The perp could not get AIDS meds.
And you bought that?
The perp could not get AIDS meds.
The number of times this has happened with the NHS?
None.
Good for you; now, there's what, about 60,000,000+ people in Great Britain? That's a lot of teeth.
I don't know, but I got it from "Health care by the Numbers", posted by Draginol, which consisted of a link to the article....
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/07/state-run-health-care-by-the-numbers/
Also, there has to be some reason Brits are stereotyped for bad dental health. ![]()
Sorry, couldn't resist.
This was posted in May, as a comment on Natasha Richardson's death:
~~~"This was a test of Obamacare and it killed Natasha. Socialized medicine does not mean free National Health Care for all. It is simply HEALTHCARE RATIONING. The Canadian Doctor treating Natasha said a CT would have saved her life, but when her symptoms were entered into the Canadian cost base analysis system, it coughed out take two aspirins and call us never. An American hospital would never have let her leave without taking a peek inside her head, first."~~~
I think that made my point very well.
A local (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) neurologist who called in to a talk radio show made the point that Ms. Richardson died unnecessarily, of an injury which would've been easily diagnosed by a neurologist and treated, had she been sent into New York immediately, rather than later on.
He made the point that there are more neurologists in Los Angeles County, California, than in all the provinces of Canada. This is due--in his opinion, granted--to the incentive-crushing realities of Socialized healthcare.
He said that the later stages of her injury can mimic death, and so they perhaps just gave her the once-over, and all but pulled up the sheet and called it. Wonder how many other people get that treatment?
But see, you're used to it, so you see nothing wrong with the system; you see few flaws, because that's just the way it works.
Think about this for minute; if she'd been making a movie in Hollywood, and had the injury, she'd still be alive. But, she was skiing in a country where they ration medical care, rather than simply administering it as needed.
The perp could not get AIDS meds.
The number of times this has happened with the NHS?
None.
Well, he's gettimng his meds now, isn't he? And on a one-payer system, at that! Bully for him! I have to agree with Daiwa, here; criminals have no reason, or propensity, to lie, do they? Of course not.![]()
I mean, to say that absolutely nothing like that has ever happened with your healthcare system.....you can say that with such complete certainty? That's a pretty broad statement, just like saying you've never met anyone who's had a problem with getting in to a dentist. You're one person; do you engage every person you meet in such discussions? I seriously doubt that.
And yes, this is a semantic argument, here, though I usually try to avoid them, since I find them silly and unfair, but I think this debate deserves a little slack.
Thank you for posting, though.
Sorry; meant to hit these above, and got sidetracked:
Well, it said he couldn't afford to get in to see a private dentist. Beyond that, I can't help ya.
There are often cases of babies been born out side of the normal rooms but the vast majority of them happen becuase they just can't get to the room quick enough.
Congrats to your friends on their new additions....but, even Cuba has at least one good hospital --which they show off (thanks to useful idiots like Michael Moore and Sean Penn), studiously ignoring the putrid dungeons out in the sticks; the ones with the moldy walls and the crackd foundations, and with filthy mattresses on the floor. I'm sure Britain has more than one good hospital, but I'm equally sure it has its lesser examples, as well.
These are horror stories which supposedly happened to people in your country; I don't know, I just report what I find in research.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/07/state-run-health-care-by-the-numbers/
Who are you going believe, someone that actually lives in Britian and has had personal experience with their healthcare system for their entire life or an American that reads a single article from a blog founded by Michelle Malkin?
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and you have no business intruding on our misguided opinions with your pesky facts.
[/sarcasm]
@Basmas, there are one or two folks here that do appreciate input from folks that have real life experience with a national healh plan. The problem is that they are so few and far between that all you're really doing here is wasting your breath. Just be thankful you live in a civilized country.
So then, Mumbles; you're perfectly okay with simply handing your personal medical care over to the Great, Blind Bureaucracy? A system that will, ultimately, give more more import to saving the life of a 25-year-old, than to a 75-year-old.
That's all well and good, until you're the 75-year-old.
And here I was, giving you so much more credit than that. Silly me, huh?
Geesh.
If you think cost benefit analysis aren't already being performed at your health insurance company then you're deluded. Read the following Washington Post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702455.html
BTW which of us is closer to 75 and should therefore be more concerned?
That's open to debate. You could argue just the opposite - that the absence of premiums would provide a bigger motivation to 'want you to die' since you're nothing but an expense. The insurers have at least some incentive to keep the income stream going - can't collect premiums from the dead.
For someone who professes nothing but scornful disdain for JU, not to mention anyone who disagrees with you, you sure spend a lot of time complaining about wasting your breath here.
Isn't liberalism supposed to be the Great Cosmic Storehouse of Compassion for all?
Survival of the fittest, eh? I thought we'd long ago evolved out of the jungle, into higher levels of being and understanding. Or that's the way it's professed, at least until you folks need it mean something else.
Man! 57! Most people, after reaching "a certain age" attain a certain level of wisdom and common sense. But I guess some don't, though, do they?
So....when the government increases taxes to do it, it's okay, but private insurance companies are evil, heartless and cruel profiteers?
And while I'm at it, we should utterly disregard an article on "a blog founded by Michelle Malkin", but conversely, should simply swallow whole, something from one of the most liberal papers in the country? Yeah....that's fair.
See, now, that's the difference here, Mumbles; I AM concerned for you, and that's one reason why I question this whole one-payer health care thing. You could give a shit less about me. I'm just another number, and you're good with that. Cold intellect really should be tempered with wisdom and emotion, and vice-versa.
I'm going to tell you straight out right now, Mumbles: you want to come and discuss, please do so. Welcome.
However, if you're just going to toss your smug, self-satisfied little turds at we, the Great Unwashed, just get the f**k out now, and take it somewhere else. Okay?
![]()
But given all the cross-posting that occurs among Stardock's 755+ forums spread over 12 separate sites it’s sometimes difficult to really know where "here" actually is.
I made an exception in this case to provide fair warning to someone that was obviously unfamiliar with the prevailing opinions “here”.
BTW my last thread was not posted from "here" it was posted from "there". This is the first time I've been "here" in at least 6 months.
Don't work yourself into a tizzy or get your panties in a bunch, I have no intention of spending any appreciable time "here", like I said above I'm just slumming, seeing how the other half lives. One dose is usually sufficient for months if not years.
If you feel like arguing then post your drivel where I can see it and if I feel like bothering perhaps I may respond. Otherwise you can spin your little right wing fantasy worlds in safety "here" where everyone is right wing or even righter wing and there's no one to throw stones at your illusions.
Have a nice day. 
Don't work yourself into a tizzy or get your panties in a bunch, I have no intention of spending any appreciable time "here", like I said above I'm just slumming, seeing how the other half lives. One dose is usually sufficient for months if not years.
If you feel like arguing then post your drivel where I can see it and if I feel like bothering perhaps I may respond. Otherwise you can spin your little right wing fantasy worlds in safety "here" where everyone is right wing or even righter wing and there's no one to throw stones at your illusions.
Have a nice day.
Well, as I said, you want to discuss, please do so. I enjoy back-and-forth.
What I do not enjoy is a typically smug, arrogant liberal pissing on us from his own, personal Olympus. Especially a liberal who very often has no real, substantive answers, but only takes disdainful pot-shots at those with whom he disagrees. Either hang out, chat and be nice, or hit the bricks.
If hitting the bricks is your choice, don't come back.
It's not substantive to suggest that an article posted on a blog founded by an infamous right wingnut may have ulterior motives?
It's not substantive to post a link to an article about how health insurance companies give bonuses to employee's who find reasons to deny claims and to terminate coverage for people at the moment of their greatest need when the topic is denial of care?
Sure the article is from a newspaper that is known to be liberal leaning but it's an actual report *not* an opinion piece and it still is an actual newspaper that validates its sources and not just a fiction of the internet.
It's not substantive to suggest that a for profit insurance company has a vested interest in having its high cost subscribers die whereas a public bureaucrat gets paid the same whether you live or die and so perhaps may be indifferent but is certainly not financially incented?
You call me intolerant, disdainful and whatever else under the sun, but you and your buddies are no less intolerant, disdainful, etc., etc., etc.. You just don't notice it because you hang out at a site that's to the right of Ann Coulter where someone like McCain would be held in disdain because he's too far to the left.
Try it the other way around sometime and go to a liberal site and see how you are treated when you have 10 to 20 folks jumping down your throat for every word out of your mouth and every argument you make with multiple points and carefully documented links is simply ignored or intentionally misconstrued or one sentence out of a ten paragraph post that took an hour to write is taken out of context and twisted beyond recognition.
Is it any wonder there are no liberals here. Perhaps there are one or two at most but for one they're not really very liberal and for two they must have a serious masochistic streak to take all the abuse that's heaped on anyone here that’s to the left of Ann Coulter.
You can blacklist me if that makes you happy, it really doesn't bother me. Like I said I come here so very infrequently that it matters naught to me.
However as far as me not coming back, that's not up to you. If and when Brad wants me gone I'm sure I'll be gone before I even notice it, but until he does I’ll come back here anytime I goddamn please.
You have to admit, Humble's kind of entertaining... in a highly obnoxious sort of way. That's not personal - I'm sure he's a fine human being and just plays the jerk on JU for grins. It's apparently a form of bored masturbation or autoerotic asphyxiation for him. Not that that's a bad thing. ![]()
The NHS does not decide who gets treatments, or anything else by looking just at the persons age.
There are things that the NHS will not treat in elderly patiants, slow growing prostate cancer is one, but only for clinicial reason. The cancer one is simply that it normally takes years for the slow growing cancer to cause major problem and by that time they would have propably died anyway. They also do not treat because it is not worth it for the person, eg too invasive, the improvment in life quality is not enought to justify the risk. All of these decisions are however taken with the doctors advice and not decided for them.
I know an 80 year old who had a hip change for example.
Oh sorry forgot to add something,
Of course there are hospitals that are below the average of the NHS, there have to be!, and there have been cases where that cost lives.
Has that never happened in the US?
All parts of the NHS are montiored for the end results for the treaments they provide, eg number who get infections, number who die etc.
The hospitials that have worse rates are spotted and investigated in a controlled and systemic fashion.
I'll start with this one:
I got it from "Health care by the Numbers", posted by Draginol, which consisted of a link to the article....
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/07/state-run-health-care-by-the-numbers/ There you have it.
Who are you going believe, someone that actually lives in Britian and has had personal experience with their healthcare system for their entire life or an American that reads a single article from a blog founded by Michelle Malkin?
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and you have no business intruding on our misguided opinions with your pesky facts.
[/sarcasm]
@Basmas, there are one or two folks here that do appreciate input from folks that have real life experience with a national healh plan. The problem is that they are so few and far between that all you're really doing here is wasting your breath. Just be thankful you live in a civilized country.
Don't pretend that I started this little temper tantrum. It started with the above post.
You threw out the first turd, as you are so often wont to do.
Nothing is ever going to get solved here, and minds, I'm sure, are very infrequently changed by anything posted here.
This is a discussion forum, and that's all it is. There's no need to be a smug asshole, and liberals have a tendency to be just that; I've seen it many times on here.
There used to be a lot of liberals who came here. I don't know where they all went; maybe they got tired of being stonewalled by honest questions, logic and common sense, and went off to the HuffPo or the DU, where their egos weren't so easily injured, and they could get attaboys and back pats for their idiocy (like you say conservatives do here). I go there, sometimes, just for fun, and yes, I get swarmed. But I expect it, because liberals are far more intolerant of other views than conservatives. I will say, however, that conservatives tend to be more respectful and considerate. I've used some poor language here, yes, but this is nothing compared to the treatment I recieve on the DU, for example. Those people are animals.
And you should see what happens when I post some political or cultural opinion on YouTube, for another example. I said once that I thought Bob Dylan couldn't sing worth a crap. Such vulgar abuse, and from the media-acknowledged cultural elite!
I know a few of the liberals I used to spar with on JU got banned simply for being dicks. Like I said....liberals have that tendency.
As long as you're seriously discussing what's posted, I have no problem with you, or anyone else, coming in and saying what you will, and you're free to disagree as much as you like.
But see Mumbles, you have this terribly annoying habit of being a self-superior jagoff. Maybe you do so, as Daiwa suggests, simply for weird kicks. That's what I don't like about you. So, again, if you seriously want to discuss, discuss. If not, leave.
When I come home from work this afternoon, I'll address the rest of your post. Til then, have a good one.
I post in overtly conservative threads for probably the same reasons that you sometimes post in overtly liberal threads. I'm not trying to change *your* opinion because that's clearly not going to happen. I'm simply trying to indicate to those that may be reading and whose minds may not be quite as fixed in their position as ours that the point of view presented here is not the only possible point of view that reasonable people may have.
As far as my supposed intolerance I will admit that there's virtually nothing you can say that will change my mind just as there is nothing I can say that will change your mind whether you'll admit that or not. However one thing I have never done is to assert that the opinions that someone holds are invalid or even unreasonable opinions to hold. I've simply indicated that I don't happen to agree with them, I have never claimed that someone is evil or stupid because they don't agree with me.
However that is not how my opinions are treated. I'm not singling you out specifically as this is true of pretty much the entire site, but liberal opinions are not treated here as if they are opinions of a significant portion of reasonable people with which another significant portion of reasonable people happen to disagree. Instead liberal opinions are treated not as merely a differing opinion but are treated as if they are entirely 100% in every case wrong whereas conservative opinion is not treated as simply opinion it's treated as if it's 100% true fact and anyone that disagrees with it is either stupid or has their hand in your pocket.
That is what intolerance is.
In any case if you want someone to address each of your points and occassionally grant merit in one or another of them then you have to be willing to do the same with your opponent. I've posted thousands of replies in threads accessible on JU, tens of thousands of replies if you count those on my primary site, and yet I have yet to make a single valid point in all that time. You'd think that I would have had to have made at least one valid point if only by accident. But no, everyone here is *always* right and I am *always* wrong but it's me that's intolerant.
You see evidence of hate in the things I've posted and pretend that it's totally unsolicited and yet every thing you post holds as much hate for the left as what I post has for the right. You just don't see it from your side. I read your OP and see hate in pretty much every sentance but you think you're being reasonable.
Everyone sees themselves in a different light than how others see them. Everyone is an asshole to someone else but not to themselves. I can see how some folks here might feel that I'm an asshole. The problem is that you can't see how others might legitimately say the same about you.
You can't see how others can legitimately hold an opinion that differs from yours but I'm the one that's intolerant.
You are not my judge. Those that read and seldom respond make their own decision and judge us both. Are you *really* so sure that you're *always* right?
It's not always easy to accept a diagnosis. I understand that.
Sure; but when you've had government-run health care your whole life, you don't know what anything else is like. Now, I realize that applies in the reverse, too, but again, as I asked in the original post, "when has government ever made anything more efficient and less wasteful"? Maybe our system, flawed as it is, overall, is better than what they have.
I don't want the government in control of my health care; maybe insurance companies, in a very real sense, really aren't any better; but at least there are lots of them, all competing for my business, and hence my money. The Market does right itself, according to the needs of the consumer; look at prescription drugs: a couple years or so back, there was this big outcry over drug prices. People were saying that the government needed to pay for people's prescriptions. After a little while of intense debate, we suddenly started seeing pharmacies offering hundreds of drugs for $4 a prescription. I myself pay about $150 less than I used to, for my prescriptions. They didn't want the government taking it over, because they know the government is too inefficient; so, they bit the bullet and started bringing things down to where they should have been, all along. There was incentive for them to do so. take it out of the private sector, give it to one, controlling power, and that incentive evaporates.
I don't believe that the goal isn't really a one-payer, government controlled system; Obama is a communist, and that's what communists believe in. A growing cadre of (presently) 30-odd "Czars" made up of radical loons and leftist ideologues, who answer only to him, is enough to tell me that.
"Infamous right wingnut" to whom, exactly? I don't always agree with Ms. Malkin, or O'Reilley, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.; but there is one line that has proven itself to me, however. Coulter once wrote (paraphrased): "Liberals don't hate (conservatives) because we lie about them, but rather, because we tell the truth." In my travels, I've found that thought to be very true.
I have to go; more later.
No one is talking about a true single payer system. Everyone realizes that is simply out of the question.
I personally favor a strong public option because I believe that is the only real way to insure that health insurance costs decline and their future increases keep a closer pace to overall inflation. Any system without a public option is a profit windfall for the insurance industry because everyone will be forced to have health insurance and be forced to pay a tax penalty if they don’t. You don’t think the insurance companies are drooling at the thought of 30 or 40 or 50 million new customers dependent on whose numbers you believe that are now suddenly *required* to purchase insurance?
See the following clip that expresses this point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0fl6r-EzTQ.
The end result will likely be that premiums will go up because without a public option there will be no pressure on them to go down. Taxes will also go up because of the subsidies to low income subscribers. You’d think that republicans would actually be in favor of this because it would give them ammunition for their 2012 presidential run that would otherwise be very weak. I mean the best ticket you have at this point is Cheney-Palin, and they’re going to need all the help they can get.
What is most likely at this point is initially no public option but with certain conditions that would “trigger” a public option. I’m definitely not for this either since Medicare part D had a trigger that’s still waiting to kick in. Basically a trigger is some form of protection because it does place a bottom line on the performance of the health insurance companies but they will all simply go right down to the limits but take care not to go over that line and I don’t believe that will be enough.
I spent last night emailing my senator, congressman, Obama, Speaker Pelosi, the Progressive caucus, and the black caucus, basically any and all, particularly all those that have expressed support for the public option, and expressed my opinion that I would rather have *no* healthcare reform than the pretense of healthcare reform that would exist without a public option.
Well, aren't you just the cynical one? As I said, I pay around $150 less for my prescriptions now, than I did before they started offering me two of them for $4 a piece. That's a nice savings, and one that clearly could have been offered before. The reason they dropped the prices was the threat of a government takeover. They wanted to make sure they got paid, so they started charge=ing more reasonable prices. What else could it be? The people were paying them too much? Yeah, sure.
HAHAHAHAHA....okay, okay....wait.....no...AAA-HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew! Thanks; I needed that!
I'll delve into the rest of your post later. Thanks, though; I like honest back-and-forth.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!