of the planet's resources, you can put men on the moon and return them, you have global satellite networks and power projection, so don't come crying to us and say that it's too complicated to too expensive to find a way, any way, to stop simple medical conditions from bankrupting typical people.

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:42:31 -0000

However, the constitution can be changed. It's your nation, it doesn't have to be the way it is, you are allowed to change it and the founding fathers even allowed a mechanism for you to do so.

If it makes good sense for the Fed to run health care, the constitution is not a good reason against it, if everyone agrees, just change it with another amendment!

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:38:25 -0000

That's ok, but you might be interested in looking over history to times when these institutions did not exist, especially regarding fire services, which were owned and run by insurance companies. Each had to run their own hydrant network.

Remember that supporting a particular social structure based on a pure ideology does not necessarily always make practical sense when applied to the real world of physical constraints and finite resources.

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:08:05 -0000

At the same time we don't want to the government developing the next cell phone technologies.

Why not? 802.11 (wifi) was developed a Govt organisation in Australia, and is now widely used all over the world.

Re: Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Public Healthcare

freakwent — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:48:50 -0000

"IF we saddle the Nation's credit account with another expense, how much would we need to cut in other areas?"

Clearly that depends on what the amount in question is.

Amsa reckon under 70 billion
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/Cas...

Fox reckon 1,500 billion
http://www.foxnews.com/poli...

Let's assume the truth is halfway between; 1500-70 = 1430. 1430 /2 = $715billion needed.

medicare+medicaid is 680 bln, so the answer is that we need 35 billion. As luck would have it, VA spends 35 billion per year on medical costs alone, so that gets us our figure, assuming of course that universal health care would be at least as good as the veteran's are getting now.

So the answer to your question is "none".

So the USA already spends $715 billion on public health care today. However, because the two figures above are so diverse, it's impossible to get a proper figure.

(Of course, if you think that the VA is special and that the $750 - 1,000 bln per year on defence is sacred and can't be touched, that's predicatable, but at some point the Christian right has to decide if healing is more Christian than killing. What would Jesus fund?)