How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[ertyu]

Don't talk to me.

he just went there girlfriend.

*snaps fingers*

[Correction]

The lesson is that one should think very long, hard, and carefully before expanding the government. Interfering with lives by telling people how to spend their money, live their lives, and who to support always has the potential to do more harm than good. It can be good, but rushed programs that are full of care and emotion tend to lead to more problems than solutions.

Nobody has jumped beyond the "Look! A problem! Let's do the most obvious and quickest solution!" mentality. When you dig deeper into it you begin to examine the upsides and the downsides you can truly make an informed opinion as to whether or not a certain program is in the best interest of the people or not.

I love how this is the conservative attitude towards health care, but declaring war? fuck that, act now and we'll throw in a bonus war for the same price!

[guartz]

Yeah.. the moral is you're trying to scare people with your OOGA BOOGA HEALTH CARE REFORM BAD crap and it's not gonna work, especially when you present a cleverly worded yet factually bankrupt essay that bashes the New Deal and ignores the Libertarian movement's goddess Ayn Rand in respect to government involvement in health care.

Well, if free market frightens you but you feel safer with concentrated and mostly unchecked monopoly, then really, what can I say? You are brainwashed or detached from reality.

New deal was great! But like all government interventions, it works well for a generation or two, then it requires more intervention, add infinite. When A.M.A denounced Lodge Practice, they knew that they were attacking a competitive system! They idea was to create a "Cooperative Commonwealth" aka, socialism. The theory, which was fully implemented, was that standardized fees would provide for easy access to practitioners for "fair" price, not a market price. It failed, so more regulations were added, around 40s and 50s "The New Deal", that failed too, and you got reforms with Nixon... and guess what? That failed too. So let's continue? We'll eventually have our cake and eat it too.


By the way,

Ayn Rand was against government intervention...she was a die hard capitalist until the day she croaked. So I have no idea what you are saying in regards to her.




Also, correction. Lol @ linking a planned parent hood article.

[Sirrus_Asura]

I love how this is the conservative attitude towards health care, but declaring war? fuck that, act now and we'll throw in a bonus war for the same price!

Hey fucktard, No. That's called a Neocon.

[Kuya]

Guartz, your argument is incomplete. Would you please connect it to what's going on now? I trust you've been keeping yourself informed of the going ons in the health care reform issue to make a satisfactory argument.

You're trying to say that government reform of health care is going to make it worse, yes? If so, then point out exactly what's going on now and how it is going to lead to something that's worse, with plenty to back up your points, naturally. You don't quite seem like the type to say EUTHENASIA OF OLD PEOPLE without a solid argument behind it, so i'm expecting better, because what you have right now in your OP is anedoctal.

[guartz]

I'm not gonna go down that road, Kuya. My disagreement is philosophical, and I'm quite certain the new reform will make good adjustments that will work very well, until once again they are exploited.

[Kuya]

Alright then.

[SephYuyX]

Isnt there a thread for healthcare crap already?
Solution = raise medicare/medicade/ss to 85.

[Kuya]

You should probably let the bandwagoning "conservatives" know that you're not, per se, saying that the current system is better than a reform, you know how they love to cling to anarquists and libertarians when they have little ability to make a coherent argument on their own.

As for your philosophical contention, i understand it. I thought you were going to say that, since the government colluded with specific interests to destroy a function that benefitted many, and then turned it into something to benefit the few- i thought you were going to make an allusion on how big interests (big health insurence companies and hospitals) via lobbying will have the reform only satisfy narrow interests rather than the interests of many. I thought you were going to make that connection, and i agree with it, somewhat, that it's possible, if the large interests suceed, that the reform will only make the system serve the same narrow interests and not most Americans (they want an individual mandate, but no public option or employer mandate). But of course, that discussion is made on hypotheticals, and not necessarily what will likely happen.

[Kuya]

Isnt there a thread for healthcare crap already?
Solution = raise medicare/medicade/ss to 85.

The problem with high premiums in health insurence for the non elderly and a lack of coverage for the most sickly is... medicare?

[guartz]

You should probably let the bandwagoning "conservatives" know that you're not, per se, saying that the current system is better than a reform, you know how they love to cling to anarquists and libertarians when they have little ability to make a coherent argument on their own.

As for your philosophical contention, i understand it. I thought you were going to say that, since the government colluded with specific interests to destroy a function that benefitted many, and then turned it into something to benefit the few- i thought you were going to make an allusion on how big interests (big health insurence companies and hospitals) via lobbying will have the reform only satisfy narrow interests rather than the interests of many. I thought you were going to make that connection, and i agree with it, somewhat, that it's possible, if the large interests suceed, that the reform will only make the system serve the same narrow interests and not most Americans (they want an individual mandate, but no public option or employer mandate). But of course, that discussion is made on hypotheticals, and not necessarily what will likely happen.

You know me oh so well, Kuya.

But what you call hypothetical that it's a clandestine act to enrich some elite group, I call it a most assured fact.

[guartz]

Also, I wouldn't worry about "conservatives" using this particular wedge to undermine obama's health care reform. Their criticism is political, not principled or philosophical so I doubt very much they would say all intervention is bad, just anything that anti-christ obama does is bad.

[guartz]

AND BY THE WAY..

PEOPLE WHO WERE PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY UNTRAINED IN MEDICINE PERFORMING MEDICAL PROCEDURES.

OH GOD, THAT GUY WHO TOOK MY TEMPERATURE DIDN'T HAVE A LICENSE!!!!11!! ZOMG

[Leif]

Don't talk to me.

Seriously, be happy :D! Don't hold grudges! I forgive you.

But if you wanna go with the restraining order, I will stay 100 yards away so you can be a happier person.

[Headspace]

The lesson is that one should think very long, hard, and carefully before expanding the government. Interfering with lives by telling people how to live their lives.

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strol...riage-cake.jpg


Oh wait, only when it concerns your taxes.

Forgot.

[Leif]

I honestly can't tell if those plastic dolls* meant to resemble dudes or chicks.

Edit: I think my position on the above is pretty clear. On a more general note, there are idiots on both sides of the isle and elected officials who are willing to make those people happy. On the left there are environmental wackos who actually do think the world will end tomorrow with New York City underwater. On the right there are people in the middle of nowhere who haven't had a single original thought in the past decade and can only think about how much they hate abortion.

[Correction]

They're plastic dolls.

[Rhinox]

who you guys arguing with? I see nothing

[guartz]

Here is an article from NY times to support the idea that AMA acts as a cartel to increase profitability and prices through lobbying.

CURBING THE SUPPLY OF PHYSICIANS; WHO SAID WE HAVE TOO MANY DOCTORS? - New York Times

THE American Medical Association, like other professional associations, suffers from a split personality. While it is devoted to improving the quality of medical care, education and the profession, it also operates as a cartel to protect the economic interests of its members.

Thus, the report states that (A.M.A) policy makers must base their conclusions on ''perceptions and professional judgment,'' implying that the A.M.A. knows what supply of physicians best serves society.

In addition, the A.M.A. ignores the economic reality that physician supply is influenced by the demand for medical education.

[Olo401]

Well, if free market frightens you but you feel safer with concentrated and mostly unchecked monopoly, then really, what can I say? You are brainwashed or detached from reality.

Uhh no, you're the one who's detached from reality. You don't think that the market is monopolized now, only instead of a literal monopoly it's a monopoly via trust. Why else would there be multiple companies in the same market, yet consumer costs RISE instead of drop?

And why else would YOU be arguing against changes to the system that would drive costs DOWN through increased competition and actually keeping people healthy, instead of dumping them off policies they have paid thousands of dollars for or literally dumping them in the slums instead of treating them?

How dare you even fucking say anything to anyone about detachment from reality. Your hypocrisy make me want to fucking puke.