Would you mind your tax dollars being spent on these things too? [Archive]

Ifreann

27-06-2007, 23:10

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/lolpiggy.jpg
Voat for me! I gives you delishus cheezburgers!

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/i-no-can-has-cheezburgr-i-is-vegeturiunz.jpg
We has vegitariun cheezburgers too. And cheezburgers wit lactoz free cheez
Well - first of all the comparison is not about 'having your life saved' - that is Superman's job. It is about free healthcare. You know - like seeing the doctor when you have the sniffles. In that case then yes - it is absolutely a valid comparison.

As far as traumatic injuries and terminal illnesses - there already IS free healthcare for for the poor avaliable. In the US it is called medicare and medicaid. So I'm afraid you are the proud owner of a red-herring.

You might want to make it a bit more clear that the thread is in fact about universal healthcare in the US.

The_pantless_hero

27-06-2007, 23:18

If elected I promise to provide free cheezburgers for every man, woman, child and lolcat in this great nations!

FOUR MOAR CHEEZBURGERS!

FOUR MOAR CHEEZBURGERS!
LOLRUS PRESIDENSHAL CANDIDATE - FOUR MOAR BUKKITS!

Levee en masse

27-06-2007, 23:20

Well - first of all the comparison is not about 'having your life saved' - that is Superman's job. It is about free healthcare. You know - like seeing the doctor when you have the sniffles. In that case then yes - it is absolutely a valid comparison.

As far as traumatic injuries and terminal illnesses - there already IS free healthcare for for the poor avaliable. In the US it is called medicare and medicaid. So I'm afraid you are the proud owner of a red-herring.

Well it may be unfair to expect a Brit to know about health care in the US. But if the healthcare system ensures there is free healthcare for for the poor avaliable, why are patients dumped on skid row in LA (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823079.shtml), or why was a woman allowed to literally die on the floor of the hospital (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king20may20,0,6057993.story?page=1&coll=la-home-local) whilst no one took any care of her. I seems to me from reading a lot of health stories that hospitals in the US really don't care about you unless you have money, and they allow other to fall by the wayside,

I have more. And I'll admit that I don't know a huge amount about this (bring a Brit) and this all might be easy to explain. But it just seems odd to me.

Cabra West

27-06-2007, 23:20

LOLRUS PRESIDENSHAL CANDIDATE - FOUR MOAR BUKKITS!

Four bukkits of cheezburgers?

RLI Rides Again

27-06-2007, 23:21

Well - first of all the comparison is not about 'having your life saved' - that is Superman's job. It is about free healthcare. You know - like seeing the doctor when you have the sniffles. In that case then yes - it is absolutely a valid comparison.

1. By going to the doctor when their disease is only at the 'sniffles' level, the illness can be treated relatively cheaply and easily. By waiting until it's life threatening you're vastly increasing the cost and arduousness of the treatment.

2. By treating infectious diseases quickly we can prevent their spread; by providing everyone with healthcare you're also protecting yourself.

CthulhuFhtagn

27-06-2007, 23:22

2. By treating infectious diseases quickly we can prevent their spread; by providing everyone with healthcare you're also protecting yourself.
Bah! Everyone knows that anarchists are immune to disease!

Ifreann

27-06-2007, 23:22

Four bukkits of cheezburgers?

Four bukkit sized cheezburgers.

Levee en masse

27-06-2007, 23:23

Bah! Everyone knows that anarchists are immune to disease!

:eek: So that explains why I don't get ill.

:p

Mystical Skeptic

28-06-2007, 00:04

Well it may be unfair to expect a Brit to know about health care in the US. But if the healthcare system ensures there is free healthcare for for the poor avaliable, why are patients dumped on skid row in LA (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823079.shtml), or why was a woman allowed to literally die on the floor of the hospital (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king20may20,0,6057993.story?page=1&coll=la-home-local) whilst no one took any care of her. I seems to me from reading a lot of health stories that hospitals in the US really don't care about you unless you have money, and they allow other to fall by the wayside,

I have more. And I'll admit that I don't know a huge amount about this (bring a Brit) and this all might be easy to explain. But it just seems odd to me.

Every nation has examples where their healthcare professionals have completely dropped the ball. Do I really need to remid you? It has nothing to do with people being able to afford to pay thier medical bills so much as it does with the occasional poor medical service which can happen anywhere- which are two seperate items.

New Limacon

28-06-2007, 00:06

Zarakon

28-06-2007, 00:06

I most certainly AM comparing universal healthcare to fucking food. Even celibate food. YOU try living without food for a few weeks then tell ME what is more important - a visit to Dr. Feelgood or a cheeseburger?

EH? Put that in your pipe!

I would, but I'm afraid I would choke on your idiotic excuses for arguments.

Frankly, your comparison is painfully lame. It's intellectually dishonest. We already do have food for those who need it in the form of food stams.

Mystical Skeptic

28-06-2007, 00:08

1. By going to the doctor when their disease is only at the 'sniffles' level, the illness can be treated relatively cheaply and easily. By waiting until it's life threatening you're vastly increasing the cost and arduousness of the treatment.

2. By treating infectious diseases quickly we can prevent their spread; by providing everyone with healthcare you're also protecting yourself.

You've had a life threatening case of the sniffles!? Damn! You must have one heluva nose!

VanBuren

28-06-2007, 00:08

Bah! Everyone knows that anarchists are immune to disease!

So they're like Paladins, only chaotic?

Do they get Smite Establishment?

Ashmoria

28-06-2007, 00:08

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free lawn care and food services, such as cheeseburgers, free lawn mowing and hedging, etc.

i feel strongly that those are not necessary services that should be provided to all citizens and that even if they were, they are best provided by the private sector.

Levee en masse

28-06-2007, 00:14

Every nation has examples where their healthcare professionals have completely dropped the ball. Do I really need to remid you? It has nothing to do with people being able to afford to pay thier medical bills so much as it does with the occasional poor medical service which can happen anywhere- which are two seperate items.

I'll admit my examples were trite.

However figures don't lie. The US spends more then anyother country on health care, yet the whole system is only 37th in the world.

Is that because of healthcare professionals occasionally "dropping the ball?"

Mystical Skeptic

28-06-2007, 00:16

I'll admit my examples were trite.

However figures don't lie. The US spends more then anyother country on health care, yet the whole system is only 37th in the world.

Is that because of healthcare professionals occasionally "dropping the ball?"

The public education system in the US certainly is no model of excellence either. What's your point?

New Limacon

28-06-2007, 00:20

The public education system in the US certainly is no model of excellence either. What's your point?
But that is not because it is public.

In this discussion and in the "Taxation" thread, I have been reminded of a copy of a Lyndon Johnson speech I recently found, about the Great Society. In it, he addresses many of these problems, and says he would like to study and fix them. The latest he could have given this was in 1968, which brings up the question, "What has the US been doing the last thirty-nine years?"

The Whitemane Gryphons

28-06-2007, 00:20

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free lawn care and food services, such as cheeseburgers, free lawn mowing and hedging, etc.

So long as I do too. Then I can pay taxes with the money I save on cheeseburgers (which I admittedly eat a lot of) and lawn products.

Levee en masse

28-06-2007, 00:21

The public education system in the US certainly is no model of excellence either. What's your point?

What's public education got to do with anything?

How do you pretend that everything is hunky-dory in the US healthwisewhen so much money is poured in but there standard is so low.

Honestly, I'm not picking a fight for the sake of it. I'm genuinely interested. I've already shown I capable of admitting when I wrong.

Sumamba Buwhan

28-06-2007, 00:27

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/i-no-can-has-cheezburgr-i-is-vegeturiunz.jpg

Lord Raug

28-06-2007, 01:44

What's public education got to do with anything?

How do you pretend that everything is hunky-dory in the US healthwisewhen so much money is poured in but there standard is so low.

Honestly, I'm not picking a fight for the sake of it. I'm genuinely interested. I've already shown I capable of admitting when I wrong.

A lot of the problem with the Health system in the US has to do purely with politics. Perscription drugs for instance cost many times more than they do in most other countries. Why they cost more is the biggest problem because the same drugs are exported to other countries and can then be bought there for way less than they cost here.

Also we have these things called attorneys. Malpractice lawsuits are on the rise causing medical insurance to become so expensive that doctors are forced to raise rates. In Florida for instances there probably won't be any doctors left in 5 yrs. Because it is almost impossible to make a living.

Non Aligned States

28-06-2007, 01:46

You've had a life threatening case of the sniffles!? Damn! You must have one heluva nose!

You have an early case of pneumonia, or maybe lung cancer. Congratulations, you never treated it until it's at a critical stage. You die.

And we'll never have to hear your logic void drivel again.

Demented Hamsters

28-06-2007, 01:54

what is with all these 'libertarian' threads all of a sudden?
Is it that time of the year when the eggs the Libertarian swamp cave queen (Vespula A Randis) layed all those months ago finally hatch.
The slimy pupae crawl from their wet sacs, ooze themselves over to the nearest wi-fi, log into NS and start making ridiculous and asinine statements about things they obviously have no idea about. Their collective hive mind repeating just one thing over and over again - "tax = bad, tax = bad, tax = bad"

Lord Raug

28-06-2007, 01:58

Who actually goes to the doctors because they have the sniffles? I mean if you wake up in the morning with a runny nose do you stop by the doctor? If you don't it kind of renders the whole "I have snuffles treat me before it becomes something serious" argument out of the water.

Besides that most sicknesses become contagious before any symptom ever shows. And I know nobody goes to the doctor to make sure they don't have some sickness when they are feeling perfectly fine.

CthulhuFhtagn

28-06-2007, 02:04

Who actually goes to the doctors because they have the sniffles? I mean if you wake up in the morning with a runny nose do you stop by the doctor? If you don't it kind of renders the whole "I have snuffles treat me before it becomes something serious" argument out of the water.

People in the U.K. do. As do people anywhere with free healthcare. And amazingly enough, they're healthier.

Demented Hamsters

28-06-2007, 02:07

Who actually goes to the doctors because they have the sniffles?
It's called makig one of these:
http://www.iaw.on.ca/~ppchurch/strawman.gif
Mainly 'cause he can't defend his position with rational and reasonable argument.

Lord Raug

28-06-2007, 02:18

People in the U.K. do. As do people anywhere with free healthcare. And amazingly enough, they're healthier.

I was just wondering because having a cold just doesn't seem like a reason to go to the doctor to me.

Unlucky_and_unbiddable

28-06-2007, 02:35

I most certainly AM comparing universal healthcare to fucking food. Even celibate food. YOU try living without food for a few weeks then tell ME what is more important - a visit to Dr. Feelgood or a cheeseburger?

EH? Put that in your pipe!
I think in terms of recieving food, the government should fund to give people in need sufficient nutrition. Cheeseburgers, however, will not help people. I do agree with giving people healthy food to help them live longer.

I am interested in how you see "hedging" as equivalent to thinks important as health care.

Well - first of all the comparison is not about 'having your life saved' - that is Superman's job. It is about free healthcare. You know - like seeing the doctor when you have the sniffles. In that case then yes - it is absolutely a valid comparison.
How is seeing the doctor = giving people crap food which, in the long run will make them more sick? Sure.

As far as traumatic injuries and terminal illnesses - there already IS free healthcare for for the poor avaliable. In the US it is called medicare and medicaid. So I'm afraid you are the proud owner of a red-herring.

But when you only treat those you get people waiting to go in and then tax payers end up paying much more money for a procedure that did not need to get serious which could be fatal or detrimental to whomever is sick.

Mystical Skeptic

28-06-2007, 02:51

What's public education got to do with anything?

How do you pretend that everything is hunky-dory in the US healthwisewhen so much money is poured in but there standard is so low.

Honestly, I'm not picking a fight for the sake of it. I'm genuinely interested. I've already shown I capable of admitting when I wrong.

You were the person who brought up an unsubstantiated global ranking of the US healthcare system. You also implied somehow that making it a public service would improve it. I demonstrated that another large public service which already exists in the US has not fared any better in global rankings. Therefore there is no evidence that simply by making medicine a public service in the US that the US global healthcare ranking will improve.

I never said everything in the US is 'hunky-dory' (one of my favorite terms BTW) I simply said that there is no evidence that there is no evidence that complete government involvement in medicine would produce any measureable benefit. I further suggest that there is ample evidence that would suggest any business which the US does involve itself in becomes less efficient instead of more so.

Unlucky_and_unbiddable

28-06-2007, 02:56

Therefore there is no evidence that simply by making medicine a public service in the US that the US global healthcare ranking will improve.

Except we know that people end up not going to the docotr when they need to because the can't afford it.
We also know that when diseases are caught early they have a better chance of being cured or the inevitable can be posponed for longer.
1+1=...

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:03

Except we know that people end up not going to the docotr when they need to because the can't afford it.
We also know that when diseases are caught early they have a better chance of being cured or the inevitable can be posponed for longer.
1+1=...

We also know that privatization increases the standard of medical care so that misdiagnoses are minimized and those who do go to the doctor find the experience more beneficial. Furthermore, we acknowledge that privatization consistently increases efficiency and thus decreases costs. Thus, if a "voucher" system is used based on a private health-care system, people will go to the doctor more because they can afford more of the service (since they have the same amount of money yet it is cheaper) and will be treated better. That, I believe, is called a "win-win" situation.

Mystical Skeptic

28-06-2007, 03:03

It's called makig one of these:
http://www.iaw.on.ca/~ppchurch/strawman.gif
Mainly 'cause he can't defend his position with rational and reasonable argument.

You really ought to learn what a straw man fallacy is before you go using that term. I have stated a rock solid position several times over again. You cannot make a straw man out of sone. Sorry.

You have an early case of pneumonia, or maybe lung cancer. Congratulations, you never treated it until it's at a critical stage. You die.
Now this IS a perfect example of a straw man argument. Changing the nature and context of what I said to something completely different and meanwhile ignoring the fact of the matter. The fact being that 'sniffles' are substantially unlikely to be any more tha 'sniffles'. The fact being that any of the example major illness have signifigant other symptones when they are still in the treatable phase, and the fact that there is free healthcare available in the US to cover the cost of treatment for these for anyone who cannot afford to pay ala Medicaid and medicare. See how easy it is to make a straw man burn?

And we'll never have to hear your logic void drivel again. That is an ad hominem but at least it is relative to the conversation. I give you a B, no a B+ for the effort.

People in the U.K. do. As do people anywhere with free healthcare. And amazingly enough, they're healthier.

You have no evidence of this. Show me any nation with so called 'free' healthcare with a population as ethnically diverse as the US that has better standards? Ahhh! See - I got you there. That is the flaw which everyone sho supports your argument always excludes - ethnicity. They always compare the US to predominately caucasian nations. Caucasians having the second best health ratings (to asians). Blacks, sadly, have the worst. The US has a substantially higher population of blacks than any nations used in your comparison. Therefore the results are flawed. I would be interested to see anyone who has made a comparison by ethnicity. (and yet another by household income) I would be willing to bet that the numbers would not be so different - which is why they are so hard to find.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 03:09

You were the person who brought up an unsubstantiated global ranking of the US healthcare system. You also implied somehow that making it a public service would improve it. I demonstrated that another large public service which already exists in the US has not fared any better in global rankings. Therefore there is no evidence that simply by making medicine a public service in the US that the US global healthcare ranking will improve.
.

So maybe what your more pressing concern should be is why your government is so f*cking incompetent at managing the programs it has rather than speaking in program generalities.

Frankly, if I were an American, my first question would be "Why the f*ck am I paying $2 in taxes for federal health care programs as compared to the $1 every Canadian pays.... and they get fully subsidized care!?"

I can understand why you can't afford to subsidize it for everyone. You haven't a freaking clue how to do it efficiently, obviously.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 03:14

Now this IS a perfect example of a straw man argument. Changing the nature and context of what I said to something completely different and meanwhile ignoring the fact of the matter. The fact being that 'sniffles' are substantially unlikely to be any more tha 'sniffles'. The fact being that any of the example major illness have signifigant other symptones when they are still in the treatable phase, and the fact that there is free healthcare available in the US to cover the cost of treatment for these for anyone who cannot afford to pay ala Medicaid and medicare. See how easy it is to make a straw man burn?

If you don't know the meaning of a word, two pieces of advice, not only should you not use it, you shouldn't accuse other people of using it improperly.

The point of his argument is how do you know the difference between the sniffles or pneumonia? All people must be doctors? Or would they *gasp* have to have someone qualified examine them?

Of course, you didn't address that. You pretended it was a fallacy so you could not reasonably address it at all.

And yes, your attempt to talk about giving cheeseburgers and lawncare is a strawman. Here's your education. Read. Learn. And stop making yourself look silly.

- To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

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

Since no one has EVER argued for free cheeseburgers or lawncare, it's a strawman. Not only that when someone said that giving free cheeseburgers is ridiculous you pretend like giving free cheeseburgers and giving free food is the same thing.

Since the point of the statement you were replying to was that sniffles can turn into worse problems and non-doctors don't always know when that will happen and you pretended like the point was the sniffles alone are deadly, that's also a strawman.

Thanks for playing. Anything else you need me to explain to you. I'm happy to help you appear to be less ignorant.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 03:15

You have no evidence of this. Show me any nation with so called 'free' healthcare with a population as ethnically diverse as the US that has better standards? Ahhh! See - I got you there. That is the flaw which everyone sho supports your argument always excludes - ethnicity. They always compare the US to predominately caucasian nations. Caucasians having the second best health ratings (to asians). Blacks, sadly, have the worst. The US has a substantially higher population of blacks than any nations used in your comparison. Therefore the results are flawed. I would be interested to see anyone who has made a comparison by ethnicity. (and yet another by household income) I would be willing to bet that the numbers would not be so different - which is why they are so hard to find.

Oh. It's all the fault of them damned uppity sickly ni.....

:rolleyes:

Care to explain how Bermuda, the Caymans, AND the Virgin Islands have better life expectancies than the US? Because the percentage of blacks is WAY higher in all of those countries?

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:20

The point of his argument is how do you know the difference between the sniffles or pneumonia? All people must be doctors? Or would they *gasp* have to have someone qualified examine them?

People don't have to be doctors, but they must have a reasonable grasp of diseases one would expect a ten-year-old to have. They must have taken some rudimentary "health" courses in elementary school. They should be able to distinguish between the probable severity of a condition based on outside information and past experience. For example, a runny nose isn't a reason to go running to the emergency room. However, if one's penis turns green and falls off, perhaps a doctor should be consulted.

You're implicitly stretching his statement to absurd proportions; you seem to be saying that people shouldn't realize that the "sniffles" are no cause for alarm. That is outrageous. Being a doctor is not a prerequisite for such basic insights into illnesses. In general, a doctor should only be informed if a condition is persistent, especially acute, or recurrent -- it is within the scope of anyone to internalize this tidbit of information.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:23

Care to explain how Bermuda, the Caymans, AND the Virgin Islands have better life expectancies than the US?

I assume the climate and ambiance is significantly better than in the US. Stress plays a major part in lowering one's life expectancy, yet it is assuaged in a calm, quiet, beach paradise. Virtually anybody would live longer if there were able to visit a crystal-clear, awe-inspiring beach each weekend, regardless of race.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 03:26

People don't have to be doctors, but they must have a reasonable grasp of diseases one would expect a ten-year-old to have. They must have taken some rudimentary "health" courses in elementary school. They should be able to distinguish between the probable severity of a condition based on outside information and past experience. For example, a runny nose isn't a reason to go running to the emergency room. However, if one's penis turns green and falls off, perhaps a doctor should be consulted.

You're implicitly stretching his statement to absurd proportions; you seem to be saying that people shouldn't realize that the "sniffles" are no cause for alarm. That is outrageous. Being a doctor is not a prerequisite for such basic insights into illnesses. In general, a doctor should only be informed if a condition is persistent, especially acute, or recurrent -- it is within the scope of anyone to internalize this tidbit of information.

Yes, yes, doctors misdiagnose serious illnesses as minor issues or vice versa, but, hey, they only have 12 more years of training on the subject than the averager person. Yep, average people are perfectly capable doctors.

Many offices where I work hire trained nurses just to deal with mild issues and to recommend people when an issue could be serious. People trained specifically for such duties. Why do they do it? Because people notoriously have no clue.

But hey if you rub your legs together and wish really hard... nothing will happen except perhaps some irritation. No amount of wishing or rubbing them together will help your point.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 03:30

I assume the climate and ambiance is significantly better than in the US. Stress plays a major part in lowering one's life expectancy, yet it is assuaged in a calm, quiet, beach paradise. Virtually anybody would live longer if there were able to visit a crystal-clear, awe-inspiring beach each weekend, regardless of race.

So.... by that reasoning all of the blacks in Florida and along the gulf coast should have greater life expectancies than blacks elsewhere in the country, and his initial premise of blacks dragging the stats down would be equally bogus.

Funnily enough, that doesn't seem to be the case....

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:34

Yes, yes, doctors misdiagnose serious illnesses as minor issues or vice versa, but, hey, they only have 12 more years of training on the subject than the averager person. Yep, average people are perfectly capable doctors.

Do you ever watch Scrubs? It's an excellent show. In one episode, the avaricious Dr. Kelso "generously" offers all his patients a free MRI scan and bombards them with advertisements that they may already be dying of what they think are "trivial" conditions. Yet the best doctor in the hospital, Dr. Cox, believes this to be a horrible, fiendish idea. Why? Because he realizes that such a practice will do more harm than good as such tests usually reveal numerous imperfections or suspicious areas that turn out to be innocuous, only causing the patient needless discomfort. In fact, he subjects himself to ridicule in a valiant effort to stop a potential target from accepting the offer. What's the moral of the story? Intensive medical care may not always be positive; in fact, an overdose of attention may very well be detrimental. You're suggesting that people with minor complaints readily see a doctor; that not only undermines our entire medical system due to our strained resources and other constraints, but it also doesn't benefit patients one iota. They may be better off only coming to the doctor if they believe they are seriously ill.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:35

Funnily enough, that doesn't seem to be the case....

Can you post statistics, taking into account other factors, such as crime, medical care, average income, etc.?

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 03:37

Do you ever watch Scrubs? It's an excellent show. In one episode, the avaricious Dr. Kelso "generously" offers all his patients a free MRI scan and bombards them with advertisements that they may already be dying of what they think are "trivial" conditions. Yet the best doctor in the hospital, Dr. Cox, believes this to be a horrible, fiendish idea. Why? Because he realizes that such a practice will do more harm than good as such tests usually reveal numerous imperfections or suspicious areas that turn out to be innocuous, only causing the patient needless discomfort. In fact, he subjects himself to ridicule in a valiant effort to stop a potential target from accepting the offer. What's the moral of the story? Intensive medical care may not always be positive; in fact, an overdose of attention may very well be detrimental. You're suggesting that people with minor complaints readily see a doctor; that not only undermines our entire medical system due to our strained resources and other constraints, but it also doesn't benefit patients one iota. They may be better off only coming to the doctor if they believe they are seriously ill.

Yes, I watch scrubs. Incidentally, I don't get my views on the real world from sitcoms. Do you watch Tom and Jerry? Apparently, cats can play guitar.

Meanwhile, you're not even on topic. No one is talking about intensive medical care. We are talking about having access to medical care when necessary and letting doctors and nurses decide when it is necessary, not politics. So let me know when you can actually, read a post, drink it in, and respond to what it says and not to your made-up arguments.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 03:38

Can you post statistics, taking into account other factors, such as crime, medical care, average income, etc.?

Oh, yay, the burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof that black people are the cause of our standing falls on those making that claim.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 03:40

Can you post statistics, taking into account other factors, such as crime, medical care, average income, etc.?

Well, for basic life expectancy stats per state: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=nation_world&id=4553083&ft=lg

As to the rest, give me a f*cking break. I was responding to a post that litterally blamed blacks for dragging down American health stats stating that black people are just sickly folks without merit or substantiation.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:41

Meanwhile, you're not even on topic.

You are apparently completely oblivious to my point. Have no fear, though: I'll rephrase it in a way that even you can understand. People seek too much medical attention when they don't really need it. Now, we can have a system in which even the teeniest of scratches are painstakingly examined by medical professional...or we can have an efficient system in which the people with serious ailments are given more attention instead of being sidelined for a kid with a runny nose and an overbearing mother. Take your pick.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:45

The burden of proof that black people are the cause of our standing falls on those making that claim.

Although the data is slightly dated (no pun intended), it is evident that the life expectancy for blacks is far below that of whites (by approximately 5 years, as a matter of fact).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 03:46

You are apparently completely oblivious to my point. Have no fear, though: I'll rephrase it in a way that even you can understand. People seek too much medical attention when they don't really need it. Now, we can have a system in which even the teeniest of scratches are painstakingly examined by medical professional...or we can have an efficient system in which the people with serious ailments are given more attention instead of being sidelined for a kid with a runny nose and an overbearing mother. Take your pick.
Oh, I know what you're saying. You're just not addressing what WE'RE saying. I know this may be shocking to you, but I didn't think you didn't know what YOU were saying.

He wants to only allow terminal people and severe illness. He didn't say persistent problems. He didn't say unusual things. He didn't qualify it in any reasonable way. No one here is arguing that people should go to the doctor because they stubbed their toe. We're arguing the line is not going to be drawn at terminal illness and nothing less.

Now, can you address this or are you admitting you're incapable?

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:47

I was responding to a post that litterally blamed blacks for dragging down American health stats stating that black people are just sickly folks without merit or substantiation.

Well, it is a statement of fact. As you can see in the link which I posted previously, the life expectancy of blacks is far less than that of whites. There are a number of potential causes for this disparity, yet the numbers don't lie.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 03:48

Although the data is slightly dated (no pun intended), it is evident that the life expectancy for blacks is far below that of whites (by approximately 5 years, as a matter of fact).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

Again, this is in the US. It's already been explained that this CORRELLATION doesn't check out in other countries and you've not shown why we should consider it causal. You do know how that works, right? You've not addressed whether medical care would change this significantly.

In fact, the only way you could address the problem with your rather flawed concepts is "um, I guess it's the beaches. Prove me wrong."

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 03:50

You are apparently completely oblivious to my point. Have no fear, though: I'll rephrase it in a way that even you can understand. People seek too much medical attention when they don't really need it. Now, we can have a system in which even the teeniest of scratches are painstakingly examined by medical professional...or we can have an efficient system in which the people with serious ailments are given more attention instead of being sidelined for a kid with a runny nose and an overbearing mother. Take your pick.

Again, a totally unsubstantiated and bogus position.

I'm a Canadian. Trust me, NOBODY hangs around doctor's offices, hospitals, walk-in clinics, etc. for fun. Nobody enjoys the old magazines, missing time off work, dealing with their bored kids in the waiting room, etc and does it for something that isn't out of the ordinary.

That overbearing mother is a far less frequent occurance than you would imagine, nor is the exceptional case the sound basis on which to set policy.

Then again, our kids are generally born healthier because of better pre-natal care than that generally given in your country - even under many of your employee insurance policies.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 03:50

Well, it is a statement of fact. As you can see in the link which I posted previously, the life expectancy of blacks is far less than that of whites. There are a number of potential causes for this disparity, yet the numbers don't lie.

This hasn't been shown to be caused by the fact they are black or because of the fact that blacks on average live and are treated in different conditions than whites. You've got some work to do here, buddy. A correllation is a start, but it falls WAAAAAAAy short.

Kyronea

28-06-2007, 03:52

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free lawn care and food services, such as cheeseburgers, free lawn mowing and hedging, etc.

...

Yeah, I don't get it. What is this guy talking abo---OH WAIT!

This is some sarcastic/trollish poke at immigrants, isn't it?

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 03:54

Although the data is slightly dated (no pun intended), it is evident that the life expectancy for blacks is far below that of whites (by approximately 5 years, as a matter of fact).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

No, this is evidence that the life expectancy for blacks IN THE USA is lower than that of whites IN THE USA.

Given that I listed three countries with higher percentage black populations than the USA which have higher life expectancies than the US, it would suggest that the cause may have to do with something other than just their being black.

Because it seems that being black elsewhere isn't as harmfull to one's health as it is being black in America....

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 03:56

...

Yeah, I don't get it. What is this guy talking abo---OH WAIT!

This is some sarcastic/trollish poke at immigrants, isn't it?

Kyr, are you gonna do the mafia thing? You've not been around.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 03:57

He wants to only allow terminal people and severe illness.

Ah, I see, now, that to which you are referring. It is indeed my opinion that public health institutions (should they exist at all) must only admit critical cases. Already, they are hemorrhaging my hard-earned money; they are a black hole which consumes our wealth. There are several considerations that must be acknowledged to render a decision regarding this topic. First, how many lives can be saved if the public health-care system is expanded? Second, what other impacts would such a decision have on our well-being as a nation?

The answer to the first question is that such an enlargement of an utterly inefficient of sub-standard entity would bode disaster. More people would die, stifled by the sluggish, bloated behemoth that is our public health-care system. Because of lack of competition, the medical services offered are inadequate and the bureaucracy in charge is horrendously incapable. People will wait for hours, days, weeks, or months only to be treated by an inept person who disgraces the title of "doctor."

Second, such a plan would be severely flawed from a monetary standpoint, as the tax-payers would have to bear a heavy burden for such a failing system; the consequences would be felt throughout the entire economy as our growth would slow and the populace would be poorer.

Clearly, the public health-care system must be restrained and kept to a minimal level to ensure the welfare of all US citizens.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:00

Given that I listed three countries with higher percentage black populations than the USA which have higher life expectancies than the US, it would suggest that the cause may have to do with something other than just their being black.

Obviously race isn't the sole criterion in determining life expectancy -- look at Madagascar for a black-populated island with a brutishly short life expectancy. I told you that several other factors affect the results, a major component being lack of stress. An island paradise and less stress do seem to go together.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 04:02

Ah, I see, now, that to which you are referring. It is indeed my opinion that public health institutions (should they exist at all) must only admit critical cases. Already, they are hemorrhaging my hard-earned money; they are a black hole which consumes our wealth. There are several considerations that must be acknowledged to render a decision regarding this topic. First, how many lives can be saved if the public health-care system is expanded? Second, what other impacts would such a decision have on our well-being as a nation?

The answer to the first question is that such an enlargement of an utterly inefficient of sub-standard entity would bode disaster. More people would die, stifled by the sluggish, bloated behemoth that is our public health-care system. Because of lack of competition, the medical services offered are inadequate and the bureaucracy in charge is horrendously incapable. People will wait for hours, days, weeks, or months only to be treated by an inept person who disgraces the title of "doctor."

Second, such a plan would be severely flawed from a monetary standpoint, as the tax-payers would have to bear a heavy burden for such a failing system; the consequences would be felt throughout the entire economy as our growth would slow and the populace would be poorer.

Yep, all that premature death caused by public health care. That is SO evident by all of the evidence in examples where public health care exists. After all, it's not like EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE in the developed world has a resultant higher life expectancy than that in the US...... right?

Clearly, the public health-care system must be restrained and kept to a minimal level to ensure the welfare of all US citizens.

Quoted for the sheer built-in logical leap of insanity. Restrict health care to ensure the welfare of the people. F*cking brilliantly audacious!

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 04:02

Ah, I see, now, that to which you are referring. It is indeed my opinion that public health institutions (should they exist at all) must only admit critical cases. Already, they are hemorrhaging my hard-earned money; they are a black hole which consumes our wealth. There are several considerations that must be acknowledged to render a decision regarding this topic. First, how many lives can be saved if the public health-care system is expanded? Second, what other impacts would such a decision have on our well-being as a nation?

The answer to the first question is that such an enlargement of an utterly inefficient of sub-standard entity would bode disaster. More people would die, stifled by the sluggish, bloated behemoth that is our public health-care system. Because of lack of competition, the medical services offered are inadequate and the bureaucracy in charge is horrendously incapable. People will wait for hours, days, weeks, or months only to be treated by an inept person who disgraces the title of "doctor."

Second, such a plan would be severely flawed from a monetary standpoint, as the tax-payers would have to bear a heavy burden for such a failing system; the consequences would be felt throughout the entire economy as our growth would slow and the populace would be poorer.

Clearly, the public health-care system must be restrained and kept to a minimal level to ensure the welfare of all US citizens.

Ah, so you were just making a really stupid argument you didn't believe and we didn't believe for what reason then? Nevermind, we all know the answer.

Meanwhile, it's been shown that general health of the population improves with universal healthcare. People on your side have tried to dismiss it using blacks as an excuse, but as of yet that excuse is unsupported.

A healthier population costs less, works more, contributes more. You'd prefer to ignore all this, even at the most rudimentary level in order to support your wishes. Forgive us if we're thinking more broadly than that.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 04:05

Obviously race isn't the sole criterion in determining life expectancy -- look at Madagascar for a black-populated island with a brutishly short life expectancy. I told you that several other factors affect the results, a major component being lack of stress. An island paradise and less stress do seem to go together.

If you had checked out the cost of living in Bermuda as compared to average income, you might have a clue. It might not be stressfull being a tourist in paradise, but the residents are working hard just putting a roof over their kid's heads and making ends meet while the tourists hang out in the resorts and talk about how relaxing it is being away from their jobs.

Which is to say, please demonstrate how it is that blacks in Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, and the Caymans magically avoid the stress of daily living.

Like I said, by your argument blacks in New Hampshire should live shorter than those in Louisiana because the Gulf coast and Mississipi delta are such beautiful places to relax. Since that is not the case, "but look at all the pretty beaches they have" is a bogus argument.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:10

Ah, so you were just making a really stupid argument you didn't believe and we didn't believe for what reason then? Nevermind, we all know the answer.

Actually, I was making a positively brilliant argument which I certainly believed. Unfortunately, it was in response to the wrong question and I was only arguing with myself. This could all have easily been averted had you been clearer and less ambiguous in your posts, but I suppose you can't win them all.

Meanwhile, it's been shown that general health of the population improves with universal healthcare.

I have yet to see statistics on this, but let us assume for a second that it is true. If the state suddenly decided to equally redistribute all the wealth, the median income would initially increase. However, despite early successes, such a system would prove unsustainable as the economy would inexorably grind to a halt and then proceed into a contraction. The same applies to universal health care. If the state is willing to enact exorbitantly high taxes to provide for an insanely subsidized health-care system, that is their prerogative and it may increase the life expectancy...for a while. But the cost will be measured in economic progress. As the country lags behind other nations in research and development, business investment, and other economic markers, it will not be able to provide the newest medical services to its populace. Thus, it will eventually fall behind other nations in terms of life expectancy and have a failing economy to boot.

Kyronea

28-06-2007, 04:10

Kyr, are you gonna do the mafia thing? You've not been around.
Yes. I just keep forgetting to go there.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:11

After all, it's not like EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE in the developed world has a resultant higher life expectancy than that in the US...... right?

You're right: Ireland and Denmark can't be considered part of the "developed world." After all, they are woefully uncivilized nations...right? The same applies to Portugal and South Korea.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 04:12

Yes. I just keep forgetting to go there.

I'm starting a new game, I'd really like you to play.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:16

Like I said, by your argument blacks in New Hampshire should live shorter than those in Louisiana because the Gulf coast and Mississipi delta are such beautiful places to relax. Since that is not the case, "but look at all the pretty beaches they have" is a bogus argument.

The area of Bermuda is 53 square kilometers whereas its coastline is 100 kilometers long. This yields a ratio of about 2:1 in terms of coastline divided by area. Applying the same formula to Louisiana yields a ratio of about 0.005:1. Not really the same thing, is it? As I stated numerous times, there are a plethora of factors which contribute to life expectancy; unless you can control for each factor except beaches, you argument is fallacious and utterly invalid.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 04:17

Actually, I was making a positively brilliant argument which I certainly believed. Unfortunately, it was in response to the wrong question and I was only arguing with myself. This could all have easily been averted had you been clearer and less ambiguous in your posts, but I suppose you can't win them all.

Yes, I'm sorry. I'd assumed you'd actually read the arguments to which you were jumping. I'll try not to give you so much credit in the future.

I have yet to see statistics on this, but let us assume for a second that it is true. If the state suddenly decided to equally redistribute all the wealth, the median income would initially increase. However, despite early successes, such a system would prove unsustainable as the economy would inexorably grind to a halt and then proceed into a contraction. The same applies to universal health care. If the state is willing to enact exorbitantly high taxes to provide for an insanely subsidized health-care system, that is their prerogative and it may increase the life expectancy...for a while. But the cost will be measured in economic progress. As the country lags behind other nations in research and development, business investment, and other economic markers, it will not be able to provide the newest medical services to its populace. Thus, it will eventually fall behind other nations in terms of life expectancy and have a failing economy to boot.

What does redistributing income have to do with basic healthcare? Are you incapable of staying on-topic? You don't even draw a connection. This is perhaps the saddest argument I've seen you make.

You throw in words like "insancely" and "exorbitantly" while making a lot of connections you've not demonstrated or supported in any way. Why would all of those things fall behind because the population was healthier? Why would a more active and healthy population provide less taxes to the government that is funding this little experiment. Why would a healthier and more active population innovate less?

For the kind of leaps of logic, these are some real gems.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 04:19

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 04:19

You're right: Ireland and Denmark can't be considered part of the "developed world." After all, they are woefully uncivilized nations...right? The same applies to Portugal and South Korea.

USA life expectancy: 77 years
USA dollars per capita on health care: 4,271

Denmark life expectancy: 77 years
Denmark dollars per capita on health care: 2785

Ireland life expectancy: 78 years
Ireland dollars per capita on health care: 1569

Portugal life expectancy: 78 years
Portugal dollars per capita on health care: 859

But, according to you, paying two or three or four times as much per person for the SAME RESULT (slightly worse in the case of Ireland), is the best way to ensure economic prosperity?

for who?

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 04:22

The area of Bermuda is 53 square kilometers whereas its coastline is 100 kilometers long. This yields a ratio of about 2:1 in terms of coastline divided by area. Applying the same formula to Louisiana yields a ratio of about 0.005:1. Not really the same thing, is it? As I stated numerous times, there are a plethora of factors which contribute to life expectancy; unless you can control for each factor except beaches, you argument is fallacious and utterly invalid.

So, since there are so many factors.... why do you blame blacks for just being black?

Like I've said (and your "other factors" equally points to), there is something about being black in america that causes them to have lower life expectancies. Not something about them being black.

oh, and since when does "coastline to area" mean anything related to stress? Talk about pulling stats out of your ass.....

BTW, you might want to check, but most of the Bermudan coast is rock - not beach. You should recalculate....

Minaris

28-06-2007, 04:23

USA life expectancy: 77 years
USA dollars per capita on health care: 4,271

Denmark life expectancy: 77 years
Denmark dollars per capita on health care: 2785

Ireland life expectancy: 78 years
Ireland dollars per capita on health care: 1569

Portugal life expectancy: 78 years
Portugal dollars per capita on health care: 859

But, according to you, paying two or three or four times as much per person for the SAME RESULT (slightly worse in the case of Ireland), is the best way to ensure economic prosperity?

for who?

The small cluster of rich people that FAG thinks he's part of but will ultimately be screwed over by...

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:24

Yes, I'm sorry. I'd assumed you'd actually read the arguments to which you were jumping. I'll try not to give you so much credit in the future.

I am above a petty personal feud with you; I do not wish to unnecessarily sling insults around. Thus, I will make a note of not responding to such posts in the future.

What does redistributing income have to do with basic healthcare?

There is no connection; I was simply supplying it as an example of a situation in which a particular policy might initially yield positive results, yet an inherent flaw will inexorably drag it down as it is doomed to failure.

Why would a more active and healthy population provide less taxes to the government that is funding this little experiment. Why would a healthier and more active population innovate less?

I'm sorry; I assumed you were aware of some basic economic principles. There is an inverse relationship between business investment and taxes: as taxes go up, business investment falls. Business investment is a critical component in increasing productivity and furthering research and development activities. Thus, increasing taxes in order to instate an expanded health-care program would detrimentally impact those areas. Furthermore, the more obvious connection is that if people have less money, their standard of living correspondingly plummets. Perhaps people will be healthier, but the economy will sputter without a lack of investment and consumer demand to power it.

Demented Hamsters

28-06-2007, 04:25

You really ought to learn what a straw man fallacy is before you go using that term. I have stated a rock solid position several times over again. You cannot make a straw man out of sone. Sorry.
No. You need to do a google search and find out what a strawman fallacy is.
rock solid?
equating health care to having your lawns mowed?
That's as solid as a mudslide.

You have no evidence of this. Show me any nation with so called 'free' healthcare with a population as ethnically diverse as the US that has better standards? Ahhh! See - I got you there. That is the flaw which everyone sho supports your argument always excludes - ethnicity. They always compare the US to predominately caucasian nations. Caucasians having the second best health ratings (to asians). Blacks, sadly, have the worst. The US has a substantially higher population of blacks than any nations used in your comparison. Therefore the results are flawed. I would be interested to see anyone who has made a comparison by ethnicity. (and yet another by household income) I would be willing to bet that the numbers would not be so different - which is why they are so hard to find.
ok then let's look at NZ, which not only has free healthcare it also has a thing called ACC which pays for all treatment resulting from accident and pays you 80% of your take home pay if you're off work for a length of time.
NZ population demographics are as follows:
67% European
15% Maori
7% Pacific Island
9% Asian

Maori and Pacific Islanders, who make up 22% of the population have the worst life expectancy for all NZ'ers:
Maori & PI: men 68, women 72
White NZ'ers: men 77, women 81
Infant mortality:
Maori & PI: 7.7 /1000 births
White NZ'ers: 4.1 /1000 births

In comparison to the US, where Blacks make up just 12% of the population:
Native Americans: men 67, women 74
Black USians: men 69, women 76
White USians: men 75, women 81

Infant mortality:
Native Americans: 9.3 /1000 births
Black USians: 13.8 /1000 births
White USians: 5.8 /1000 births

Thus we have two ethnically diverse nations with a minority which suffers from high infant mortality rates and much lower life expectancy. Difference is that in NZ, the minority makes up nearly 1/4 of the population whereas Black americans only make up 1/8.
In the WHO rankings, the USA is 37th, NZ 41st. So pretty similar in rankings
Where are the differences?
Medical and health expenses - % of private final consumption expenditure
USA: 18%
NZ: 7%
also, private health expenses make up 56% of total costs in the USA whereas it's just 23% in NZ.
US' total health expenditure, which isn't universal, costs 15.3% of GDP whereas NZs', which is, costs 8.2% of GDP.
The US spends on average $6102 per person on it's non-universal health coverage. NZ spends $2083 per person on it's universal health care.

refer to these:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_37407_1_119656_1_1_37407,00.html

Thus we have two similar health situations for two similar ethnically diverse nations. Only difference is that one is universal - and much much cheaper than the other that is non-universal.

btw, using just 1/8 of a population to lay claim that no-one anywhere should get universal healthcare is as silly an argument as...ohhhh...I dunno....equating free lawn care with universal healthcare.

this research article is an interesting read:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1449267

compares Maori to Native American re: health care, life expectancy, mortality etc. and then discusses how their lot is being improved - being improved through either NZ's free health care or the IHS (Indian Health Service) which gets $3Billion a year to run...well...free health care basically.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:28

Various data.

I don't know from whence those statistics came, but they are erroneous or outdated. Here are some more recent statistics extracted from a reliable source (the US government, not Wikipedia, mind you).

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

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 04:29

I am above a petty personal feud with you; I do not wish to unnecessarily sling insults around. Thus, I will make a note of not responding to such posts in the future.

There is no connection; I was simply supplying it as an example of a situation in which a particular policy might initially yield positive results, yet an inherent flaw will inexorably drag it down as it is doomed to failure.

I'm sorry; I assumed you were aware of some basic economic principles. There is an inverse relationship between business investment and taxes: as taxes go up, business investment falls. Business investment is a critical component in increasing productivity and furthering research and development activities. Thus, increasing taxes in order to instate an expanded health-care program would detrimentally impact those areas. Furthermore, the more obvious connection is that if people have less money, their standard of living correspondingly plummets. Perhaps people will be healthier, but the economy will sputter without a lack of investment and consumer demand to power it.

Yes, I'm aware of this. You've not demonstrated taxes would go up for any real length of time since productivity would increase and thus at the same level of taxes more money would be fed into the government. And of course there are tons of programs that would no longer have as many on it, like welfare. And of course there always seems to money for things like a war that spends 200 M per day.

Hmmm... I guess since the war started our innovation and economy must have gone in the crapper, no? Oh, wait.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:33

Hmmm... I guess since the war started our innovation and economy must have gone in the crapper, no? Oh, wait.

Actually, that is another common misconception. The war spurred the economy as private business were urged to produce more in order to satiate the demand for war materiel. However, taxes were reduced, not increased, and thus exacted no toll on the consumer base in order to compensate for the surge in spending. This is an inflationary tactic which promotes economic growth.

Kyronea

28-06-2007, 04:38

I'm starting a new game, I'd really like you to play.
Okay.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 04:40

Actually, that is another common misconception. The war spurred the economy as private business were urged to produce more in order to satiate the demand for war materiel. However, taxes were reduced, not increased, and thus exacted no toll on the consumer base in order to compensate for the surge in spending. This is an inflationary tactic which promotes economic growth.

You mean it's possible to increase government activity and reduce taxes? No way. So then your assumptions invalid. I'm glad you agree.

Provided the surge in spending has an expected result of an increase in the economy, which you admtted to, then there is no need to increase taxes, in fact, it's even possible to reduce them.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 04:42

I don't know from whence those statistics came, but they are erroneous or outdated. Here are some more recent statistics extracted from a reliable source (the US government, not Wikipedia, mind you).

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

If you insist, I'll use your source:

The numbers from the CIA (who ALWAYS is up to date on their stats after all...)

USA life expectancy: 78 years.
Ireland life expectancy: 77.9 years
Denmark Life expectancy: 77.96 years
Portugal life expectancy : 77.87 years

The dollars per capita expenditure numbers I put out are from the OECD.

Now then, explain again how sinking four times as much per capita as portugal into health care costs for the equivalent of 45 days more average lifespan is an economic boon to the country? How it frees up wealth for more productive purposes?

Because that part falls pretty darned flat.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:47

You mean it's possible to increase government activity and reduce taxes? No way.

To a certain extent, yes. However, it cannot be continued indefinitely as external debt will continue mounting until it becomes impossible to ignore, barring explosive economic growth reaching China-like levels. The war in Iraq is a temporary engagement and has picked up our economy given our recent slump and the 2001 recession. On the other hand, expanded health-care services are a long-term endeavor and will, at some point, drag down our economy and necessitate tax hikes.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 04:50

To a certain extent, yes. However, it cannot be continued indefinitely as external debt will continue mounting until it becomes impossible to ignore, barring explosive economic growth reaching China-like levels. The war in Iraq is a temporary engagement and has picked up our economy given our recent slump and the 2001 recession. On the other hand, expanded health-care services are a long-term endeavor and will, at some point, drag down our economy and necessitate tax hikes.

Phew. Fortunately the economy would improve right away as you already admitted. And since their is no increase in taxes there is no need for the consequences you made up that would eventually bring the economy back down. I think you see where I'm going. You lost. Take it like a man.

Gift-of-god

28-06-2007, 04:50

While I am an advocate of universal healthcare, as I enjoy the system we have here in Canada, I do not think it is feasible in the USA. This is due to one fact: the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies that are raking in profits right now would stand to lose a substantial amount of profits if the situation were to be nationalised.

Most problems in the USA can be solved with one idea in mind: find a way for the capitalists to make a ton of cash with the solution. In this case, I can't find a way to make any money off universal healthcare for the current powers that be. This will be a long, uphill battle for our progressive friends in the USA. Perhaps it would be easier at the state level? I don't know.

And why are you folks arguing with FreedomAndGlory? It's like pretending dog farts are meaningful conversation.

Ancap Paradise

28-06-2007, 04:50

I mind having my taxes spent on anything. I mind taxation, period. Taxation is merely a euphemism for armed robbery.

CthulhuFhtagn

28-06-2007, 04:53

I mind having my taxes spent on anything. I mind taxation, period. Taxation is merely a euphemism for armed robbery.

Because everyone knows that having to pay for stuff is theft. I mean, who is the government to make us pay for all the stuff of theirs we use? What does it think it is, capitalist?

Minaris

28-06-2007, 04:54

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:55

Now then, explain again how sinking four times as much per capita as portugal into health care costs for the equivalent of 45 days more average lifespan is an economic boon to the country?

First of all, I would like to point out that the US has a per capita GDP that is twice Portugal's. Thus, percentage-wise, the difference is only a factor of two, not four. Secondly, I would like to mention that factors external to the health-care system have an effect on life expectancy. For example, Portugal's coastline to area ratio exceeds America's corresponding ratio.

Ancap Paradise

28-06-2007, 04:55

Because everyone knows that having to pay for stuff is theft. I mean, who is the government to make us pay for all the stuff of theirs we use? What does it think it is, capitalist?

No, making people pay for stuff is theft.

Learn the difference.

No one forces you to use or pay for things in the private sector. But people are forced to pay for government "services," whether they want them/use them, or not. Therefore: Theft.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 04:57

Oh, and to your notion that public health care means more people running to the doctor with the sniffles driving UP costs, as long as you are disparaging denmark for getting similar outcome results while sinking about half of the per-capita wealth into health care, here's a doc from their health ministry: http://www.im.dk/publikationer/healthcare_in_dk/all.htm#c1

now, scroll down to table 1.1 and note that over the past 25 years outpatient visits have indeed skyrocketed while the really expensive costs (in-patient bed care) has plummeted.

In 1980, average length of bed stay: 9.4 days. By 2000 that had dropped to 5.3 days. Despite increases in population there are now only about 60% as many hospitals, 60% as many hospital beds, but a 2 million patient increase in outpatient visits.

It's called preventative medicine.

It works.

But I'll bet it's all because of the coastline-to-surface area advantage that they enjoy..... right?

CthulhuFhtagn

28-06-2007, 04:59

No one forces you to use or pay for things in the private sector. But people are forced to pay for government "services," whether they want them/use them, or not. Therefore: Theft.

Er, you only have to pay for the services if you use a certain one of the services. It's called "money". Maybe you've heard of it. And before you pull out the monopoly bullshit, you're allowed to make and use your own money. You just can't claim it to be U.S. Legal Tender.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 04:59

Phew. Fortunately the economy would improve right away as you already admitted. And since their is no increase in taxes there is no need for the consequences you made up that would eventually bring the economy back down.

You can't increase spending indefinitely without a corresponding increase in taxes. The war in Iraq is not a permanent endeavor such a public health-care system; thus, at its conclusion, things can more or less return to normal given the boost in GDP due to the war. The short spurt in GDP growth will have compensated somewhat for the increase in spending. However, the longer the war drags on, the less likely it is that tax increases or spending decreases can be put off. Increasing taxes will become an inevitable necessity should a public health-care system be adopted. You cannot compare it to the Iraq war because the two are completely different in scope.

Ancap Paradise

28-06-2007, 05:00

Er, you only have to pay for the services if you use a certain one of the services.

A complete fallacy.

So you're saying people who don't use welfare, student loans, etc. aren't required to pay for them?

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 05:01

First of all, I would like to point out that the US has a per capita GDP that is twice Portugal's. Thus, percentage-wise, the difference is only a factor of two, not four. Secondly, I would like to mention that factors external to the health-care system have an effect on life expectancy. For example, Portugal's coastline to area ratio exceeds America's corresponding ratio.

If you're going to keep making the coastline assertion, support it. Link? Proof? The existence of sewater isn't a magical cure. It seems like desperately clinging to anything just so you don't have to amdit you've got no argument.

Meanwhile does the cost of keeping oneself healthy increase with GDP? What difference does that percentage make?

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 05:02

But I'll bet it's all because of the coastline-to-surface area advantage that they enjoy..... right?

It certainly does play a role, although I cannot gauge its exact extent. Of course, you have yet to reply to the original poster's excellent point. The US's (public) education system is woefully inefficient whereas its European counterparts spend much less per pupil with better results. Why is this? If it's just "an American thing," surely it can also apply to health-care, no?

CthulhuFhtagn

28-06-2007, 05:02

But I'll bet it's all because of the coastline-to-surface area advantage that they enjoy..... right?
You should've used a land-locked country.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 05:03

You should've used a land-locked country.

And make sure that it doesn't have any large lakes. ;)

CthulhuFhtagn

28-06-2007, 05:03

A complete fallacy.

So you're saying people who don't use welfare, student loans, etc. aren't required to pay for them?

Nice quote mining. Now go away and come back when you understand how to debate, 'kay?

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 05:05

You can't increase spending indefinitely without a corresponding increase in taxes. The war in Iraq is not a permanent endeavor such a public health-care system; thus, at its conclusion, things can more or less return to normal given the boost in GDP due to the war. The short spurt in GDP growth will have compensated somewhat for the increase in spending. However, the longer the war drags on, the less likely it is that tax increases or spending decreases can be put off. Increasing taxes will become an inevitable necessity should a public health-care system be adopted. You cannot compare it to the Iraq war because the two are completely different in scope.

Again, you've admitted the economy would improve and as such there would be increased income to the government. Taxes increase in dollars with no change in percentage. Also, there would be the fact that people would spend less on healthcare personally, so even an increase in taxes wouldn't decrease their dispensible income, income fed into the economy and innovation. But, hey, keep closing your eyes and telling me it's dark. I'm sure eventually I'll say, golly, he must be right. I mean, he has no evidence it's dark and I can see he's refusing to check and see if he's right, but maybe I should his completely incredible opinion just because he really, really wants me to.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 05:06

Meanwhile does the cost of keeping oneself healthy increase with GDP? What difference does that percentage make?

No, but we can afford more expensive medical equipment. For example, a 200% increase in spending might only yield a net gain of 50,000 lives per year. However, being a prosperous country, we can make that sacrifice, even if it will raise our per capita health costs in comparison to some other countries. We are just willing to pay more in order to save lives than Denmark is, I guess.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 05:06

First of all, I would like to point out that the US has a per capita GDP that is twice Portugal's. Thus, percentage-wise, the difference is only a factor of two, not four. Secondly, I would like to mention that factors external to the health-care system have an effect on life expectancy. For example, Portugal's coastline to area ratio exceeds America's corresponding ratio.

Anyway you slice it, it's $3000 per person sucked out of your economy for health care. At the current census bureau population clock reading of over 302 million, that's about a $906 billion dollar hit to the money available for other economic activities. Per year.

But maybe you're right.... you just can't overcome having that damned short coastline. It shall forever constrain you to poor health care outcomes....

So stop blaming blacks. Blame your damn forefathers for insisting on including the midwest into the union. If you'de left all that to Canada and just kept the coastlines you'd all be WAY better off....

Gift-of-god

28-06-2007, 05:07

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 05:07

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 05:08

Again, you've admitted the economy would improve and as such there would be increased income to the government. Taxes increase in dollars with no change in percentage.

I never said the increases would be equivalent. Yes, the economy will improve, but not enough to offset the need for a tax hike at some point in the future. Increases in government spending do increase consumer demand and have some effect on the tax base, but it is not sufficiently effective in order to prevent taxes from being raised in order to finance it.

Gartref

28-06-2007, 05:09

I would gladly vote for you on Tuesday - for a hamburger today.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 05:10

Except we aren't saving lives. That's been demonstrated. That's the point. If your point were true we'd see a higher life expectancy (saved lives) as a result of the money. We don't.

Your point is moot. If two million people each year committed suicide, their deaths and the corresponding decrease in life expectancy would not reflect poorly upon our health-care system. Similarly, there are many factors external to the health-care system which can nonetheless have an impact on life expectancy.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 05:12

I never said the increases would be equivalent. Yes, the economy will improve, but not enough to offset the need for a tax hike at some point in the future. Increases in government spending do increase consumer demand and have some effect on the tax base, but it is not sufficiently effective in order to prevent taxes from being raised in order to finance it.

You've not demonstrated this. You've only asserted it. It's been shown that other nation have national programs, spend less, and get better or equal results. So if you're going to make a claim that it must cost more forever, then you're going to have to *gasp* offer evidence.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 05:12

I'd just like to make one more post in order to make my post count 667 instead of 666. I'll respond to several posts tomorrow because it's late and I'm probably rambling on mindlessly.

Ancap Paradise

28-06-2007, 05:13

Nice quote mining. Now go away and come back when you understand how to debate, 'kay?

Now go away and come back when you understand how to not make ridiculous statements, 'kay?

Lacadaemon

28-06-2007, 05:13

If you're going to keep making the coastline assertion, support it. Link? Proof? The existence of sewater isn't a magical cure. It seems like desperately clinging to anything just so you don't have to amdit you've got no argument.

No way dood. Hawaii has the highest life expectancy at birth for any US state. It also has the most coastline per square mile. Studies have confirmed both those facts.

You can't argue with studies.

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 05:14

No, but we can afford more expensive medical equipment. For example, a 200% increase in spending might only yield a net gain of 50,000 lives per year. However, being a prosperous country, we can make that sacrifice, even if it will raise our per capita health costs in comparison to some other countries. We are just willing to pay more in order to save lives than Denmark is, I guess.

On average, $234,000 per person over a lifetime for an average life expectancy difference of .04 of a year -which is to say NO difference as this falls within a margin of error of statistics (your current life expectancy is, after all, based on trend analysis).

It would be cheaper just to relocate them all to the beach....

Besides, you are making it perfectly clear that you are NOT willing to make that sacrifice as a country. Not with your tax dollars. You just want rich people who can afford it to be able to make that sacrifice.....

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 05:14

Your point is moot. If two million people each year committed suicide, their deaths and the corresponding decrease in life expectancy would not reflect poorly upon our health-care system. Similarly, there are many factors external to the health-care system which can nonetheless have an impact on life expectancy.

Um, suicide reflects on health care.

You're scrambling. It's because of suicide (of course a medical issue). It's because of coastlines. It's because of black people. It's the birds. Look over there, robots!! How about you stop making these absurd assertions unless you've got proof? Or is that expecting too much?

Dobbsworld

28-06-2007, 05:15

Now go away and come back when you understand how to not make ridiculous statements, 'kay?

Let's all go away and come back when there's a worthwhile thread somewhere about. Howzabout dat?

Ancap Paradise

28-06-2007, 05:15

Let's all go away and come back when there's a worthwhile thread somewhere about. Howzabout dat?

Works for me.

*goes away*

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 05:17

I'd just like to make one more post in order to make my post count 667 instead of 666. I'll respond to several posts tomorrow because it's late and I'm probably rambling on mindlessly.

Um, not probably. You're actually arguing that the reason health care is better in nearly every western country in the world is because of coastline, I mean aliens, I mean robots, I mean those nigg... uh, black people.

Seriously, we wouldn't be laughing if you were making a good argument. You're not.

CthulhuFhtagn

28-06-2007, 05:17

Now go away and come back when you understand how to not make ridiculous statements, 'kay?

Tell me, how is "you only pay taxes if you use money" ridiculous? The only way I can see for that to be true is if reality itself was ridiculous. Or if you lack any reading comprehension whatsoever. Or if you didn't read my post. Personally, I'm banking on the last one.

Lacadaemon

28-06-2007, 05:24

I think people here have a very blinkered view of thalassotherapy.

Trollgaard

28-06-2007, 06:52

But I'll bet it's all because of the coastline-to-surface area advantage that they enjoy..... right?

WTF?! HOw does coastline help people live longer?

Secret aj man

28-06-2007, 07:17

I don't have tax dollars, so it's not a problem for me.

i dont pay tax dollars and i will never,i have 2 kids so i can fiddle with the numbers so they owe me.
i like it that way,i have never taken a dollar from anyone unless i earned it,and dont say roads for example,i pay my registration fees,but fuck taxes and fuck anyone that want s my money so they can glom off me..i have raised 2 kids,i dont have health insurance,i sure as hell aint paying for yours.not to be mean,but grow a pair and work..if you cant..then i will help you on my own dime.

The Nazz

28-06-2007, 07:33

Silliopolous

28-06-2007, 12:00

i dont pay tax dollars and i will never,i have 2 kids so i can fiddle with the numbers so they owe me.
i like it that way,i have never taken a dollar from anyone unless i earned it,and dont say roads for example,i pay my registration fees,but fuck taxes and fuck anyone that want s my money so they can glom off me..i have raised 2 kids,i dont have health insurance,i sure as hell aint paying for yours.not to be mean,but grow a pair and work..if you cant..then i will help you on my own dime.

So you went to private school? Generate your own electricity? Supply your own clean water and make sure other people don't pollute it? Grow your own food and make sure other people don't pollute the soil? Wow--you're like Super Grizzly Adams then!

Even if you did all those things, you owe all the people who came before you and built up the base of knowledge that you took advantage of. We all owe an unpayable debt to those who came before. Get the fuck over yourself.

I'm actually more interested in how "fiddling with the number so they owe me" equates to "paying no taxes"! Unless, of course, you're trying to fiddle with the numbers to the extent of pretending that you didn't work at all.

If so, you a) have no clue what paying no taxes really means, and b) good luck with that!

Because the only way that would work out is if you ensure that you never have a job good enough to raise yourself much above poverty to ensure that you can "fiddle the numbers" down to paying zero taxes. In other words, you'd rather be poor than a taxpayer. Which rather precludes having the ability to handle any significant health isues that might arise.

Yeah, that's the best thing you can do for your family! "Sorry kids, but we've GOT to stay poor so we can ensure that we don't inadvertantly help out disadvantaged folks around the country. Because that would be wrong!"

lmfao.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 13:52

Um, suicide reflects on health care.

No, it obviously doesn't. You can have the best medical system in the world: hospitals staffed with superb doctors and cutting-edge equipment, yet still be unable to resuscitate a man who has shot himself in the head. Similarly, victims of gruesome car accidents sometimes may not be resuscitated, especially if they are in a rural area where it takes a while for an ambulance to arrive. What I'm saying is that life expectancy is not directly related to the health-care system; a multitude of factors need to be taken into account. One of them is suicide. Another is crime. Another is how mnay people get killed by lightning. Another is the coastline to area ratio. All these play a role, regardless of how significant: you must consider them.

Look over there, robots!!

For someone who patiently explained to another poster, in detail, what a strawman argument is, using one yourself reflects rather poorly on you.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 15:46

No, it obviously doesn't. You can have the best medical system in the world: hospitals staffed with superb doctors and cutting-edge equipment, yet still be unable to resuscitate a man who has shot himself in the head.

Seriously, dude, do you just WANT us to laugh at you? You do realize that mental illness causes suicide, no? If you don't, just stop posting.

Similarly, they resuscitate a man who was shot in the head. Suicide has nothing to do with it.

Similarly, victims of gruesome car accidents sometimes may not be resuscitated, especially if they are in a rural area where it takes a while for an ambulance to arrive. What I'm saying is that life expectancy is not directly related to the health-care system; a multitude of factors need to be taken into account. One of them is suicide. Another is crime. Another is how mnay people get killed by lightning. Another is the coastline to area ratio. All these play a role, regardless of how significant: you must consider them.

Life expectancy IS directly related to health-care systems. You just gave an example where closer health care would have made a difference. There are other factors of course, but pretending like having other factors means that we should ignore that health care is one of them is plainly stupid.

Meanwhile, suicide remains a mental health issue. If you really don't know that you should be reading books or attending a health class, not posting here.

Directly related doesn't mean the only factor. I'm trying to patient here, but seriously if you can't stop saying absurd things, I don't know that I can continue to pretend you're debating.

Proof? Show any proof that there is a link between coastline and health. Do it now.

For someone who patiently explained to another poster, in detail, what a strawman argument is, using one yourself reflects rather poorly on you.

Um, I was making fun of the fact that every time we bring up a clear link, you make up some link that you CLAIM negates it. Robots was an exaggeration, but I was pretending you'd actually argued robots. You do know the difference, no? Please don't use words you don't understand and you clearly don't know how to use strawman. You don't seem to know the difference between a strawman and sarcasm.

If you need another example of your ridiculous red herrings, how about that now you're pretending that getting shot in the head is the only kind of suicide and that suicide is the only way to get shot in the head. Absent that ridiculous connection, there is no point to your nonsense.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 16:08

You do realize that mental illness causes suicide, no?

All sin is derived from mental deficiency, whether it be suicide or premarital sex. However, I am not rash in ascribing special status to a particular strain of illness as opposed to the others; many psychologists deem premarital sex to be "sane" or "normal" behavior while simultaneously condemning suicide. Only the word of God, not doctors, can cure people of these horrible mental afflictions. The health-care system has nothing to do with it.

Similarly, they resuscitate a man who was shot in the head.

Actually, you tend to die if you're shot in the head. See, some people (and I'm not pointing fingers) have a brain in there.

Life expectancy IS directly related to health-care systems.

Life expectancy is jointly proportional to the adequacy of the health-care system. Stating that there is a direct relationship tends to imply that it is the only determining factor, and is, as such, false. Of course, you can play semantics all you like, but I'd rather not go into that. You know what I meant.

Johnny B Goode

28-06-2007, 16:29

If elected I promise to provide free cheezburgers for every man, woman, child and lolcat in this great nations!

FOUR MOAR CHEEZBURGERS!

FOUR MOAR CHEEZBURGERS!

That's teh win, man.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 16:31

All sin is derived from mental deficiency, whether it be suicide or premarital sex.

Oh, yay, when he loses the argument, he just sticks his head in the sand and pretends not to understand differences.

However, I am not rash in ascribing special status to a particular strain of illness as opposed to the others; many psychologists deem premarital sex to be "sane" or "normal" behavior while simultaneously condemning suicide. Only the word of God, not doctors, can cure people of these horrible mental afflictions. The health-care system has nothing to do with it.

The word of God is that it is not yours to judge and that none of us are good. Not one.

Again, I accept your tipping of your King.

Actually, you tend to die if you're shot in the head. See, some people (and I'm not pointing fingers) have a brain in there.

Ha. I missed the word can't, but the point is that it doesn't change based on whether it was a suicide or not. That you act like suicide is somehow special is, well, evidence you don't actually have an argument.

Life expectancy is jointly proportional to the adequacy of the health-care system. Stating that there is a direct relationship tends to imply that it is the only determining factor, and is, as such, false. Of course, you can play semantics all you like, but I'd rather not go into that. You know what I meant.

Directly and jointly. You do know the significance of using the term directly in terms of statistics and analysis, no? If you don't, you really should stop talking now.

Direct does not mean ONLY no matter how many times you rub your legs together and wish.

And, yes, I recognize that you are trying to change what you said, because even YOU recognize what you actually said was silly and incorrect.

Meanwhile, since no one ever argued it was the only factor, you're arguing yet another strawman.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 16:41

Directly and jointly.

A direct proportion can be expressed thusly: x = ky. A joint proportion can be expressed thusly: x1 * x2 * ... * xn = ky. What you are describing is encompassed by the latter. Again, I don't wish to play semantics here; you know what I meant but are trying to differentiate between a direct proportion and a direct relationship. I admit that perhaps my choice of words was not completely apt, but I already clarified the issue.

Meanwhile, since no one ever argued it was the only factor, you're arguing yet another strawman.

It's not me, it's the robots! Incidentally, since it's not the only factor, as you admit, then you cannot claim that foreign health-care systems are more efficient than the American model.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 16:57

A direct proportion can be expressed thusly: x = ky. A joint proportion can be expressed thusly: x1 * x2 * ... * xn = ky. What you are describing is encompassed by the latter.

Direct proportion means that if you increase one then you expect an increase on the other side of the equation if all other things remain equal. That can be expressed in either of the equations. But, hey, keep arguing and I'll keep laughing at the fact that you don't understand what directly proportionate means.

http://www.econ100.com/eu5e/open/glossary.html
Direct relationship A relationship between two variables that move in the same direction.

Look up every definition you can find and you won't find a ONE that says that it must be the only factor. I have a long history in mathematics. I've never even heard someone suggest something as idiotic as what you're claiming.

Again, I don't wish to play semantics here; you know what I meant but are trying to differentiate between a direct proportion and a direct relationship. I admit that perhaps my choice of words was not completely apt, but I already clarified the issue.

You keep defending your claim and continue to ignore that they ARE directly related.

It's not me, it's the robots! Incidentally, since it's not the only factor, as you admit, then you cannot claim that foreign health-care systems are more efficient than the American model.

We certainly can and will. We recognize that most factors don't act alone. It doesn't prevent us from making comparisons of like things. It simply means we have to take the comparisons with a grain of salt. Analyze them. Fortunately, since the burden of proof is on you and you can't be arsed to provide proof, we aren't going to have to worry about much in terms of defense, really.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 16:59

Meanwhile, dropping the suicide argument is essentially admitting a loss. We accept your tipping of your King.

Also, you've admitted that you are mentally deficient in your post, so one wonders how you expect that to play out.

All sin is derived from mental deficiency.

Since you're sinful, it looks like you accept that deficiency. Thanks.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 17:06

Meanwhile, dropping the suicide argument is essentially admitting a loss.

Err...what are you talking about? The "suicide argument" was used as an example to indicate that there are factors external to the adequacy of the health-care system that determine the life expectancy of a nation. Since you admitted as much in a previous post, you are the one admitting a loss. Or are you saying that you "won" by stating that the health-care system can prevent suicides? That would be a strawman argument, as I did not claim that the health-care system cannot prevent suicide, but rather that it cannot save people who have already committed the sinful act.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 17:09

Direct relationship A relationship between two variables that move in the same direction.

Yes, two variables; however, there a numerous factors which influence the life expectancy, not just two. In either case, the disagreement is clarified as we now both understand what I meant. The confusion has been resolved. Therefore, there is no point in continuing this puerile discussion as to who is "right." I will not respond to any furtherance of this line of argument.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 17:11

Err...what are you talking about? The "suicide argument" was used as an example to indicate that there are factors external to the adequacy of the health-care system that determine the life expectancy of a nation. Since you admitted as much in a previous post, you are the one admitting a loss. Or are you saying that you "won" by stating that the health-care system can prevent suicides? That would be a strawman argument, as I did not claim that the health-care system cannot prevent suicide, but rather that it cannot save people who have already committed the sinful act.

You claimed it was not a health issue. You can't show it's not. Even the description you game simply would mean that you believe you yourself are mentally deficient. An amusing argument to be sure, but it's also a losing argument

No one ever claimed that the health care system alone affects life expectancy. It's a strawman. Unless you can show someone claiming that, other than your lack of understanding what direct means, then I'm not going to pick up your fallacy.

You claimed that suicide is not a health-care issue. Need a quote?

Um, suicide reflects on health care.
No, it obviously doesn't.

You know, lying is also a sin. Are you going to claim you didn't say this?

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 17:15

Yes, two variables; however, there a numerous factors which influence the life expectancy, not just two. In either case, the disagreement is clarified as we now both understand what I meant. The confusion has been resolved. Therefore, there is no point in continuing this puerile discussion as to who is "right." I will not respond to any furtherance of this line of argument.

It doesn't say there must be no other variables. Direct and indirect only discusses how two variants affect one another. It makes no claims about other variants. I know you don't understand this, but you are wildly embarrassing yourself here.

Meanwhile, the point is that you've claimed a strawman argument based on your misunderstanding. No one has ever claimed that health care alone affects life expectancy. No one. Ever. You erected a strawman and just moments ago claimed victory by destroying it.

Zarakon

28-06-2007, 17:22

Do you ever watch Scrubs? It's an excellent show. In one episode, the avaricious Dr. Kelso "generously" offers all his patients a free MRI scan and bombards them with advertisements that they may already be dying of what they think are "trivial" conditions. Yet the best doctor in the hospital, Dr. Cox, believes this to be a horrible, fiendish idea. Why? Because he realizes that such a practice will do more harm than good as such tests usually reveal numerous imperfections or suspicious areas that turn out to be innocuous, only causing the patient needless discomfort. In fact, he subjects himself to ridicule in a valiant effort to stop a potential target from accepting the offer. What's the moral of the story? Intensive medical care may not always be positive; in fact, an overdose of attention may very well be detrimental. You're suggesting that people with minor complaints readily see a doctor; that not only undermines our entire medical system due to our strained resources and other constraints, but it also doesn't benefit patients one iota. They may be better off only coming to the doctor if they believe they are seriously ill.

Your arguing point consists of referencing a comedy central show?

Gee, maybe next we can start talking about Kenny's views on health care. (He's in favor of it.)

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 17:22

You claimed that suicide is not a health-care issue. Need a quote?

I am not denying that I said that. You, however, are twisting my words. What I said was that after a person commits suicide, the medical system is powerless to save them. End of story. I never claimed that through early intervention and counseling, lives which would potentially be lost via suicide cannot be extended. It is you who is "erecting" and then demolishing the strawman.

FreedomAndGlory

28-06-2007, 17:24

Your arguing point consists of referencing a comedy central show?

First of all, although the show is aired on Comedy Central, it is created by NBC. Secondly, although it is a comedy show, those who have watches it know that it reflects on real life and makes some deep points regarding existence and the health-care system. Have you ever read the fables of Aesop? If you could take a braod-minded view and see beyond the talking animals (impossible!), you'd see that it, too, makes such strong points.

Jocabia

28-06-2007, 17:24

I am not denying that I said that. You, however, are twisting my words. What I said was that after a person commits suicide, the medical system is powerless to save them. End of story. I never claimed that through early intervention and counseling, lives which would potentially be lost via suicide cannot be extended. It is you who is "erecting" and then demolishing the strawman.

Yes, and the health care system is of little help after other people die as well. What the hell is the point of that statement?

THe number of suicides reflect on health care. You claimed otherwise. Pretend you didn't. It just points to how silly you're being.

Glitziness

28-06-2007, 20:47

Well - first of all the comparison is not about 'having your life saved' - that is Superman's job. It is about free healthcare. You know - like seeing the doctor when you have the sniffles. In that case then yes - it is absolutely a valid comparison.

As far as traumatic injuries and terminal illnesses - there already IS free healthcare for for the poor avaliable. In the US it is called medicare and medicaid. So I'm afraid you are the proud owner of a red-herring.
(I'm sure this has been replied to, but oh well)

Free healthcare can save your life in situations of the more extreme kind. Yes, not all cases of using healthcare will save your life, but the majority of people will need healthcare at some point in their life (for example, the third of people who will develop cancer at some point). Mowing your lawn cannot save your life. The necessity and benefits of having your lawn mowed are in no way compareable to healthcare and you know it.

Medicare is a form of medical insurance which you pay towards throughout your life. Not free healthcare.

And medicaid (a pretty crappy system, but better than nothing) is, because it's paid through taxes. So... what's your point? Aren't you arguing that freehealthcare i.e. medicaid should be scrapped?

Glitziness

28-06-2007, 20:57

Do you ever watch Scrubs? It's an excellent show. In one episode, the avaricious Dr. Kelso "generously" offers all his patients a free MRI scan and bombards them with advertisements that they may already be dying of what they think are "trivial" conditions. Yet the best doctor in the hospital, Dr. Cox, believes this to be a horrible, fiendish idea. Why? Because he realizes that such a practice will do more harm than good as such tests usually reveal numerous imperfections or suspicious areas that turn out to be innocuous, only causing the patient needless discomfort. In fact, he subjects himself to ridicule in a valiant effort to stop a potential target from accepting the offer. What's the moral of the story? Intensive medical care may not always be positive; in fact, an overdose of attention may very well be detrimental. You're suggesting that people with minor complaints readily see a doctor; that not only undermines our entire medical system due to our strained resources and other constraints, but it also doesn't benefit patients one iota. They may be better off only coming to the doctor if they believe they are seriously ill.
You know what's interesting? How I can get a totally different interpretation from that story...

Here is a private hospital with the head of the hospital using his medical knowledge and "caring" outward appearance to exploit the general public and generate more money for himself, with disregard to the patient's well-being, extra strain on the hospital and any ethical code.

Just seems to demonstrate to me how stupid it is to put people's health in the hands of people who simply want to make as much profit as possible.

Seangolis Revenge

28-06-2007, 21:20

You know what's interesting? How I can get a totally different interpretation from that story...

Here is a private hospital with the head of the hospital using his medical knowledge and "caring" outward appearance to exploit the general public and generate more money for himself, with disregard to the patient's well-being, extra strain on the hospital and any ethical code.

Just seems to demonstrate to me how stupid it is to put people's health in the hands of people who simply want to make as much profit as possible.

I see it more as someone being idiotic enough to compare real life to a sitcom, thinking it is a factual and accurate representation of real life. Are there parallels? Of course. But to use an episode of a sitcom for an anecdote, instead of a real life occurance, is just not good mojo.

Seangolis Revenge

28-06-2007, 21:23

(I'm sure this has been replied to, but oh well)

Free healthcare can save your life in situations of the more extreme kind. Yes, not all cases of using healthcare will save your life, but the majority of people will need healthcare at some point in their life (for example, the third of people who will develop cancer at some point). Mowing your lawn cannot save your life. The necessity and benefits of having your lawn mowed are in no way compareable to healthcare and you know it.

Medicare is a form of medical insurance which you pay towards throughout your life. Not free healthcare.

And medicaid (a pretty crappy system, but better than nothing) is, because it's paid through taxes. So... what's your point? Aren't you arguing that freehealthcare i.e. medicaid should be scrapped?

It's not even necessarily about saving lives. It's about keeping the populace healthy, and productive. A great deal of money is lost simply because people don't take preventative health services, instead allowing a problem to persist until it is more serious.

Zarakon

28-06-2007, 21:28

First of all, although the show is aired on Comedy Central, it is created by NBC. Secondly, although it is a comedy show, those who have watches it know that it reflects on real life and makes some deep points regarding existence and the health-care system. Have you ever read the fables of Aesop? If you could take a braod-minded view and see beyond the talking animals (impossible!), you'd see that it, too, makes such strong points.

So what? South Park makes some deep points regarding existence and Micheal Jackson. Doesn't mean I'm going to use South Park as a reference if I edit the Wikipedia page on him.

Anti-Social Darwinism

28-06-2007, 21:34

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free lawn care and food services, such as cheeseburgers, free lawn mowing and hedging, etc.

Sure, why not. While they're at it, they can pay to clean my house, wash my car, do my taxes, finance my hobbies, raise my kids. The list is endless, if it's done right, I'll never have to do anything for myself again. Then, having no reason to live, I'll die and they can pay for my funeral.

Sumamba Buwhan

28-06-2007, 21:58

Sure, why not. While they're at it, they can pay to clean my house, wash my car, do my taxes, finance my hobbies, raise my kids. The list is endless, if it's done right, I'll never have to do anything for myself again. Then, having no reason to live, I'll die and they can pay for my funeral.

Isn't this the Homer SImpson plan he had for waste management?

Slogan: "Can't someone else do it?"

The_pantless_hero

28-06-2007, 22:22

Sure, why not. While they're at it, they can pay to clean my house, wash my car, do my taxes, finance my hobbies, raise my kids. The list is endless, if it's done right, I'll never have to do anything for myself again. Then, having no reason to live, I'll die and they can pay for my funeral.

Of course you too have to pay taxes into the do-all-that-shit pool.

Glitziness

28-06-2007, 22:24

It's not even necessarily about saving lives. It's about keeping the populace healthy, and productive. A great deal of money is lost simply because people don't take preventative health services, instead allowing a problem to persist until it is more serious.
I totally agree, and perhaps using the most extreme or emotive benefit wasn't the best idea, but I simply wanted to highlight how ridiculous the comparison was.

Mystical Skeptic

28-06-2007, 22:26

(I'm sure this has been replied to, but oh well)

Free healthcare can save your life in situations of the more extreme kind. Yes, not all cases of using healthcare will save your life, but the majority of people will need healthcare at some point in their life (for example, the third of people who will develop cancer at some point). Mowing your lawn cannot save your life. The necessity and benefits of having your lawn mowed are in no way compareable to healthcare and you know it. /quote]
The majority of people will also need food. They will need indoor plumbing. They will need water. They will need clothing. Etc. Expecting people to provide these things for themselves is reality. Except in the most exctreme cases there is no need for intervention except on a temporary basis. The same goes for any need for healthcare.

[QUOTE=Glitziness;12823942]Medicare is a form of medical insurance which you pay towards throughout your life. Not free healthcare.

And medicaid (a pretty crappy system, but better than nothing) is, because it's paid through taxes.
Really? WTF do you think pays for 'free' healthcare? The healthcare fairies? The gnome physicians? Santa's little medical assistants?

So... what's your point? Aren't you arguing that freehealthcare i.e. medicaid should be scrapped?
Not at all. I'm exposing every argument about the poor doing without heathcare ss bogus and meritless due to the existance of these programs.

New Genoa

28-06-2007, 22:27

I wouldn't mind government-funded prostitution. Mmm..

New Limacon

28-06-2007, 22:29

How about we compromise? Everyone pays for government issued healthcare in their taxes, and then you can decide whether you would like to receive it or not. We already have something similar to this in education.

Glitziness

28-06-2007, 22:42

The majority of people will also need food. They will need indoor plumbing. They will need water. They will need clothing. Etc. Expecting people to provide these things for themselves is reality. Except in the most exctreme cases there is no need for intervention except on a temporary basis. The same goes for any need for healthcare.
Well, I think that the government should ensure that everyone has enough money to provide the basic necessities like that, with unemployment benefits, a better minimum wage, a progressive tax system etc...

Really? WTF do you think pays for 'free' healthcare? The healthcare fairies? The gnome physicians? Santa's little medical assistants?
I was highlighting the fact that it was paid through taxes to question why you don't therefore disagree with it.

Not at all. I'm exposing every argument about the poor doing without heathcare ss bogus and meritless due to the existance of these programs.
Where did I say that the poor do without healthcare?
I'm arguing that everyone should be able to have state-provided healthcare to a very high standard. Having an optional policy where places can decide to give basic healthcare, usually to a low standard, to a restricted number of people who have to be dependent on a very weak, convulted programme is far from my ideal.

Mystical Skeptic

28-06-2007, 23:14

Seangolis Revenge

29-06-2007, 00:13

We already have that in healthcare care too, except only the poor can choose medicaid.

And the middle class is screwed because they can't afford healthcare.

Really, the poor aren't the only ones who can't afford healthcare.

Mystical Skeptic

29-06-2007, 00:23

I was highlighting the fact that it was paid through taxes to question why you don't therefore disagree with it.

No, what you said was this;

Medicare is a form of medical insurance which you pay towards throughout your life. Not free healthcare.

And medicaid (a pretty crappy system, but better than nothing) is, because it's paid through taxes. So... what's your point? Aren't you arguing that freehealthcare i.e. medicaid should be scrapped?

Question - what do you call state-compulsory confiscation of your money?

Answer - TAX!

Question - does attaching a benefit to a compulsory confiscation of your money change that?

Answe - No!

So, what is Medicare - TAX! ding-ding-ding!

I never said I disagree with them. You will not find where I have once said that. What I HAVE said is that there is no need to expand them and make enrollment compulsory for everyone.

Where did I say that the poor do without healthcare?
I'm arguing that everyone should be able to have state-provided healthcare to a very high standard. Having an optional policy where places can decide to give basic healthcare, usually to a low standard, to a restricted number of people who have to be dependent on a very weak, convulted programme is far from my ideal.

Wrong again. It is not legal for a medical providor to offer different service based on your method of pay - including insurance or medicaid/medicare. A hospital ER may not refuse serive to anyone - insured or not. There is no option of providing lower standards to one patient than another. Sorry but your argument cannot contain H2O.

Mystical Skeptic

29-06-2007, 00:26

And the middle class is screwed because they can't afford healthcare.

Really, the poor aren't the only ones who can't afford healthcare.

I am middle class and I have no difficulty affording my insurance premiums, co-pays or any other medical issues.

It is those members of the middle class who foolishly choose not to have health insurance who find themselves in a pickle. But then - if they had no homeowners insurance they too could find themselves in a pickle. Same for life insurance.

They have to decide what risks they want to insure for themselves then bear the concenquences if they choose foolishly.

Silliopolous

29-06-2007, 02:33

I am middle class and I have no difficulty affording my insurance premiums, co-pays or any other medical issues.

It is those members of the middle class who foolishly choose not to have health insurance who find themselves in a pickle. But then - if they had no homeowners insurance they too could find themselves in a pickle. Same for life insurance.

They have to decide what risks they want to insure for themselves then bear the concenquences if they choose foolishly.

Or, its those who are unlucky enough to suffer illnesses or accidents not covered by their plan or which require uncovered medications to treat, or - worse yet - have had the bad fortune to have been born with conditions that make them uninsurable.

A private, for profit insurance plan by neccessity is built around maximizing those profits. this requires them to work as hard as possible to deny claims in order to maximize shareholder wealth. It IS what they do

That is not in the best interest of the country as a whole from an economic standpoint.

From a recent Harvard study (http://www.azcentral.com/health/news/articles/0202medicalbankrupt02.html)

Medical problems contributed to about half of all personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a national study released today.

The study, which was done by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy.

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates, you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, the study's lead author. advertisement

For Claudia, a 46-year-old Phoenix woman, the collision between her failing health and strapped budget is terrifying.

Last year, she had $50,000 worth of cardiac care and then was told she couldn't qualify for Medicaid because her husband, a construction worker, makes too much money - $18,000 a year.

Since then, Claudia has stopped doing odd jobs outside the house. Her daughter has dropped out of law school to work at Target to pitch in. The family thinks filing for bankruptcy protection may be their only hope.

"I never, ever thought it would get to this point," she said.

But it's not just people who lack health insurance who file for bankruptcy protection, the study said.

Himmelstein said researchers were surprised by the large number of filers who had health insurance.

Many patients had to contend with unaffordable co-payments, deductibles and bills for uncovered items like physical therapy, psychiatric care and prescription drugs.

"They were not counting on exclusions, loopholes and large out-of-pocket expenses. Too often, private health insurance is an umbrella that melts in the rain," Himmelstein said.

The study also stressed many families were bankrupted by medical expenses well below the high-deductible plans that are increasingly popular with employers.

"We need to rethink health reform, said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard.

"Covering the uninsured isn't enough. We must also upgrade and guarantee continuous coverage for those who have insurance."

The Harvard study looked at five states, surveying bankruptcy courts and interviewing individuals. Arizona was not one of the states surveyed; the U.S. Bankruptcy Court District of Arizona doesn't track the number of medical-related bankruptcies.

More than 75 percent of those surveyed were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. Often illness led to job loss, and with it the loss of health insurance. One-third had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

The study's overall findings don't surprise Mike Sullivan, director of education for Take Charge America in Phoenix, a consumer-credit counseling service.

"If you are out of work, have heavy medical bills and then credit-card bills on top of that, you're dead. You are going to have to file for bankruptcy protection."

Sullivan's group tries to work with people before they have to file in Bankruptcy Court. Hospital creditors are different from credit-card companies, he said. They are generally more willing to waive interest rates, allow people to make smaller payments and carry the bill for a longer period of time.

Demented Hamsters

29-06-2007, 05:04

All sin is derived from mental deficiency, whether it be suicide or premarital sex.
you know - that's exactly the sort of thing another, earlier and just as impressive troll would have said...

Jocabia

29-06-2007, 05:24

you know - that's exactly the sort of thing another, earlier and just as impressive troll would have said...

Yeah, every once in a while he mixes up his made up identities.

Walther Realized

29-06-2007, 05:28

If elected I promise to provide free cheezburgers for every man, woman, child and lolcat in this great nations!

FOUR MOAR CHEEZBURGERS!

FOUR MOAR CHEEZBURGERS!

I lol'd. :D

Mystical Skeptic

29-06-2007, 12:59

Or, its those who are unlucky enough to suffer illnesses or accidents not covered by their plan or which require uncovered medications to treat, or - worse yet - have had the bad fortune to have been born with conditions that make them uninsurable.

A private, for profit insurance plan by neccessity is built around maximizing those profits. this requires them to work as hard as possible to deny claims in order to maximize shareholder wealth. It IS what they do

That is not in the best interest of the country as a whole from an economic standpoint.

From a recent Harvard study (http://www.azcentral.com/health/news/articles/0202medicalbankrupt02.html)

So - in other words - some people are stupid and don't buy health insurance. Others are stupid and buy shitty insurance. Most are stupid and don't buy supplimental disability income insurance. Therefore the only solution is that everyone should have to buy health insurance from a vendor with a dubious record for quality (The government).

Sorry - your logic is not thorough. There are other alternatives which you have not considered. Many many others; Make an education program to help stupid people pick insurance. Create a public ratings-service on claims-paying completion (instead of claims-paying ability). Create as streamlined methid to dispute claims. Standardize insurance policies and limit exceptions. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And here is the real kicker - and the most overlooked - most middle-class people do not buy suplimental disability insurance - particularly those in jobs most likely to be affected in the event of a disability. Once again - that is their own stupid fault.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you mind your tax dollars being spent on these things too?