The Reality of Socialized Medicine

Still peddling this nonsense?

It works in other countries with a variety of systems at a much lower cost.

Your politicians and big Pharma won't let it happen in the US because they would lose profits and the medical companies provide too much funding for politicians. The lobbying groups in Washington would stop any sensible affordable scheme. If you are poor and ill in the US - you're fucked by the system.
 
Still peddling this nonsense?

It works in other countries with a variety of systems at a much lower cost.

Your politicians and big Pharma won't let it happen in the US because they would lose profits and the medical companies provide too much funding for politicians. The lobbying groups in Washington would stop any sensible affordable scheme. If you are poor and ill in the US - you're fucked by the system.

There is so much that's untrue in what you wrote, I'm unsure where to begin. Let's start with this myth:

"If you are poor and ill in the US...."​

Under Federal law, hospitals must provide life-saving treatment. There are also charities and various free clinics that provide for the poor. I know. I've contributed to and done volunteer work at several.

Then there's:

"It works in other countries with a variety of systems at a much lower cost."​

You're not the first person to assert this here, and I've previously debunked it.

What do you mean by "cost"? Perhaps less money, but what about the human cost of longer waits for inferior service? What about the human cost of death panels, or whatever euphemism you care to use?
 
There is so much that's untrue in what you wrote, I'm unsure where to begin. Let's start with this myth:

"If you are poor and ill in the US...."​

Under Federal law, hospitals must provide life-saving treatment. There are also charities and various free clinics that provide for the poor. I know. I've contributed to and done volunteer work at several.

Then there's:

"It works in other countries with a variety of systems at a much lower cost."​

You're not the first person to assert this here, and I've previously debunked it.

What do you mean by "cost"? Perhaps less money, but what about the human cost of longer waits for inferior service? What about the human cost of death panels, or whatever euphemism you care to use?

Life saving ? Perhaps? Quality of life? NO.

Human cost of longer waits? As opposed to NEVER being treated?

Cost? Your debunking is nonsense. Almost every country that has a system of universal health care pays far less per head of population for all health care public and private than is paid by per head of population in the US.

The best healthcare in the US is the best in the world, and the most expensive, but if you have a long standing non-life threatening condition and limited money that is just something to regret.
 
Last edited:
...

Human cost of longer waits? As opposed to NEVER being treated?

....

Who's "never being treated"?

That's a myth.

As I said, between Federal law, state and municipal programs, various charities, and free clinics, there is plenty out there for people willing to get themselves to the available facilities.

Sure, now you'll find some new report about various random people going without healthcare in the USA. What you won't post are the follow-ups that are often done on such studies that show the people who went without treatment had such options available to them, but chose not to use them due to various personal factors such as mental health issues or unfounded fears that the clinics or hospitals will report evidence of illegal drug use or immigration status to the authorities.

Has it ever crossed your mind, oggbashan, that maybe you are the one who is misinformed about the situation in the USA?
 
The best healthcare in the US is the best in the world, but if you have a long standing non-life threatening condition and limited money that is just something to regret.

Then it's just a quick hop over the border to Canada and they can get patched up there.
 
Cost? Your debunking is nonsense. Almost every country that has a system of universal health care pays far less per head of population for all health care public and private than is paid by per head of population in the US.

Didn't used to be, then the government got involved and costs have been skyrocketing ever since.
 
Didn't used to be, then the government got involved and costs have been skyrocketing ever since.

It's been a while, but I seem to remember a spike in costs and dramatic decrease in benefits sometime in 2010. Right around the time Obamacare was passed.

Oh, by the way, that shift from company sponsored plans to government plans that requires a 20% payroll tax? That wouldn't be accompanied by a raise from the company balancing what they contribute to your healthcare. What it REALLY does is give a 20% raise to the COMPANY and hits the employee another 20% for a net reduction GNP of 40%. (I threw in some bs because the lefties won't bother reading it anyway but the basics are there and accurate).

As a business owner, I SHOULD be advocating FOR universal healthcare. It's more money in MY pocket.
 
Has it ever crossed your mind, oggbashan, that maybe you are the one who is misinformed about the situation in the USA?

No. I have a son-in-law who is involved with US healthcare and is convinced our flawed NHS is far superior.
 
Even if ...

Even if government medical provisions had a less dismal record it would not change the real issue. The question should be whether or not something as personal as medical care should be in the hands of ANY government agency at all. No matter how well it works in this case or how much it fails in that case... the bottom line is that government really should have no roll in matters like this at all. A persons health is their business and their responsibility. I don't want people to be forced to chip in for my health care and I don't want to be force to chip in for theirs.

I have no control over whether or not people eat right, if they are big fat ass mouth stuffers with all kinds of self inflicted medical problems. I can't control if they suck smoke into their lungs or pump brain fucking chemicals into there head for recreation. Why should I have to be on the hook for the medical problems of people that don't take care of their own health. Look around at American society. People are waddling about with so much fat that it makes me sick just looking at them. I work hard to take care of my health. I don't want the government involved with any of my personal life and I resent being force to pay tens of thousands of dollars every year to the IRS so that my hard earned money can be flipped about by goofy political idiots.
 
...I don't want the government involved with any of my personal life and I resent being force to pay tens of thousands of dollars every year to the IRS so that my hard earned money can be flipped about by goofy political idiots.

But that happens already whichever party is in power.
 
It's been a while, but I seem to remember a spike in costs and dramatic decrease in benefits sometime in 2010. Right around the time Obamacare was passed.

Yes, and you can run that all the way back to when the federal government first started really fucking with the HC industry, with Reagan.

As a business owner, I SHOULD be advocating FOR universal healthcare. It's more money in MY pocket.

An honest public HC system vs the shit show we've got now? Yea.

But only if it's honest.
 
Yes, and you can run that all the way back to when the federal government first started really fucking with the HC industry, with Reagan.



An honest public HC system vs the shit show we've got now? Yea.

But only if it's honest.

I remember Reagan but had other things on my mind, like coed tushies.

I'll stipulate things started to change, probably even long before him.

I wouldn't mind a "major medical" healthcare plan that fully covered chronic / serious illnesses and events but left me on my own with sniffles, flu and the like. Those things are inexpensively handled by urgent care centers or even home remedies.

Walk into any ER on a Friday night and triage the cases there. Most of them should NOT be in an ER waiting room.
 
...

Walk into any ER on a Friday night and triage the cases there. Most of them should NOT be in an ER waiting room.

That is equally true of the NHS. Across my county we now have a network of doctor/nurse led minor injury units. Most are underused because people will go to the ER unit unnecessarily. My first port of call is my medicine cupboard and then the local chemist. They are usually enough.
 
I remember Reagan but had other things on my mind, like coed tushies.

I'll stipulate things started to change, probably even long before him.

Walk into any ER on a Friday night and triage the cases there. Most of them should NOT be in an ER waiting room.

Again, Reagan....he and a bipartisan congress turned all ER's in the USA into free frontline HC services for anyone who walks in the doors of the ER, this is also a contributing factor as to why our HC prices are fuckin' insane too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act


I wouldn't mind a "major medical" healthcare plan that fully covered chronic / serious illnesses and events but left me on my own with sniffles, flu and the like. Those things are inexpensively handled by urgent care centers or even home remedies

I would, shit shouldn't be a federal issue.

If states want to provide a public HC system or even join several other states in a HC system? Awesome.

If others don't? Also awesome...you get what you vote for, that's freedom, that's the whole point of have 50 states in a union vs. a unitary state with 1 set of rules for all 330 million folks.

There is absolutely no reason to force a 1 size fits all across the whole nation.

Well, other than authoritarian control freaks gotta control freak.
 
Last edited:
I would, shit shouldn't be a federal issue.

If states want to provide a public HC system or even join several other states in a HC system? Awesome.

If others don't? Also awesome...you get what you vote for, that's freedom, that's the whole point of have 50 states in a union vs. a unitary state with 1 set of rules for all 330 million folks.

There is absolutely no reason to force a 1 size fits all across the whole nation.

Well, other than authoritarian control freaks gotta control freak.

I said "major medical", not "national major medical".

I don't think government should be involved in or influencing healthcare at all. All governments ever have clearly proven they can't be trusted with it.

My own personal reasons are largely around privacy concerns and I flatly don't believe the government can create a nhs without breaking the economy.

Either way, as I previously pointed out, the federal government lacks the authority to create a nhs without a Constitutional amendment. It's up to the states to implement their own localized systems. All Obamacare did was mandate that they do so and mandate that we each buy into it (or prove we had qualifying healthcare already). It didn't create an nhs but even as far as went was unconstitutional and should have been thrown in the trash.
 
It's been a while, but I seem to remember a spike in costs and dramatic decrease in benefits sometime in 2010. Right around the time Obamacare was passed.
It's been a while indeed, then. (There was a LOT more talk about such things than there was any of it actually happening - except for people who had no health care at all beforehand. Their costs went up - from zero.)

Oh, by the way, that shift from company sponsored plans to government plans that requires a 20% payroll tax? That wouldn't be accompanied by a raise from the company balancing what they contribute to your healthcare.

An excellent argument in favour of single-payer right there, and also a nice reminder that Obamacare is based on a proposal originally floated by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. But guess which party has fought tooth and nail against single payer for decades?
 
An excellent argument in favour of single-payer right there

Losing a fifth of my pay to get something that I get currently is an argument in your favor?

Anyway it doesn't matter.

In the United States it will never be anything less than 50 Payer**, even if the Democrats eventually get their way, and you know it.

** It could be less than that if California, Montana and Texas ever manage to secede
 
Last edited:
Losing a fifth of my pay to get something that I get currently is an argument in your favor?

Since my point is that Obamacare was a decent first step but not the best option for the long term, yes. It is also - assuming the 20% figure is remotely accurate, which I quite frankly doubt, but even if it's substantially less - an argument in favour of reining in the absurd prices of health care in the USA, which are largely based on nothing more than greed.
 
Since my point is that Obamacare was a decent first step but not the best option for the long term, yes. It is also - assuming the 20% figure is remotely accurate, which I quite frankly doubt, but even if it's substantially less - an argument in favour of reining in the absurd prices of health care in the USA, which are largely based on nothing more than greed.

If you're asking me to stipulate that Obamacare was a decent first step, no. It wasn't. It was a disaster, skyrocketing costs while quality of care plummeted.

You're also asking me to give a fifth of my income to pay for something that I already get. Only the product I currently get is far and away BETTER than anything the politicians would bestow on me.

That's mind numbingly stupid. Why would I do that?
 
If you're asking me to stipulate that Obamacare was a decent first step, no. It wasn't. It was a disaster, skyrocketing costs while quality of care plummeted.

Not for people who didn't have any health care at all beforehand, or who literally couldn't get it (preexisting conditions). Besides, I heard a lot more talk about "skyrocketing costs" than any actual examples thereof. In the cases I knew of where people's costs did go up, it was because their old policies didn't actually cover anything. You might just as well have no insurance - and then guess who ultimately does get stuck with the bill when people get sick and can't pay their bills? The taxpayers.

You're also asking me to give a fifth of my income to pay for something that I already get.
No. First of all I don't know where you're getting "a fifth of my income" from, but I literally have never seen a single case where anyone's health insurance was that expensive, ever. Secondly, it's important to remember that millions of Americans didn't - and again, in many cases COULDN'T - have health care beforehand. It's not all about you!

Only the product I currently get is far and away BETTER than anything the politicians would bestow on me.

That's mind numbingly stupid. Why would I do that?

It would be stupid indeed if it were really that simple. But it isn't.
 
I said "major medical", not "national major medical".

I don't think government should be involved in or influencing healthcare at all. All governments ever have clearly proven they can't be trusted with it.

My own personal reasons are largely around privacy concerns and I flatly don't believe the government can create a nhs without breaking the economy.

Either way, as I previously pointed out, the federal government lacks the authority to create a nhs without a Constitutional amendment. It's up to the states to implement their own localized systems. All Obamacare did was mandate that they do so and mandate that we each buy into it (or prove we had qualifying healthcare already). It didn't create an nhs but even as far as went was unconstitutional and should have been thrown in the trash.

Major medical still in the context of a national HC plan.

I agree, they can't be trusted.

ACA was highly fascistic.

Losing a fifth of my pay to get something that I get currently is an argument in your favor?

That and more.

Leftist always think they are better off and more free the more the government takes from them and restricts their ability to have anything for themselves. They can't EVER explain how that works, shocking I know, but they will argue eternally that the more control the state has over you and the more the state takes from you the better off you are.

an argument in favour of reining in the absurd prices of health care in the USA, which are largely based on nothing more than greed.

Greed almost entirely enabled by bad government intervention.
 
Last edited:
Intervention on behalf of big pharma, yes.

And big med.....you think Johnson and Johnson, palatial hospitals, General Electric, AMA, ADA and the other 3-4 TRILLION dollars worth of the medical industry isn't lobbying??

I assure you, they are.

Not that it really matters, I don't see supporting the people I like as a bad thing and everyone should be free to do the same.

Point is the shit show HC we have now is caused by poor governance meddling implemented all half assed with no real/honest way to pay for any of it. Left wide open for all sorts of corruption.
 
And big med.....you think Johnson and Johnson, palatial hospitals, General Electric, AMA, ADA and the other 3-4 TRILLION dollars worth of the medical industry isn't lobbying??

I assure you, they are.

I'm aware of that, yes.

My point, in any event, is that a history of government meddling on behalf of big business should never be construed as evidence that it ought to stay out of providing for affordable health care for all. Indeed, it's all the more reason why the government DOES bear responsibility on that point.
 
I'm aware of that, yes.

My point, in any event, is that a history of government meddling on behalf of big business should never be construed as evidence that it ought to stay out of providing for affordable health care for all.

No, but it is evidence that it can't be trusted with it.

Also the fact that it's not a Constitutional duty is strong legal evidence that without an amendment it should be up to the states to deal with that shit. It's just not a federal issue and there is no reason for it to be one.

Indeed, it's all the more reason why the government DOES bear responsibility on that point.

Only if you assume that the government is both competent and trustworthy...and we both know it's neither of those.
 
Back
Top