why that was nice

[tRidiot 10+ year member]

More faulkton ranting about Republicans... wow, what a surprise. Hatemongers unite! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[hornedfrog1985 5,000+ posts]

I say purple.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

does this healthcare plan have any provisions for new livers for drunks? That would be cool

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

I LOVE how dems always resort to, "other countries are doing it and it works fine". well, lets take a look at this shall we.

The health care billl being passed IS NOT the same as the health care used in other countries. Even if it were, lets look at a few small issues shall we.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"• NHS targets ‘may have lead to 1,200 deaths’ in Mid-Staffordshire

• 11 serious errors a day in NHS surgery

• War hero refused treatment by NHS

• Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

• Patients with suspected cancer forced to wait so NHS targets can be hit"

"The failure of Canada's experiment with socialist medicine is readily apparent: long waiting lists and wait times for specialized services, conveyor-belt treatment for routine services, chronic shortages of family doctors and hospital beds, gross inefficiencies, slow innovation, stifling and wasteful bureaucracies, warring "special-interest" groups, and the exodus of good doctors to greener, freer pastures.

It's still illegal in Canada for private healthcare providers to compete with the government monopoly. Only North Korea and Cuba—two impoverished, brutal, communist dictatorships—still retain such restrictions. And there have been increasing accounts of Canadians suffering severe pain and even dying while waiting months or years for treatments that are readily available in countries that allow private healthcare.

So when the Canadian election was called several months ago, one might have thought that at least one political party was willing to promise, if elected, to de-monopolize healthcare to some extent at least. However, none of the five significant parties—not even Stephen Harper's "right-wing" Conservative Party—would dare make such a promise. Why not? Because despite how impractical the Canadian healthcare system is, many Canadians regard it as moral. It's a classic case of accepting a moral code that clashes with reality and harms people.

The moral code underlying Canada's healthcare system can be inferred from how it is practiced. Everyone has free and equal access to healthcare providers (which naturally generates a lot of demand). Providers bill the government for services rendered. Government pays providers with the money it extorts via highly progressive taxation. Government has the power to restrict healthcare spending (which logically leads to long waiting lists and wait times).

The basic moral principle is egalitarianism—the belief that everyone must be given equal rewards regardless of performance or behavior. Everyone gets equal access to healthcare regardless of what they pay in taxes. And what one pays is independent of how much one uses the system. Egalitarianism is a species of altruism—the moral code which advocates self-sacrifice to others. (The opposite code is rational self-interest or rational egoism whereby each individual pursues their own well being and happiness—neither sacrificing oneself to others nor others to oneself—and social interaction is voluntary, not coerced.)

For healthcare consumers, the egalitarian message is obvious. Don't bother working hard to achieve success for you will only be condemned as "the haves," taxed of your "excess," prevented from securing better healthcare, and told to go to the back of the line. Don't bother being responsible regarding your health because it won't affect what you pay in taxes or what services you get "for free." Imagine the impact on a hard-working teenager if his parents seized his earnings from a part-time job and distributed it—in the name of equality—among his ambitionless siblings.

As for health-care providers, the egalitarian message is also obvious. Study hard for years; work long and grueling hours; develop life-saving skills, but government will dictate your employer and compensation. The public demands high-quality services regardless of the extent to which your freedom and interests are being sacrificed to the "public good"—to hell with individual rights.

Form this one can extract the egalitarian notion of justice: Punish those who are creative, productive and responsible in order to reward those who (for whatever reason) are not. But if justice is the policy of granting to each person what he or she deserves, then egalitarianism is unjust. The champions of egalitarianism seem oblivious to what makes wealth and medical technology possible. They want us to believe that they can punish and enslave achievers and still have piles of money to seize and distribute—that high-quality services and technological advances are possible in a society where those who are ambitious and productive are sacrificed in the name of helping those who are not.

Given this moral code of egalitarianism, it's not surprising that Canada's healthcare system is so impractical.

Now consider today's wonderful trend of being offered higher quality computer products and services at ever lower prices, and what would happen if governments seized control and established a government-controlled monopoly offering free computing to all. What would happen to the computer innovators, product/service quality, real costs and government debt? Pretty much what has happened with the Canadian healthcare system.

Why is it immoral to personally benefit from one's own success? Surely, someone's computer innovation or breakthrough medical discovery is not stolen from those who didn't innovate. The aspirations and abilities of people vary immensely, and they expect to be, and should be, rewarded accordingly for their efforts and achievements. An opposite policy—an egalitarian policy—destroys the motivation to innovate and succeed.

Or consider socialist medicine from a somewhat different angle. When government has the power to extort money from people to pay for government services such as healthcare, the providers become directly responsible to bureaucrats, politicians and "special-interest" groups—not to patients. When the patient retains the power to financially reward providers for good service, providers will compete for the money by offering better quality at lower prices, which is what we get in the relatively unregulated computer industry.

There is no rational argument in favor of socialist medicine. It persists in Canada primarily because the majority of Canadians have accepted an irrational and impractical moral code—egalitarianism—which remains virtually unchallenged. Only when this moral code is widely challenged and debunked, will Canadians experience a significant improvement in healthcare. Americans should be wary when politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy try to glorify the Canadian healthcare system."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I shall resort back to the special pieces in the HEALTH CARE BILL being proposed.

Counseling, Section 1233, pg. 425. Upon reaching a certain age, you will be required to attend a counseling session on how to die, which includes different methods to help in this process. If you get a fatal illness such as cancer, you will need to be counseled again. There is a formula for rationing care determined by age and the proposed cost of the procedure to insure cost effectiveness. Government will determine the compensation of doctors.

Money, Section 163, pg. 59. This gives the government access to all of your financial information, checking and savings accounts, IRAs, etc., for electronic money transfer.

Tax, Section 401, 598, pg. 167. If you elect not to have health care, or cannot afford health care, the government will put a 2.5 percent tax on your income.

Free Healthcare, Section 152, pg. 50. However, health care to non-citizens (illegal aliens) will be free.

So continue ******* your hippie big government democratic d!cks if you want, but fact is fact.

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

Oh ya, to report my "fishy" post, here is the govt email.

flag@whitehouse.gov

If it is still up. LOL, lets silence the public. HITLER!

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I LOVE how dems always resort to, "other countries are doing it and it works fine". well, lets take a look at this shall we.
The health care billl being passed IS NOT the same as the health care used in other countries. Even if it were, lets look at a few small issues shall we.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"• NHS targets ‘may have lead to 1,200 deaths’ in Mid-Staffordshire

• 11 serious errors a day in NHS surgery

• War hero refused treatment by NHS

• Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

• Patients with suspected cancer forced to wait so NHS targets can be hit"

"The failure of Canada's experiment with socialist medicine is readily apparent: long waiting lists and wait times for specialized services, conveyor-belt treatment for routine services, chronic shortages of family doctors and hospital beds, gross inefficiencies, slow innovation, stifling and wasteful bureaucracies, warring "special-interest" groups, and the exodus of good doctors to greener, freer pastures.

It's still illegal in Canada for private healthcare providers to compete with the government monopoly. Only North Korea and Cuba—two impoverished, brutal, communist dictatorships—still retain such restrictions. And there have been increasing accounts of Canadians suffering severe pain and even dying while waiting months or years for treatments that are readily available in countries that allow private healthcare.

So when the Canadian election was called several months ago, one might have thought that at least one political party was willing to promise, if elected, to de-monopolize healthcare to some extent at least. However, none of the five significant parties—not even Stephen Harper's "right-wing" Conservative Party—would dare make such a promise. Why not? Because despite how impractical the Canadian healthcare system is, many Canadians regard it as moral. It's a classic case of accepting a moral code that clashes with reality and harms people.

The moral code underlying Canada's healthcare system can be inferred from how it is practiced. Everyone has free and equal access to healthcare providers (which naturally generates a lot of demand). Providers bill the government for services rendered. Government pays providers with the money it extorts via highly progressive taxation. Government has the power to restrict healthcare spending (which logically leads to long waiting lists and wait times).

The basic moral principle is egalitarianism—the belief that everyone must be given equal rewards regardless of performance or behavior. Everyone gets equal access to healthcare regardless of what they pay in taxes. And what one pays is independent of how much one uses the system. Egalitarianism is a species of altruism—the moral code which advocates self-sacrifice to others. (The opposite code is rational self-interest or rational egoism whereby each individual pursues their own well being and happiness—neither sacrificing oneself to others nor others to oneself—and social interaction is voluntary, not coerced.)

For healthcare consumers, the egalitarian message is obvious. Don't bother working hard to achieve success for you will only be condemned as "the haves," taxed of your "excess," prevented from securing better healthcare, and told to go to the back of the line. Don't bother being responsible regarding your health because it won't affect what you pay in taxes or what services you get "for free." Imagine the impact on a hard-working teenager if his parents seized his earnings from a part-time job and distributed it—in the name of equality—among his ambitionless siblings.

As for health-care providers, the egalitarian message is also obvious. Study hard for years; work long and grueling hours; develop life-saving skills, but government will dictate your employer and compensation. The public demands high-quality services regardless of the extent to which your freedom and interests are being sacrificed to the "public good"—to hell with individual rights.

Form this one can extract the egalitarian notion of justice: Punish those who are creative, productive and responsible in order to reward those who (for whatever reason) are not. But if justice is the policy of granting to each person what he or she deserves, then egalitarianism is unjust. The champions of egalitarianism seem oblivious to what makes wealth and medical technology possible. They want us to believe that they can punish and enslave achievers and still have piles of money to seize and distribute—that high-quality services and technological advances are possible in a society where those who are ambitious and productive are sacrificed in the name of helping those who are not.

Given this moral code of egalitarianism, it's not surprising that Canada's healthcare system is so impractical.

Now consider today's wonderful trend of being offered higher quality computer products and services at ever lower prices, and what would happen if governments seized control and established a government-controlled monopoly offering free computing to all. What would happen to the computer innovators, product/service quality, real costs and government debt? Pretty much what has happened with the Canadian healthcare system.

Why is it immoral to personally benefit from one's own success? Surely, someone's computer innovation or breakthrough medical discovery is not stolen from those who didn't innovate. The aspirations and abilities of people vary immensely, and they expect to be, and should be, rewarded accordingly for their efforts and achievements. An opposite policy—an egalitarian policy—destroys the motivation to innovate and succeed.

Or consider socialist medicine from a somewhat different angle. When government has the power to extort money from people to pay for government services such as healthcare, the providers become directly responsible to bureaucrats, politicians and "special-interest" groups—not to patients. When the patient retains the power to financially reward providers for good service, providers will compete for the money by offering better quality at lower prices, which is what we get in the relatively unregulated computer industry.

There is no rational argument in favor of socialist medicine. It persists in Canada primarily because the majority of Canadians have accepted an irrational and impractical moral code—egalitarianism—which remains virtually unchallenged. Only when this moral code is widely challenged and debunked, will Canadians experience a significant improvement in healthcare. Americans should be wary when politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy try to glorify the Canadian healthcare system."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I shall resort back to the special pieces in the HEALTH CARE BILL being proposed.

Counseling, Section 1233, pg. 425. Upon reaching a certain age, you will be required to attend a counseling session on how to die, which includes different methods to help in this process. If you get a fatal illness such as cancer, you will need to be counseled again. There is a formula for rationing care determined by age and the proposed cost of the procedure to insure cost effectiveness. Government will determine the compensation of doctors.

Money, Section 163, pg. 59. This gives the government access to all of your financial information, checking and savings accounts, IRAs, etc., for electronic money transfer.

Tax, Section 401, 598, pg. 167. If you elect not to have health care, or cannot afford health care, the government will put a 2.5 percent tax on your income.

Free Healthcare, Section 152, pg. 50. However, health care to non-citizens (illegal aliens) will be free.

So continue ******* your hippie big government democratic d!cks if you want, but fact is fact.

it’s also clear that Canada is an outlier among industrialized nations who provide universal access, as they’re literally the only member country of the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (the U.S. is a member, too) that outlaws private insurance for core medical services.

In the U.S., the proposal being discussed now is not a universal system. But it would include the “public option” that would compete with private insurers. At this point, I haven’t found any statistically-factual information on whether a public option would cripple private insurers, only personal opinions of some, including executives in that industry. If anyone has read anything of the sort, don’t hesitate to send it my way while I’m still looking.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Gordon H. Guyatt, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who coined the term "evidence-based medicine," collaborated with 16 of his colleagues in an exhaustive survey of existing studies on the outcomes of various medical procedures in both the U.S. and Canada. Their work appears in the inaugural issue of the new Canadian journal Open Medicine, and comes at a time when many in Canada are debating whether or not to move that country's single-payer system toward for-profit delivery of care. The ultimate conclusion of the study is that the Canadian medical system is as good as the U.S. version, at least when measured by a single metric—the rate at which patients in either system died.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Americans Less Likely to Survive Treatment

According to Woolhandler, by looking at already ill patients, the researchers eliminated any Canadian lifestyle advantage and just examined the degree to which the two systems affected patient deaths. (Mortality was the one kind of data they could extract from a disparate pool of 38 papers examining everything from kidney failure to rheumatoid arthritis.)

Overall, the results favored Canadians, who were 5 percent less likely than Americans to die in the course of treatment. Some disorders, such as kidney failure, favored Canadians more strongly than Americans, whereas others, such as hip fracture, had slightly better outcomes in the U.S. than in Canada. Of the 38 studies the authors surveyed, which were winnowed down from a pool of thousands, 14 favored Canada, five the U.S., and 19 yielded mixed results.

 

[lilmaniac2 5,000+ posts]

tldr

 

[SocMunky 10+ year member]

"Probably $1 is a little too less to purchase cocaine," Zuo said "I don't know exactly [why]. It's an educated guess."

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

faulkton still posting too many words.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

i have a fundamental distrust in government, especially when it comes to billions and billions of dollars. i think i heard that we are 37th (?) in the world in healthcare. i haven't looked into that number for validity much either. if that is a true number, it's unacceptable. i can see that side of it. i'm really having a hard time grasping the idea that giving our government control of this much economy is a good thing. they have a proven track record of inefficiency and cost over runs, no matter who is president. i don't trust that they can run it over the long term, economically. i do think there is meat to the counter argument that our health care system needs improved. it just seems that we are tearing down the whole house,to merely remodel the living room.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Americans Less Likely to Survive Treatment
According to Woolhandler, by looking at already ill patients, the researchers eliminated any Canadian lifestyle advantage and just examined the degree to which the two systems affected patient deaths. (Mortality was the one kind of data they could extract from a disparate pool of 38 papers examining everything from kidney failure to rheumatoid arthritis.)

Overall, the results favored Canadians, who were 5 percent less likely than Americans to die in the course of treatment. Some disorders, such as kidney failure, favored Canadians more strongly than Americans, whereas others, such as hip fracture, had slightly better outcomes in the U.S. than in Canada. Of the 38 studies the authors surveyed, which were winnowed down from a pool of thousands, 14 favored Canada, five the U.S., and 19 yielded mixed results.

don't people in small towns frequently not even have a doctor? i saw 1 example of a town in canada using a lottery system to decide who gets to go to the city for a doctor. they don't have a doctor in town period because the bigger metro area needed them. this could be an isolated incident, or it could be wider spread. that's 1 possible disadvantage of the canadian system that wouldn't show up in that statistic. again, i've done no personal research into that story. it might have been a town of 80 people.

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

My biggest issue is look at everything the government runs now. It is all kinds of fvcked up. A GREAT example is cash for clunkers. Do you realize how many dealerships are waiting on checks form the government? Do you think I would want to be a doctor if my paycheck was going to be given by the government? The government always has and always will work half ***. I have freiends who do machine work for the base locally and has been waiting 3 months since last check. Other companies have been waiting over 6 months+. They are fixing to loose their business becasue of the government not paying.

So do you honestly think this will be better for us? I see a huge disaster and MANY americans dying from small illnesses.

We already have medicaid and medicare. Put more money into that and help the free clinics if you want to REALLY do something. Leave the people alone that are happy with what they have. It is very simple this way and will make people happy. Reminder.......

Counseling, Section 1233, pg. 425. Upon reaching a certain age, you will be required to attend a counseling session on how to die, which includes different methods to help in this process. If you get a fatal illness such as cancer, you will need to be counseled again. There is a formula for rationing care determined by age and the proposed cost of the procedure to insure cost effectiveness. Government will determine the compensation of doctors.

 

Money, Section 163, pg. 59. This gives the government access to all of your financial information, checking and savings accounts, IRAs, etc., for electronic money transfer.

 

Tax, Section 401, 598, pg. 167. If you elect not to have health care, or cannot afford health care, the government will put a 2.5 percent tax on your income.

 

Free Healthcare, Section 152, pg. 50. However, health care to non-citizens (illegal aliens) will be free.

 

[nastyaudioman 10+ year member]

FYI- Take a look at all the issues with the already government ran Medicaid and Medicare. Do they think changing the name will actually do anything?