Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How do you see bus. working under diff. political systems?
#21
TB 2 IBO Wrote:Yup, and that is why leaders from around the world often come to the US for their medical treatments..especially surgeries, because we have a poor health care system Rolleyes


That is an incredibly shallow (and illogical) view of health care. If the best brain surgeon in the world happened to live in Khazakstan, people would travel there for help too - it says nothing about national health outcomes.

People who can afford it will travel to wherever they can to get help. People travel to the socialised systems of the UK (a certain Rich DeVos for example), Australia, France all the time as well.

In my opinion, how a society treats those who can pay the most is one of the least important measurements of the success of that society.

Check out infant mortality ratingsand see how long it takes you to find the US in the list. Or try life expectancy or the rate of mothers who die during childbirth.

More children die in childbirth, more mothers die in childbirth, the people as a whole live YEARS less than other countries .... and you mockingly claim all is rosy because Heads of State often go to the US for treatment?

That kind of attitude perhaps reveals more about YOU than it does about anything else.

Quote:Now, by society as whole...you are referring to the overall outcome of such a system. You mean, weeding out the ones that "should not" get the help...like the really sick or elderly.

Huh? I've no idea what you're talking about here.

Quote: Or how about creating such a system as to completely undermine any private supplemental coverage, because the cost is sky-high for such a service, as well as being taxed on it. Thus creating less incentive for doctors to perform because their pay is capped by the government, thus doctors leave the country to find better incentives, thus creates extended wait times and the furthering of sick people. But, so long as we are "as a whole" a healthier country...that is all that matters...even if we have weed out 15-20% of the population.

Still no idea what you're talking about "weeding out" people. I've also no idea what you're talking about with "doctor's pay capped by government". I know of no democracy that does that. Can you name one?

It appears your just making stuff up to come to some kind of conclusion you want?

Quote:I have never heard any say that people "deserve" to suffer, in this context. Details aside???? Sorry chum, that is where the debate lies. As we spoke about before...this socialized healthcare may work for smaller populations, but on a large scale...forget it.

Yup, definitely can't work in somewhere small like ... the EU, population 500 million.

Quote:Yes, it is called bankruptcy. The laws are there. This could have been achieved months ago and without the probable loss of billions of dollars to the tax payers.

Not quite the same situation. Due to the financial crisis they would have been unable to source funding to keep them operational.

Quote:Try again, been in the works since Jimmy Carter, as well as the lack of recognition of the competition increases over several decades and allowing the status quo to continue (at least where car companies are concerned). BTW...Bush was not 'very right".

Compared to who? The fact remains that a Republican administration went against core Republican principles in the bank bailouts. Why would they do that? Because they understood the consequences of not taking action.

Quote:It is not ideology, and what overly flexible and willy nilly leftists do not take into account is the math and long term repercussions of future generations their short term, quick fix decisions will have.

Yup, willy nilly leftists like the Bush administration. hhahahahahah Big Grin

Quote:When you believe and take a look at the laws in our country and realize that they provide and protect for ALL companies both small and large.

Individually and normally perhaps, the current situation is neither an individual one, nor normal

Quote: When you look at our country, you realize we do have basic forms of health care for those that can not afford it. Heck, hospitals all across the country often take HUGE losses because they will treat people who can not pay, thus placing the burden on tax payers anyways.

Cost more per person for worse health outcomes. Gotta love that drive for efficiency!

Quote:Think about it...no government bailout of GM.....GM's stock drops significantly...GM files for bankruptcy protection...another company buys a majority share in GM.

How does another company buy shares? No money was available. The available money supply had dwindled. I know suppliers to SAAB, a GM subsidiary, had stopped shipping parts because they lacked confidence they'd get paid.

Quote:Without the taxpayers owning 70% of GM and with little hope for repayment...because all the same "overhead" is still in place. :beee:

Same overhead in place? Not from what I read. Depends on what you read of course. :dontknow:
 Reply
#22
ibofightback Wrote:That is an incredibly shallow (and illogical) view of health care. If the best brain surgeon in the world happened to live in Khazakstan, people would travel there for help too - it says nothing about national health outcomes.

People who can afford it will travel to wherever they can to get help. People travel to the socialised systems of the UK (a certain Rich DeVos for example), Australia, France all the time as well.

Yes I will agree they are different topics but the point is we typically do have the best research, technology and doctors. Again, typically it is understood as far as I have read with exceptions of course.

Quote:In my opinion, how a society treats those who can pay the most is one of the least important measurements of the success of that society.
Yes in your Utopian view....that fine.

Quote:More children die in childbirth, more mothers die in childbirth, the people as a whole live YEARS less than other countries .... and you mockingly claim all is rosy because Heads of State often go to the US for treatment?

That kind of attitude perhaps reveals more about YOU than it does about anything else.
No, what it says is that you are basically splitting hairs. When you look at the numbers, you are talking about the difference of only a few. Especially if you take the bulk of the EU...it is very narrow..within 2 or 3. Although tragic, it is hardly detailing a terrible health care system. Now if the U.S. was right next to say...Angola...then I think you would have an argument.
Quote:Huh? I've no idea what you're talking about here.
In the recent system proposed...there would be far less coverage for the elderly, versus the younger community. More resources would be allocated per person to the younger people. When the dependency would need to be the other way around. Certain "procedures" or surgeries would be denied a person of a certain age.

Quote:Still no idea what you're talking about "weeding out" people. I've also no idea what you're talking about with "doctor's pay capped by government". I know of no democracy that does that. Can you name one?
Doctor's being capped by the government...our universal healthcare system would only pay X amount of dollars for procedures, with no regard to geography, costs, etc. Lack of incentive to work.

The system they are currently looking at is going to modeled after the healthcare in Massachusetts.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/">http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... ailing_us/</a><!-- m -->

This is from the hugely pro-left wing newspaper that has supported a universal healthcare plan for years. Also, noteworthy...they talk about medicare as a good system.

Several other things to note...it is required for people in Mass to have health insurance...many (some 200,000+) just elect to pay the fine, because it is cheaper. The total cost was set at recurring 680 million...and has since more than doubled since then.

Compare that to what the government is looking to do now...I believe their estimates are grossly low as to the costs. They seem to only take into account people with no insurance, but neglect to say that people with insurance might simply drop it to get the government version, thus adding billions to the cost potentially.

Quote:Yup, definitely can't work in somewhere small like ... the EU, population 500 million
Sorry, the EU is not a country and have very different terms of healthcare from country to country. Not to mention the tax burden on the people from country to country. What about China, Russia, India. Seems those countries are quite far down on your lists you provided.

Quote:Not quite the same situation. Due to the financial crisis they would have been unable to source funding to keep them operational.
I disagree. This is just the same fear tactics other use to push the government agenda, whatever that may be. GM would be absorbed by someone. Probably for pennies on the dollar...but it would have remained operational. Happens all the time.

Quote:Compared to who? The fact remains that a Republican administration went against core Republican principles in the bank bailouts. Why would they do that? Because they understood the consequences of not taking action.
Because they were not conservatives. They were and are middle of the road politicians (at least where the U.S. is concerned..per our earlier debates).

Quote:
Quote:It is not ideology, and what overly flexible and willy nilly leftists do not take into account is the math and long term repercussions of future generations their short term, quick fix decisions will have.

Yup, willy nilly leftists like the Bush administration. hhahahahahah Big Grin

You are right with Bush's math issue and his leftist policies. However, you can not compare the blatant overspending of Obama to the near crippling effect of 9/11. The war in Iraq, well we can debate that...even though the recent mantra is, that it is a victory.

Quote:Individually and normally perhaps, the current situation is neither an individual one, nor normal
I disagree. I think even before the recession began..GM was on its way down, as well as Chysler and Ford.

Quote:Cost more per person for worse health outcomes. Gotta love that drive for efficiency!
See your results again...and compare to other countries with similar populations...we fair really well.

Quote:How does another company buy shares? No money was available. The available money supply had dwindled. I know suppliers to SAAB, a GM subsidiary, had stopped shipping parts because they lacked confidence they'd get paid.
Hogwash. Plenty of companies had and have plenty of money. It may not be auto companies looking to invest...but others that would invested for sure. Especially after dropping the often times ridiculous UAW union and their policies.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#23
ibofightback Wrote:People travel to the socialised systems of the UK (a certain Rich DeVos for example), Australia, France all the time as well.



Poor example. The reason Rich DeVos had the surgery in England was because the DONOR WAS IN ENGLAND.


In 1996, DeVos, who lives in Michigan and owns the Orlando Magic NBA franchise, was told without a new heart, he would have only a year or two to live. As a 70-year-old who already had one bypass, he was told his chances of getting a heart were slim. He found a doctor in London who said it would be easier to get a heart there, so he and his wife left for England.


http://www.lifesharers.org/presscoverage/daytona.htm
 Reply
#24
ibofightback Wrote:
Bridgett Wrote:Anyway, Government FAILS at taking care of its people. They lack the volunteer mentality that it takes to be effective.


I think you'll find most democracies do a great job of "taking care of its people" (though that term sounds a little paternalistic in my view). The countries that don't usually don't have a functioning government or have an incredibly corrupt one that doesn't even closely represent the will of the people.


I have two words for you--Hurricane Katrina.

Those levees should have been fixed years ago. There was so much data, so much warning, way before 2005, very plainly laying out the utter destruction that would occur.

And then is was a domino effect, of government failing at all levels--city, state, and federal. And politicians pointing their fingers, trying to deflect the blame.

And it was, and has been, non-government organizations and individuals that have stepped in, in spite of a "non-functioning or corrupt government" to help restore that city and that state.

Lousiana is home of some of our poorest U.S. citizens. Those people are the ones I am referring to when I say "taking care of its people"--the ones that NEED assistance, and not just in time of crisis.

The government has NEGLECTED them for decades.

Hurricane Katrina shed a light on that.
 Reply
#25
Good point, Bridgett.
 Reply
#26
It's not a good point at all. The US still does a much better job of looking after it's citizens than by far the majority of countries. Much of the shock of Katrina wasn't because of what happened - it was because it happened in the US. Those types of things happen in other countries all the time.

It was however a fair example that US government is not functioning as well as it could or should. It's interesting to note the US has been slipping down the list of rankings of least corruption in government. I suspect if individual states where included in that list things may be even more ... interesting ...
 Reply
#27
TB 2 IBO Wrote:
ibofightback Wrote:That is an incredibly shallow (and illogical) view of health care. If the best brain surgeon in the world happened to live in Khazakstan, people would travel there for help too - it says nothing about national health outcomes.

People who can afford it will travel to wherever they can to get help. People travel to the socialised systems of the UK (a certain Rich DeVos for example), Australia, France all the time as well.

Quote:Yes I will agree they are different topics but the point is we typically do have the best research, technology and doctors. Again, typically it is understood as far as I have read with exceptions of course.

In some areas you have the best research, tech etc. In other areas other countries do. The US has traditionally lead in medical research, something which has been falling the past decade due to the anti-science Bushites, but leadership in medical research has clearly not led to leadership as a healthy society.

Quote:
Quote:In my opinion, how a society treats those who can pay the most is one of the least important measurements of the success of that society.
Yes in your Utopian view....that fine.

How do you measure the success of a society?


Quote: No, what it says is that you are basically splitting hairs. When you look at the numbers, you are talking about the difference of only a few. Especially if you take the bulk of the EU...it is very narrow..within 2 or 3. Although tragic, it is hardly detailing a terrible health care system. Now if the U.S. was right next to say...Angola...then I think you would have an argument.

2 or 3 per hundred thousand is an awful lot of people when you consider US population. What's perhaps is even more telling is that the US has been getting worse in some of these health statistics, not just in ranking but in real terms.

Quote:In the recent system proposed...there would be far less coverage for the elderly, versus the younger community. More resources would be allocated per person to the younger people. When the dependency would need to be the other way around. Certain "procedures" or surgeries would be denied a person of a certain age.

I haven't looked at the proposals for reform of your system. What your talking about seems to be simply a matter of economics. You prioritise spending of taxpayers money where they do the most benefit. None of this would change the current ability of those who can afford it getting care anyway.

Quote:Doctor's being capped by the government...our universal healthcare system would only pay X amount of dollars for procedures, with no regard to geography, costs, etc. Lack of incentive to work.

Ahh, the american obsession that monetary reward is the only incentive Smile

In any case, how does this give the result you claim? Even if it did give a lack of incentive to doctor's in the public health system, they can simply move to the private health system if they want.

Quote:This is from the hugely pro-left wing newspaper that has supported a universal healthcare plan for years. Also, noteworthy...they talk about medicare as a good system.

You neglect to mention they talk about extending medicare to be universal, something which I think would currently be politically untenable (ask Hillary).

Quote:Compare that to what the government is looking to do now...I believe their estimates are grossly low as to the costs. They seem to only take into account people with no insurance, but neglect to say that people with insurance might simply drop it to get the government version, thus adding billions to the cost potentially.

Haven't studied it, can't say.

Quote:Yup, definitely can't work in somewhere small like ... the EU, population 500 million
Sorry, the EU is not a country and have very different terms of healthcare from country to country. Not to mention the tax burden on the people from country to country. What about China, Russia, India. Seems those countries are quite far down on your lists you provided.


Vírtually all of Europe has universal healthcare. I recently spent 3 weeks travelling around Europe by motorhome, visited 13 or so countries if I recall. If I or any of my family had gotten sick, it would have cost me a maximum of maybe $20, and even that would have been waived if necessary.

What about China, Russia, India? The health challenges of (relatively) poor developing countries are substantially different to rich countries. Are you suggesting because some poor countries have poor health outcomes, despite (kind of) universal health care, that means one should simply ignore all the wealthy and more comparable countries?

Quote:I disagree. This is just the same fear tactics other use to push the government agenda, whatever that may be. GM would be absorbed by someone. Probably for pennies on the dollar...but it would have remained operational. Happens all the time.

The brand may have been bought, but not everything else. Happens all the time.


Quote:Because they were not conservatives. They were and are middle of the road politicians (at least where the U.S. is concerned..per our earlier debates).

When George W Bush is getting described as "not conservative" it goes to show just how extreme the current, shrinking, republican party has moved.

Quote:You are right with Bush's math issue and his leftist policies. However, you can not compare the blatant overspending of Obama to the near crippling effect of 9/11. The war in Iraq, well we can debate that...even though the recent mantra is, that it is a victory.

A war of choice in Iraq versus bailouts where most economists believe there was no choice. Yeah, we can debate that.

Quote:I disagree. I think even before the recession began..GM was on its way down, as well as Chysler and Ford.

Sure, and I think they should have died, or be bought out or merged long ago. The financial crisis made it a different situation.

Quote:See your results again...and compare to other countries with similar populations...we fair really well.

There are no countries with similar populations. China and India have more than 3 times the population of the US. Indonesia comes fourth with nearly a quarter fewer.

But I see that's the excuse - you're claiming a country with a big population can't afford universal healthcare.

Quote:Hogwash. Plenty of companies had and have plenty of money. It may not be auto companies looking to invest...but others that would invested for sure. Especially after dropping the often times ridiculous UAW union and their policies.

You may be right, you may be wrong. The consequences of you being wrong were not worth the risk.
 Reply
#28
ibofightback Wrote:It's not a good point at all. ...It was however a fair example that US government is not functioning as well as it could or should.

The first sentence says that Bridgett's example has no merit. The second sentence acknowledges that there is some truth to it. :dontknow: IBOFightBack, aren't Americans viewed as having a "God's on our side", high and mighty attitude? Why don't you go ahead and let Bridgett dump on us? It's good for our image--shows that some of us are humble.
 Reply
#29
It had no merit as far as implying the US government doesn't do a good job of looking after it's citizens compared to other governments.
 Reply
#30
ajgannon Wrote:
ibofightback Wrote:It's not a good point at all. ...It was however a fair example that US government is not functioning as well as it could or should.

The first sentence says that Bridgett's example has no merit. The second sentence acknowledges that there is some truth to it. :dontknow: IBOFightBack, aren't Americans viewed as having a "God's on our side", high and mighty attitude? Why don't you go ahead and let Bridgett dump on us? It's good for our image--shows that some of us are humble.


ibofightback Wrote:It had no merit as far as implying the US government doesn't do a good job of looking after it's citizens compared to other governments.


Just to remind everyone (including myself) what started me on my rant---it had nothing to do with saying how poor (or great)the American government is COMPARED to other countries.

My point was regarding the corruption and the waste in the American government in and of itself, and how they do a poor job, (compared to excellence, not compared to third-world-countries) in providing for those who are truly in need.

Charities do a better job, whether they be faith-based or not.

Yes, compared to crap, the American government shines brightly. :good:

Having a free press probably has more to do with the higher quality of government, than it does with the condition of the hearts of our politicians. :glare:
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)