I think we've already established that fact

You didn't say you wanted everyone to live in squalor, just that you don't give a rat's *** if they do. Okay, well that's a lot better.

Therein lies the difference between cartoonish evil and conservative values.

I'm sure doubling our tax rate would have no effect whatsoever on our economy!

Shifting the burden of health insurance from the employer to the employees (at whatever rate they can afford) means more people will be employed at a greater rate of pay.

You'd think one of the things people have learned over the course of history is that just because it works in one country, does not mean it'll work in another.

There are an incredible amount of factors that go into a health system, and many of them have absolutely nothing to do with "health" at all. You can't just copy and paste NHS or Denmark's health care system and do it over the United States. We are an entirely different people, for better or worse.

And also there is nothing wrong with someone being pessimistic about the new upcoming system. There's an incredible track record of incompetence in our government and inefficiencies in some of the most important sectors, so people have the right to be worried. There's a reason why approval for the new system has never been so low. I don't know about you, but I have loaded CNN / MSNBC the past couple days to headlines about new $150 Billion dollar programs, new bailouts for banks, etc, and I'm wondering where the hell all this money is coming from. Add to that the new health care, and it's a quite intimidating situation.

This assumes that much of that burden isn't already ON the employees as is.

I think you'd be surprised how elastic the supply of labor is.

I don't get how this has anything to do with what I said.

I said this: I think employers pay for more of your benefits and income tax than you believe they do. I also said about three paragraphs of other stuff, but that's the most important part.

Maybe in some companies, but not all (or the majority even). It's quite common for employers not to offer benefits at all even at a level where benefits would be expected (that is to say, not just McDonalds workers). And even when they do, there's always the situation of smaller companies not being able to cover providing benefits to new hires who have bigger pre-existing conditions. I've come across this myself more than once.

Taiwan is very different than most, if not all, European countries, yet they took what they considered to be the best parts of various systems & made their own. There are going to be various types of difficulties but I would rather be in the "it works over there better than our system works over here, maybe it's worth looking in to" club instead of the "it'll never work because we're not socialists" club.


There's a reason that so many people watch Fox News. There's a reason that so many people voted for George Bush. There's a reason that so many people follow an ancient book with no supporting evidence for what lies within its pages. R-E-T-A-R-D-A-T-I-O-N. We're surrounded by imbeciles. It almost sounds as if you're making an appeal to popularity.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

Of course you can't copy-paste some other health care system. I mean, just look for inspiration. See what you can somehow translate into the American system. But Obama's doing that. In fact he even mentioned the Dutch system as an example.

The problem is indeed, like mscbuck pointed out, that people have no faith in the government. However, this also isn't unique for the US. People have faith in the government almost nowhere when it comes to big time overhauls of the system such as this one.

Did you think people supported the government when they overhauled our health care system? Hell no. Dit it work out? Yes, considering the circumstances, it did.

Sure it is.

Some companies do have a lot of power (oligopolies or monopolies) which naturally causes the formation of a trade union to balance that power between employers and employees. But most companies have very little power in labor markets, just like their employees: they're bound to pay the prevailing market wage. This is the reason you aren't seeing the Video Store and Confectioner Employees' 105th.

But you're being compensated in other ways.

If an employer offers you benefits, you'd be willing to work for less money than if the employer did not offer benefits. That amount of less money is your "share." The rest of the cost of the benefit is the employer's "share."

How much of a pay cut are you willing to take for this benefit? Are you willing to cover the whole cost? Less than half of it? Your share of the 'burden' is wholly determined by the elasticity of the supply of labor in your labor market.

Which tells me a few things:

- You were seeking a job in an industry that is very competitive: many companies, no product differentiation, high turnover.
- There are many people with similar qualifications looking for jobs in market.
- Most companies are operating with their profit-maximizing quantity of labor.

I'm going to have pretty awesome health care once I land this job in a month or so.

Just so you know.

i am still wondering why no one is willing to work on mitigating the cost of actual health CARE. insurance is meant to help mitigate the cost of medical procedures, why isn't the governments first move to try and lower the cost of the procedure itself? starting with fraud. or if you have to dabble in insurance go this rout:
institute insurance exchanges, and subsidize for preexisting conditions. patient with preexisting condition pays the same as patient without but insurance company does not go bankrupt.

mentat your being a tool. are you trying to prove a point with this or what? most people make decisions based on their values which are acquired through a combination of the way they were raised and subsequent life experiences. having a different set of beliefs or values than you does not automatically make someone inferior. or as you so gracefully put it, give them a "R-E-T-A-R-D-A-T-I-O-N"

with a few exceptions we are not talking about people who want to own africans as slaves. they just dont want to pay for someone else when they are busting their *** to make something of themselves.

So are you also against:

Public schools and universities
Public infrastructure like roads, electricity, gas and plumbing


Also, health care is already socialized, it's called Medicare.

Just so we're clear, you're calling everyone who thinks any different from you a retard. Just so we're REALLY clear, you're calling at LEAST 85% of the world's population retarded. Just so we all have this perfectly straight in our heads, exactly how many people would you say are as super smart as you are?

actually no. i am alright with public schools for k-12, except for the waste and abuses ect... yes its blatantly hypocritical, but i am fine with that. however i do think that private schools are superior in almost every way.

i have no problem with government scholarships, but by and large i think gov. run universities are fraught with waste and fraud and abuse(theres those fun words again!) and jackass students who wear tweed jackets with elbow patches.

and i guess i am alright with public utilities? maybe? i actually dont know if i use public utilities or not. all i know is that every month i pay a gas, water and electric bill. and yes i am alright with my tax money being used to build and maintain roads, i use em every day. its a good use for my taxes.

so maybe you wanna try and slow down on the assumptions next time buck-o?



Oh! and that is just going so well! i mean its only the largest financial burden the U.S. has right now.
in fact its working out so well its even going broke!

ironically enough i actually think a single payer system for all citizens would be better than the dribble they are trying to pass in congress right now.

...some of the best universities in the country are public.


But improving the welfare of the rest of the country, which indirectly affects you, is not okay?



I never said I supported it.

Yes. My point was that just because the majority of people believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. That's one of the problems you'll run in to in a system of government where every idiot & his brother has a say. Suggesting the opposite would be a logical fallacy (appeal to population if I'm not mistaken).


Making decisions based upon these supposed "values" is one of the things that I refer to as "retardation".

Define:Retardation - deceleration: a decrease in rate of change; "the deceleration of the arms race". the extent to which something is delayed or held back. retardant: any agent that retards or delays or hinders; "flame-retardant". lack of normal development of intellectual capacities. slowdown: the act of slowing down or falling behind .

Decisions should be based upon logic/reason & should benefit all of society, not upon what your daddy told you when you were 12. It took me awhile, but I discovered that daddy's aren't always right & some of them never are. Let's take the "institute" of marriage for instance. Why is it that homosexuals can't get married? Because instead of basing the decision on logic/reason, they're basing it on "values" or "religion". The decision is "retarded", the people making the decision (whether it's the people or the politicians) are "retarded" & the system is "retarded". If homosexuals can't get married, the "institution" is therefore discriminatory & should be changed or dismantled because it's "retarded". There are certain matters in life that shouldn't be voted on.

I never said that someone that has a different set of "values" than me is automatically inferior. However, everyone can't be right, so in reality, it's quite possible that this is true. The opposite is also possible but I seriously doubt it. Let's assume for one moment that I was "right" & that the people that I'm referring to are indeed "wrong". Let's also assume that they're wrong based upon their political "disposition" or religion. Wouldn't that mean that they, Fox News & their religion was retarded? Their daddy was wrong, their only source of news was wrong, their system of values was wrong & ultimately they're wrong. I would say that this is a relatively good example of a retarded system leading a retarded people.


I'm not so sure about that. I know quite a few right-wingers that would love to own a slave or 2. Let's not be hasty now. Imagine how much work you could accomplish. Even the forefathers that designed this super-bad-*** constitution of ours were slave-owners. Slavery was another example of a retarded system leading a retarded people.


No, they just want to pick & choose which necessities get paid for & which don't. That's what it comes down to in the end. I believe that the government should control the necessities in life & the other side believes that the government shouldn't or should at least control fewer of them. Healthcare is a necessity. Dying or going in to debt over an operation to save your life or the life of a loved one isn't a viable choice/option. Is war in the middle east, which takes up ****-tons of our money, a choice/option or a necessity?


No, but it's quite possible that we're all retarded on some level but not for the reason that you're suggesting.


Yes. However, it's quite possible to be retarded & still right about some things. For instance, my niece believes in Santa Claus but she also knows that 2+2=4.


I never claimed to be smarter than anyone else. I simply claimed that there are a lot of people out there that are retarded. I'm probably rather retarded on a multitude of issues myself. I never made the claim that I wasn't a part of that group. I only stated that it exists.


This is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. He recognizes his own hypocrisy but fails to adjust his opinion accordingly. He's simply picking & choosing which necessities that he wants the government to be involved in.


It's working better than that "war" in Iraq & Afghanistan. At least with medicare we get the opportunity to help people in our own country.

Don't even pretend to think that medicare is a successful system.

I never stated that medicare is a successful system. I'm simply stating that we're also spending a great deal of money fighting "wars" in Afghanistan & Iraq & that medicare is arguably at least an attempt (possibly a poor one) at helping people in our own country instead of throwing away billions/trillions on a war for absolutely no ****ing reason. I'm attempting to show that many of the people on the right are perfectly fine with a war that's not a necessity but when it comes to the necessity of healthcare, they don't give a ****. I think that much of this attitude stems from the illusion that they themselves will someday be rich & that they don't want the government taxing the **** out of them.

In the end, if these "retarded" statements of mine are going to keep distracting us from the subject at hand (this wasn't my intention), I'll gladly withdrawal them.

Wow.. Reading this thread...Thank God I live in Canada and don't have to deal with all this bull****.

How long are those lines in Canada? When the Republicans tell us that we shouldn't have a healthcare system like Canada's, they typically make it sound like you'll be waiting 30 years for an operation. My wife is French & has experienced the American healthcare system as well as the French healthcare system. She says that while the quality of healthcare in the U.S. is as good as it is in France (in most cases), she isn't a big fan of the amount of money that we pay. She also says that pharmacies are much more powerful in France & can take care of many of your needs. Here, they're practically worthless in comparison. She also says that there aren't long lines of people waiting in France & that there's more of a focus on preventative medicine. Here, we have to wait for about a week to get in to see the doctor (I've personally had several instances where it was as long as 2 weeks just to see a general practitioner), unless we go to am immediate care center (which costs more). In France, my wife said that she never had to wait that long. Their taxes are obviously higher, especially on material things, but then again, when I was over there, people didn't appear to be as materialistic as we are in the U.S. & they tend to have 1 television instead of 3 (this could have more to do with space limitations).

What lines are you talking about? The longest I've ever waited in a hospital is perhaps 2 hours. They take you by severity of your condition, and I wasn't shot or stabbed, so they took my condition less seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems

We also have three options when it comes to being sick or having anything wrong with us.. We can go to our family doctors, which you make an appointment for and usually get in the very next day, or same day even depending. You can go to a walk in clinic, which is free of charge and has doctors that work at hospitals, specialists, etc as staff. Or you can go to the emergency room, in which case you will end up waiting the longest out of the three, as I said they take patients not on a basis of first come first served but rather how severe your condition is. NEVER have I had to wait a week just to see a doctor, ever. A specialist, that's different totally, and I am sure the USA has the exact same or similar conditions when it comes to needing to see specialists (wait times). The last specialist appointments I waited for there was a 2 week gap between and the other had maybe a 2 month gap.


EDIT: This is something that really surprised and kind of intrigued me...



31% versus 1%!?

I knew that number was bull****.

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf

Page 772

The 31 vs 1 is from some opinion article, with no backing research. Still, it's 31 vs 16.7

The Opinion article, which REEKS of bias:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

Edit: The wiki article is ****. I like how under "Malpractice litigation" they try and mimimize the issue, while glossing over the most painful part: malpractice insurance.

http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/site/c.8oIDJLNnHlE/b.2913893/k.BB22/New_York_Doctors_Frustrated_Over_Malpractice_Insurance_Hike.htm

Average malpractice premium in FL: $277,000

Anyway, this thread isn't really worth the time, as half of you are talking out of your rectums, using a combination of useless anecdotes, skewed data, and flawed logic. There is so much bias that it makes my eyes bleed, and what's worse is that some of you may think your opinion is impartial. Mine isn't, but at least I can admit that much instead of parading around a giant tool.

Kuat, the article you linked states this:



Which is the exact same as the wiki link. I think the difference is in the date's. This one says according to 1999.

Dude, you can't read. Read what you posted AGAIN.

Edit:

Initial statement:



vs:



If you mean this part:



Where's the US number? They don't include it. They are talking about different things.

Show me in BLACK AND WHITE the 31 vs 1%.

So they confused the numbers (it was 16.1% not 1% overall), big deal. Either way, the number still ends up being half that of yours almost. Who cares about the numbers anyways? That's beside the point. My point to Mentat before was in response to his "waiting time" post.

I have no issue with you, sorry for being abrasive. But half versus like 30 fold is quite a difference. To me it's an example of the obvious poor scholarship that these debates have. LET ME PUT THESE NUMBERS UP BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT MY CAUSE AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ACTUALLY MEAN AND HURR DURRR.

As for waiting times, I hate when you guys use anecdotes.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=2000&q=canadian+vs+united+states+wait+times

This shows that the wait times vary, with it leaning on the scale that you guys wait SLIGHTLY more for elective procedures. Every article has something to say, but overall, don't talk about wait times unless you have literature behind you.

See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T18-3YF4CBH-5C&_user=376730&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1140865211&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000017958&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=376730&md5=fb01763e971f85b5e8141b74368565cc



USA TOTALLY THE BEST OMG WE WIN THE DEBATE. No, ONE article means nothing. However, this is better than: "Hey guys, I don't have to wait to see my MD, therefore NO ONE IN MY COUNTRY DOES". See how retarded that sounds?

My opinion is that neither system is clearly inferior or superior for the majority of the population, no matter what anyone slices it. They all can be improved, but I don't feel like emulating any other system because they ain't all that great.

I understand where you're coming from. And I do realize that ultimately the gap is a HUGE difference. Apology accepted. I actually wasn't putting the article up though to quote numbers, but rather for the wait time portion of it. The only reason I am using anecdotes is because I figured, as a Canadian citizen that's lived here for 26 years I would have a good gauge of what the wait times were like by now (this includes the various specialists I've had to visit over the years).

The best place you want to find wait times?

http://www.waittimealliance.ca/wait_times.htm (links to each provincial health care website, you can look up actual wait times on them)

Where I live:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/length_of_stay/public/index.html#

You can actually look up how long you'll be waiting in your particular area at each hospital.

I would post what it currently looks like for my area but the chart is really messed up. Also, this is only for hospitals/er visits. Unfortunately we don't have anything to monitor the wait times in Family Doctor rooms, and Walk in Clinics. I can however tell you for a fact without posting any literature that the way BOTH operate, you never wait longer than 2-3 hours in. I live in one of the busiest/most populated areas of Toronto. It simply depends on how busy the place is, and there are so many of them they usually never fill up. Your family doctor you never have to wait for unless they are on vacation, and as I stated walk in clinics are literally just that. Hell, up the road from me there are TWO of them right across from each other. Even closer to the hospital there are three of them in the same general area.

Fair enough. Thank you for the informative response.

Thank you for your civil response, and posting that educating link I can now read to educate myself for further debates on the matter (http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf).

To be fair, no one was really asking Temperamental for any statistics. Anyone that knows anything about the subject obviously realizes that the wait times in many countries that have universal healthcare are going to be a little longer. My rhetorical question was simply aimed at the right-wingers out there that are constantly claiming that wait times are outrageous in these countries (Canada is usually the one that they pick on) when in fact they're not unreasonable at all. Not only that but their citizens aren't going bankrupt because of medical bills. Life is hard enough without that to deal with. I think it's great that you want to take the conversation to the next level by having everyone cite their evidence but let's not pretend as if anyone was asking for that previously or that many of us would be incapable of doing so if we so chose.


The fact that all of the systems, including ours, can be improved is enough of a reason to take a good look at each system, in-depth & to potentially use the good elements of said systems as a model for what we could do here. I disagree with your statement about how the other systems aren't that great. Great for who? Sure, there are financial issues that arrive in many of those systems, but there's no denying the fact that the healthcare in most cases is just as good, if not better than it is here, that everyone is covered, that the wait times aren't unreasonable & that the average gal/guy isn't paying an arm & a leg for something that people in almost every other modern country consider a "right". I would consider that to be superior in many ways to what we have here. If god himself was giving the government the money with magic pixie dust, the right would still be against universal healthcare because they equate "socialism" with "satanism".

To state this "fact", you need to show that the wait times that come from the nationalized healthcare systems do not result in increased morbidity or mortality, nor subjectively effect quality of life. Your "fact" is not one, it's speculation from your armchair.

Am I saying you're wrong? No, but I know that you throw around your opinions and uninformed impressions as facts.



Since your fact is not one, it puts this statement into question. Maybe the bankruptcy is worth it. Is it? I don't know, do you?



Again, you have strong opinions that you feel are facts, and warp data around your feelings. The research itself is tainted, because everyone is colored by their bias. Your adversary, wookie and Co, are the same. The problem is everyone has these flowery opinions that they shouldn't have, but when they vote and act, they use them as facts. You SHOULD be able to immediately cite your opinion, because otherwise you're talking out of your behind.

You guys brought it to this level. We aren't talking philosophy or if health care is a right. We are talking about concrete things like wait times that can be measured. And in the end, that is what matters. Who cares about philosophy when your uninsured aunt has melanoma, or are being taxed out the anus and bring home a fraction of the money you earned the years before? How medicine should be provided is as detail oriented a debate as climate change.

If you don't feel like tackling it at that level? Then admit your ignorance. Otherwise, without actual facts to base our debate on, why even bother talking about it? You guys just sound silly with "OMG YOU SELFISH RIGHT WINGER" and "SCREW YOU, SOCIALIST PIG".



Can't disagree with that.



Opinions, opinions, opinions. Great, you have them. You've substantiated nothing.

I try and substantiate my opinions with citations. It isn't that hard. We have google to basically answer everything. The only thing I've seen from the literature is non-inferiority of either system.

To echo mscbuck, to really delve into the health care debate, you need to know the most important thing first: the profile of the country. For an example, we have an obesity epidemic. This has tremendous effects on health. We cannot compare Norway and the US, because the needs of the populations are vastly different due to health modifiers.

Obesity is just one example. Substance abuse, cultural preconceptions of illness, level of activity needed to perform a job. It's an incredibly complex issue. One that should not be tackled in this way, but slowly in conjunction with other social issues.

Hell, is healthcare the most pressing issue? I don't even know.

But every dick on the street has their opinion, and just like religious nuts, will stick to their irrational beliefs until their death.

While I'm typing a response to some of the things that you said, I would like to point out that you, in your previous post, also made several claims without any evidence & that you're no less guilty of what you're accusing me & others of. I also don't have the time to play the game of semantics.

To state this "fact", you need to show that this information is needed. You also need to prove that my chair has arms.


To state this "fact", you need to show that everyone in the world that makes a post on a message forum & doesn't provide a hyperlink to an article that'll just be biased by your standards anyways, is uninformed.


To state this "fact", you need to show that a hyperlink is required for something to be a fact & that medical problems weren't behind 2/3 of bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 & that one could file bankruptcy for medical bills in a country where one doesn't pay any.


To state this "fact", you need to show me an opinion meter with my opinions charted towards the "strong" portion. Congratulations! You've just joined the same club.


To state this "fact", you need to show that the research is tainted & that everyone is colored by their bias. However, your evidence will be tainted because you're biased so you should probably just spare yourself the time.


To state this "fact", you need to show that Wookie is my adversary, that he belongs to a company & that we're the same.


To state this "fact", you need to show that everyone on the planet has "flowery" opinions (after first showing how to define an opinion as flowery & then showing how to distinguish non-flowery opinions for flowery ones), that having them isn't right & that when they present them they actually believe that they're facts.


To state this "fact", you need to show that there are varying degrees or levels of debate & how to determine which type of conversation is appropriate for each level.


To state this "fact", you need to re-read every post & prove that no one was discussing health care on a philosophical level or if it's a right, which will be difficult, because many of us were until you came along.


To state this "fact", you need to refer to my previous response above as well as show that concrete wait times & other things can be measured & how those results won't be tainted or biased.


To state this "fact", you must present an untainted & unbiased chart or graph that shows "that" near the top of the "what matters" portion.


I care about the philosophical part of the debate & I think that others do as well. Otherwise, I think that none of us would have been debating on a philosophical level. Notice that I used the word "think". I wouldn't want to be sucked in to your semantics trap again.


To state this "fact", you need to show that there's a climate change debate & that it's detail-oriented. Is there a climate change debate? The climate is changing. The only debate appears to be over why it's changing. It's sort of like the supposed debate between creationists & scientists on the subject of evolution. The only debate that really existed there was whether or not evolution occurred via natural selection.


You're making the assumption that just because one doesn't have the time or patience to debate on the level that you apparently wanting to take this to somehow means that they're ignorant. I think that's absurd & arrogant. By your view, why should I bother to talk about anything if I don't want to go to the supreme level of understanding in which you believe that you reside? We should all just stop talking to one another because eventually everyone is going to run in to a subject where they simply don't have the time, patience or knowledge to contribute to.


I think that you sound just as silly when you attempt to flex your intellectual muscles by coming in & acting as if we were previously debating on the standards in which you're trying to raise the debate to.


Neither have you.


I think that any reasonable person would do the same if they had the time & patience. It's very hard if you don't have the time or patience. Hell, it took me over an hour just to respond to your last reply & I had to do that while baking 2 cakes & preparing for a party tonight. I suppose that since I have things to do & can only contribute to a debate on a certain level, I must be inferior in some way. I cared more about responding to your post than I did to any of them that actually had anything to do with the debate because no one likes to be accused of such ridiculousness.

Anyways, I can't really finish responding to everything that you said because I'm inferior & due to a lack of time but I hope that you'll at least be able to reflect upon the FACT that you're just as guilty of what you're accusing us of. However, I can appreciate that you want to take this to the next level, but I hope that you'll be open-minded enough to recognize that not everyone is misinformed simply because they don't have the time or patience to participate beyond a certain extend/level. I personally didn't realize that our debating standards were so high here at Massassi. If I knew that it was going to get this complicated, I would've just stuck to the music forum.

Claims made:

Obesity in US is higher than Norway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7151813.stm

What other claims? That obesity is a significant cause of morbidity, and therefore countries with a higher incidence will have differing needs in terms of health care provided? Ok, sure, that's my opinion, but based on evidence that isn't that far of a logical jump. Also, I think it's in the realm of common sense to state that the demographics of Norway differs from the US, and that these differences may, like obesity, impact the needs of the society.

Also, my bottom line is that I fail to see superiority of any system. You have the burden of proof to prove superiority of your claims. I'm supporting the null hypothesis, you have to disprove me.

Edit: Just started reading your above post.

Edit: stopped reading at this:



I uh... I'm going to call discussion with you a bit of an exercise in futility. Your opening statement attacking my call for you to provide evidence for your claim is just silly. Also, it's incredibly painful to read. I understand you're trying to parody what I did, but there are more reasonable ways to get that done.