Thanks Logos. I promise not to let you down. Since it is the Christmas season it is only right and proper that I "open" (buy) each gift!
Obviously you wouldn't know socialism if it slapped you in the face.
Ah, this statement reminds me of high school - the required senior civics class to be specific. It was taught by the football coach - not exactly the brightest teacher but then, again, the pay was the lowest in the state. We had required oral reports on "-isms". Since our community had caught the attention of Time Magazine twice in a single year for legal battles related to communism it was a common topic. No more than 3 students could report on it. Having taken too long to determine my topic, I went for "dialectic materialism" ... at the end of the report the teacher asked if it was practiced anywhere. Naturally, it became an inside joke.
If socialism were to slap me in the face, I would not recognize it for the simple reason that I understand socialism to be an abstract rather than concrete noun. Therefore, I must assume, George, that you are using the term socialism to mean something entirely different ... bring out the Monty Python "now for something completely different".
I'm telling you that they come here or some of them die because of the wait.
I'll guarantee that more die in the US due to lack of medical insurance than die due to waiting lists caused by universal health coverage in the many countries of the Western world which offer it.
Well I don't know how one could guarantee such a thing. I'd like to see some studies on that one.
Fair enough - I was matching hyperbole with hyperbole.
But, there were a number of studies done last year on deaths related to lack of medical insurance in the US - estimated 850 childhood deaths a year; 2200 Veterans who died in 2008 due to lack of coverage.....
The figures in Australia (disputed by government) are about 2000 deaths a year due to waiting lists.
Well, right now you do not speak truth. Canadians are overwhelmingly appreciative and supportive of our national universal health care. We may not live as high on the hog as you Americans, but the weakest and poorest, even the homeless, have complete access to our Health Care System that is absolutely equal to that of the richest, most affluent, and most powerful. That is a fact, George, and you are absolutely saying something that is absolutely untruthful. May God forgive you. I really don't think you know what you do. Even those who need to wait months to see a doctor or to be scheduled for a special test? I'm telling you that they come here or some of them die because of the wait.
Well, right now you do not speak truth. Canadians are overwhelmingly appreciative and supportive of our national universal health care. We may not live as high on the hog as you Americans, but the weakest and poorest, even the homeless, have complete access to our Health Care System that is absolutely equal to that of the richest, most affluent, and most powerful. That is a fact, George, and you are absolutely saying something that is absolutely untruthful. May God forgive you. I really don't think you know what you do.
Even those who need to wait months to see a doctor or to be scheduled for a special test? I'm telling you that they come here or some of them die because of the wait.
Extremely rare, I mean, extremely rare, George. Perhaps 1/2 of 1 per cent. Almost unheard of. When it does happen the big U.S. pharmaceutical companies and the big insurance companies blow it out of all proportion. They are they ones who are threatened, George, not the average American. They, with their lobbies, and other tactics are psyching you guys out, George.
If we were so unhappy here in Canada, why wouldn't we moan and groan? We know that there are always improvements -- yes, reformations are always needed! -- semper reformanda -- needed all the time. We must all be vigilant, of course. We know it's expensive and we have to be careful there also. But, George, almost universally, Canadians are "happy campers" about our medical care.
..... Mel
The fact is, in my opinion, socialism is just dumb economics and so is socialized health care. I don't have any moral qualms with and I don't think it would be great even in Heaven, because, like I said, it is just bad economics. Should be people be dying because they can't afford health care? I'm not sure, that gets into some complex issues (do people have an inalienable right for other people to take care of them)? But I'm inclined to say that they shouldn't be dying just because they can't afford health care. Does that mean govt. health care is the solution? LOL, hardly.
And as for Denmark, my thought is simply that of course someone thinks socialism is great and "works fine". After all, lots of people think fascism is great and works fine too. But see here and here for a counter-perspectively on its "greatness" for Denmark.
Damian, I really would like the source for those numbers (not trying to be picky, I just like to read such things and see how the studies were conducted and interpreted).
Happy to provide them, but why have you not asked George for some figures about how many are fleeing countries such as Canada, Britain, Denmark, Italy, France, Australia, NZ so as to find refuge in the US health system....? He was the one who made the first claim.
I go away 2 hours and everybody goes nuts! Think I'll take another 2 hour break. [:#]
btw: this thread is about the 12 Days of Logos Christmas Sale, remember?
I go away 2 hours and everybody goes nuts! Think I'll take another 2 hour break. btw: this thread is about the 12 Days of Logos Christmas Sale, remember?
I go away 2 hours and everybody goes nuts! Think I'll take another 2 hour break.
Thanks for the reminder, Matthew, "Gift of God"! *smile*
Yes indeed, something different entirely. Fascism under Mousalini was socialistic. Nazism was socialistic. The Soviet Union was socialistic. Not exactly something benign but oppressive and evil. Yes, the early church tried socialism, but you will note that it didn't last long. Even in the "best of all possible worlds", as Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide calls it there is an Ananias or Saphira as well as those whom Paul needs to admonish by saying that if a man will not work, neither shall he eat. Too many end up riding in the cart while the rest attempt to pull it.
Damian,
To be honest, I didn't read George's post (sorry, George, but I'm really not lying). I skimmed the first few sentences of his first post about "wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face..." just to see where he was standing and then moved on.
I usually don't ask people to back up their claims if I already agree with them or don't find them to be other than I would expect (and I suspect that most people do the same). Your claim, while not extraordinary to me, is something I haven't heard before. So I'd like to know for future reference.
All philosophical systems exist as a result of sin, and all fall short of the Glory of God.
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/11/blind-foxes-and-the-rock.html
Our call is to Thrive until the real Kingdom comes
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/02/thrive.html
I'm telling you that they come here or some of them die because of the wait. I'll guarantee that more die in the US due to lack of medical insurance than die due to waiting lists caused by universal health coverage in the many countries of the Western world which offer it.
Wrong! No one dies for lack of medical insurance. That is a lie propagated by the looney lefties. If anyone dies because they don't get medical care, it is because they don't seek it. If someone presents to an emergency room (or doctor's office) in need of care, they MUST be cared for regardless of insurance, lack thereof or funds to pay. That's the law.
Well I don't know how one could guarantee such a thing. I'd like to see some studies on that one. Fair enough - I was matching hyperbole with hyperbole. But, there were a number of studies done last year on deaths related to lack of medical insurance in the US - estimated 850 childhood deaths a year; 2200 Veterans who died in 2008 due to lack of coverage..... The figures in Australia (disputed by government) are about 2000 deaths a year due to waiting lists.
Wrong! See my reply to Damian since it applies here as well. The so-called studies of "deaths related to lack of medical insurance" were not studies of lack of insurance as the cause for death. It was a study of deaths AMONG those who lack insurance, not a study of death BECAUSE of lack of insurance. Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened.
bring out the Monty Python "now for something completely different".
Come see the violence inherited in the system. HELP HELP I'm being repressed!
Extremely rare, I mean, extremely rare, George. Perhaps 1/2 of 1 per cent. Almost unheard of. When it does happen the big U.S. pharmaceutical companies and the big insurance companies blow it out of all proportion. They are they ones who are threatened, George, not the average American. They, with their lobbies, and other tactics are psyching you guys out, George
Most people are fairly healthy most of the time other than a few sniffles or such. As a matter of fact, other than seeing an optometrist when I was wearing contacts and then an ophthalmologist when I had lasik surgery, I haven't seen a doctor in more than 10 yrs. If you limit your search to those who have actually been sick, I think you will find that the percentage isn't quite so small at you think. I hear calls to radio talk shows all the time from Canadians and Brits about the problems with getting appropriate health care on a timely basis when needed. There was an article in a British newspaper regarding people using crazy glue to fix their teeth because they couldn't get in to see a dentist. I've heard about ambulances in Britain keeping patients in the ambulance since once they are brought into the hopital they must be seen in 4 hrs but they couldn't meet that schedule. I read about dirty linen in British hospitals. This was all in BRITISH newspapers, not American.
Well, welcome to The People's Republic of Amerika. I remember when we were free.
If someone presents to an emergency room (or doctor's office) in need of care, they MUST be cared for regardless of insurance, lack thereof or funds to pay.
And given the best course of treatment no matter the cost?
[Y] +1
I hear calls to radio talk shows all the time from Canadians and Brits about the problems with getting appropriate health care on a timely basis when needed.
That's a reliable source.
Waiting lists/times in the UK are at their lowest since 1997.
This was all in BRITISH newspapers
Yes, and British newspapers are renowned for never beating up a story.... Was it the Sun or the Mirror?
btw: this thread is about the 12 Days of Logos Christmas Sale, remember? +1
+1
Fear not, I suspect that after midnight tonight the topic will be back to the newest resource.
Damian, I really would like the source for those numbers (not trying to be picky, I just like to read such things and see how the studies were conducted and interpreted). Happy to provide them, but why have you not asked George for some figures about how many are fleeing countries such as Canada, Britain, Denmark, Italy, France, Australia, NZ so as to find refuge in the US health system....? He was the one who made the first claim.
I think that John, like me, is an American. This most likely means that he is already aware of the evidence for my claims.
Concluding, on my part, this completely off-topic conversation:
Your claim, while not extraordinary to me, is something I haven't heard before. So I'd like to know for future reference.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169216.php
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/
While one can dispute the validity of the figues, the simple fact that a considerable number of people die in the US due to lack of health insurance would surely be a given in any discussion about the merits of private/public/mixed systems of health care.
Finding data related to deaths on waiting lists in public/mixed systems is difficult because they are (as Mel suggested) very rare.... One could look at the report of the Australian Medical Association, but it's only real complaint is about the length of wait for elective surgery (http://www.ama.com.au/system/files/node/5030/Public+Hospital+Report+Card+2009.pdf)
Now returning to our normal programming....
Why, Oh why am I getting into this one...shut up Philip Shut up....hhhhhhh
Sorry Damian but this argument always baffles me. People don't die because they lack medical treatment, they die because they are mortal. If the government is going to make the claim that without required health care many will die, then I want in writing that I will not die if I am on their plan. And I want the ability for my family to sue the government for forcing me onto a plan with flagrant false advertisement when I do die.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/ While one can dispute the validity of the figues,
While one can dispute the validity of the figues,
Damian
I don't want to get into this argument. I just want to point out that the NY Times is hardly a reliable source. They have been caught with more falsified reports than the National Enquirer.
That surprises me, having lived in the US, statistics regarding deaths related to lack of medical coverage get plenty of press (and not just in the left wing papers): here's a couple of examples which a quick search pulled up for me:
Every few months I read the global edition of the New York Times. Besides that I don't watch, read, or listen to the media. So unless it's on Britney Spears' latest album or mentioned in some economics piece I'm reading, I probably haven't heard of it.
the simple fact that a considerable number of people die in the US due to lack of health insurance would surely be a given in any discussion about the merits of private/public/mixed systems of health care.
I did happen to read George's remarks about people not dying because of lack of health care and that strikes me as a good point. I'm not sure couching a persons death in those terms is legit. But, like I said, I think the issue is more complex than the way most people frame it. Just because I think a person shouldn't starve, for instance, doesn't mean I think all food should be free. If gov't health care proponents want to put their money where their mouth (arguments) is, they should start by nationalizing the food, produce, farm industry etc. I would at least be a little more impressed with their consistency.
Thanks for the sources. I'll bookmark them and have a look when I have more time.
Jack, the link to the study by the Harvard Medical School is in the first paragraph of the article...
I was just saying the same thing to myself while having a breather outside. I normally studiously avoid this type of off-topic conversation.
...
But, funny you didn't quote George who claimed that people die because of the wait.... surely they die because they are mortal.....
....
I did happen to read George's remarks about people not dying because of lack of health care and that strikes me as a good point
And they don't die because of waiting lists either......
.....
Let's remember the first statement was about how grossly unhappy every resident of Britain, France and Canada is with their systems...
Funny no one has asked for any verification of that statement....
........
And so I bow out....
If someone presents to an emergency room (or doctor's office) in need of care, they MUST be cared for regardless of insurance, lack thereof or funds to pay. And given the best course of treatment no matter the cost?
Whatever is required. For a time I worked in Los Angeles County General Hospital. Anyone who presented was seen and appropriate treatment given. It didn't matter what the financial status was. If they needed to be admitted, they were admitted. If they needed a prescription, they were given a prescription. I know because I was working in Finance.
I hear calls to radio talk shows all the time from Canadians and Brits about the problems with getting appropriate health care on a timely basis when needed. That's a reliable source. Waiting lists/times in the UK are at their lowest since 1997. This was all in BRITISH newspapers Yes, and British newspapers are renowned for never beating up a story.... Was it the Sun or the Mirror?
I believe it was either the Times or the Guardian. I'm not familiar with the others. I've also read the Scotsman, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't that one.
That's fine. It's not an argument I've ever put forth. While there is legitimacy to whether socialized health care causes long waits and whether non-socialized health care will be affordable to everyone, these are mostly arguments which play off the fears of people (and don't logically settle the issue either way).
But you also have to consider an argument in its context. I always hear my socialist loving friends harping to me about how American health care is evil because people who can't afford it will die. In such a context, it is perfectly legitimate for me (or George) to use the counter argument that people with socialized health care may die in a waiting line. As such, it's simply meeting the argument of an opponent on his own terms.
Let's remember the first statement was about how grossly unhappy every resident of Britain, France and Canada is with their systems... Funny no one has asked for any verification of that statement....
I don't remember that statement (probably because I didn't read it). Surely I can't be faulted for something like that.... but that aside, your complaint looks a little tu quoque anyway.
Okay, I'm done too.
You know, if we do get socialized health care, that will be $100.00 more a week I can spend on Logos resources... [:D]
One more time. People do not die for lack of health insurance. They may die and not have insurance, but they do not die because they lack insurance. If they present with symptoms, they must be seen and treated whether they have insurance or not. If they die and don't have insurance, it is most likely because they DIDN'T SEEK HELP.
You know, if we do get socialized health care, that will be $100.00 more a week I can spend on Logos resources...
After you pay $150.00 / wk in extra taxes?
Pssst.... you do know how the government gets the money to pay for such health care, right?
You know, if we do get socialized health care, that will be $100.00 more a week I can spend on Logos resources... Pssst.... you do know how the government gets the money to pay for such health care, right?
From the guy next door who doesn't deserve to keep all the money he earns... [;)]
You know, if we do get socialized health care, that will be $100.00 more a week I can spend on Logos resources... After you pay $150.00 / wk in extra taxes?
I thought that the President said that his plan would not cost me anything. He wouldn't lie, would he?
[8][8][8][8] "On the first day of Christmas Logos gave to me..." [8][8][8][8] join in when you think you know the words.... [8][8][8][8]
"On the first day of Christmas Logos gave to me..." join in when you think you know the words....
Back on topic, excellent MVPing...
[8][8][8][8]Socialized Logos subscriptions....[8][8][8][8]
Socialized Logos subscriptions....
Ha ha ha ha...
You know, if we do get socialized health care, that will be $100.00 more a week I can spend on Logos resources... After you pay $150.00 / wk in extra taxes? I thought that the President said that his plan would not cost me anything. He wouldn't lie, would he?
Were his lips moving when he said that? If so, he was lying.
But the US has socialized, government run health care. It is called Medicare. Seniors in this country don't seem ready to walk away from it. I know that it took good care of my parents, can't seem to remember them ever complaining about long lines.
I would like to see the Audacity of Hope/Going Rogue interlinear, personally.
Try here... Honestly, the debate needs to be conducted at a much higher level than the verecundiams, populums, etc...
Don't you hate it when you bow out too soon?
But the US has socialized, government run health care. It is called Medicare. Seniors in this country don't seem ready to walk away from it. I know that it took good care of my parents, can't seem to remember them ever complaining about long lines. Try here... Honestly, the debate needs to be conducted at a much higher level than the verecundiams, populums, etc... Don't you hate it when you bow out too soon?
I'm not sure I see your point, I didn't say that no one was against it. I said seniors in this country don't seem to walk away from it. I don't know who the Ludwig Von Mises Institute is, maybe you can tell me how many Seniors they represent?
The Mises Institute gives a reasoned and factual argument against Medicare. Whether or not seniors are against it or whether or not Mises represents a large portion of seniors is a throw away argument for me. Like I said, we need to get beyond the argumentum ad populums and whatnot.
I mean if I start giving all blonde males 10 bucks every day, how many blonde males do you think will jump on my bandwagon?
I don't know John. Let me know how the experiment turns out.
Taking over elderly care through the Medicare program is one thing (and not all elders are on Medicare), but taking over health care in its entirety is a different animal since then it wouldn't have the private element for competition. Even Medicare would be better if it were privatized. Believe me when I say that competition works wonders.
But the US has socialized, government run health care. It is called Medicare. Seniors in this country don't seem ready to walk away from it. I know that it took good care of my parents, can't seem to remember them ever complaining about long lines. Taking over elderly care through the Medicare program is one thing (and not all elders are on Medicare), but taking over health care in its entirety is a different animal since then it wouldn't have the private element for competition. Even Medicare would be better if it were privatized. Believe me when I say that competition works wonders.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that health care administered by the federal government is totally unConstitutional. The 10th amendment specifies that ONLY those powers specifically enumerated are to be exercised by the feds while all others are reserved to the states or to the people. You will look in vain for any provision in the Constitution for any such authorization for the federal government to act. This therefore means that we are on the road to tyranny since the federal government treats the Constitution as toilet paper.
