Quote :

"Well, LoneSnark, while I don't support the idea per se, I've yet to hear a really good argument against socializing health care. Generally its opponents just claim that all the countries that use it have a long list of problems, but none of those problems seem to include, oh, I don't know, having the worst medical statistics in the developed world while still paying vastly more for health care per person."

It costs so much more for various reasons, I'm sure you know. First, liability from lawsuits eliminates a lot of the available supply of medical services. Second, strick government licensing rules then eliminate another chuck of the available supply of medical providers. Thirdly, a vast amount of users do not pay directly for services rendered, insurance companies do, and insurance companies are barred by law from taking steps to counteract this perverse incentive (HMOs were an example).

So, we have a marketplace where new-entrants are kept out and existing entrants are routinely forced out. Consumers have an interest in being as wasteful of the available supplies as they can.

We have horrible statistics because it costs so much. It costs so much because it is a government restricted supply and government subsidized consumption.

My Fix:
#1: Implement the British Rule of Loser Pays for lawsuits
#2: Deregulate the medical profession so anyone can practice. Doctors will still be licensed by the state, but a license will not be mandatory and a doctor should be required to notify patients if he is not licensed
#3: Deregulate the insurance industry so the companies can be more selective about what they will not cover. They should be allowed to restrict service to select providers, etc. The Government should retain its information gathering activity to better inform customers of the various insurance agencies on offer
#4: The FDA should lose its policing ability. It will continue testing drugs for safety, tier 1, and effectiveness, tier 2. All drugs should be required to display, prominently, their FDA rating as either "untested," "tested safe" and "tested safe and effective"

Net results of all these chages: some people will be killed/maimed by malpractice, some will see a doctor for the first time, some people will get stuck with insurance which doesn't cover their child's illness, some people who previously were unable will now be able to afford life saving insurrance, some patients will lose lawsuits and get stuck with a huge bill by losing a valid lawsuit, some doctors will avoid having their lives ruined by frivalus lawsuits, some desperate people will be conned into taking inneffective drugs, some desperate people will receive life saving treatments early. On the whole, money spent on health care will fall, doctors will get paid less, quality of care will fall slightly, but our health statistics will improve as more people gain access to the system.

Now, socializing medicine will, in effect, implement all these same fixes, just under different names.
#1: it is very difficult to sue the government for the errors of a government employee, such as a doctor
#2: Government licenses are not needed if the government controls the entire medical system
#3: We will not let an insurance company refuse to cover a necessary operation, but the Government of Canada does it all the time and so would the US Government.
#4: Government price controls are always part of a socialized system, so there would be no private drug research left to need regulation by the FDA. Yes, drug companies elsewhere in the socialized world still do research, but their goal is to sell in the US Market. Take that away and what is left of Europe's private drug research companies also goes away.

I agree that socialized medicine would fix these problems, but so would simply fixing these problems.

[Edited on January 30, 2006 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/30/2006 4:40:35 PM

1/30/2006 5:00:06 PM

My fix:

#1: Let all the sick people die

Result: No more sick people!

1/30/2006 5:07:52 PM

#2 no fatties

1/30/2006 5:17:16 PM

while im not so sure about where i lie on this one it is nice to see you see all of the negatives that come with the noted positives. makes you sound cold to human suffering though and thus loses you the debate...socialized healthcare!!!

[Edited on January 30, 2006 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2006 5:46:03 PM

Quote :

"#1: Implement the British Rule of Loser Pays for lawsuits "

I never quite understood why we don't do this already.

Quote :

" #2: Deregulate the medical profession so anyone can practice. Doctors will still be licensed by the state, but a license will not be mandatory and a doctor should be required to notify patients if he is not licensed "

I'm not so sure I like this idea. I can just see some worm of a doctor (or doctors) without licenses making their own private licensing scheme, calling themselves licensed and then "informing" the patient in the fine print. When I check in because I just cut my finger to the bone with a hobby knife, I don't want to have to read the fine print first.

Quote :

"it is nice to see you see all of the negatives that come with the noted positives. makes you sound cold to human suffering though and thus loses you the debate...socialized healthcare!!!"

Life is a series of tradeoffs. Nothing can be gained without losing something.

1/30/2006 6:35:55 PM

Quote :

"#1: Implement the British Rule of Loser Pays for lawsuits[quote] So this may sound ignorant but dont most lawsuits come with countersuits that do exactly this. Basically creating the disincintive to bring lawsuits with no consequences. [quote]Deregulate the medical profession so anyone can practice. Doctors will still be licensed by the state, but a license will not be mandatory and a doctor should be required to notify patients if he is not licensed"

Also once again if i am mistaken enlighten me but dont we already do that with homeopathic medicine. The gov't agency dont recogonize them, and they have there own organizations that certify them?

Quote :

"#3: Deregulate the insurance industry so the companies can be more selective about what they will not cover. They should be allowed to restrict service to select providers, etc. The Government should retain its information gathering activity to better inform customers of the various insurance agencies on offer"

Sounds like an idea, but this is the first time ive ever heard that being one of the factors that is truly blamed. assuming that there will always be a niche and an insurance company will cover it.

Quote :

"#4: The FDA should lose its policing ability. It will continue testing drugs for safety, tier 1, and effectiveness, tier 2. All drugs should be required to display, prominently, their FDA rating as either "untested," "tested safe" and "tested safe and effective" "

AT this point in our society that would cause havoc. So many people would be hurt before people finally start to get it. They already include warnings for mixing medications and nearly no one reads it. Not requiring FDA testing, you know there would be a whole host of people for at least a generation or two that would not realize that what they are taking is completely experimental. Granted FDA trials arent full proof but its an extra layer of protection.

1/30/2006 6:35:59 PM

^ Havoc would be a very small price to pay in order to avoid our becoming a socialist "nanny state".....


LoneSnark is completely right.


#1, #2, and #3 would be great fixes.
#4 is good too, but I'd go even further and privatize the FDA. Perhaps not completely, but instead some sort of public-private entity (or entities) similar to the Underwriters Laboratories....


Either way you go, there will be some inevitable suffering, but socialism is, well, fucking evil. If the US had to socialize something else, why not socialize something that everyone actually needs equally, not something that irresponsible people need more...

Our country has no shortage of idiots who do nothing but eat junk food, chain smoke and drink all day while having lots of unprotected sex with strangers. The idea of individuals like myself having to "subsidize" their health care costs through my tax dollars is nothing short of insane.

Advocates of socialized medicine generally fall into three main categories:
1) People who like the idea of getting something for "free". (Irresponsible people)
2) Stupid liberals that simply "go with the flow", opposing anything "conservative". (Ignorant people)
3) Closet socialists that secretly want to abolish the concept of individuality. (Evil people)


We must stop Hillary.

1/30/2006 7:49:45 PM

i think you are being a bit harsh in your generalizations hemp. im sure there are plenty of "liberal" people who think it is a good idea, not just to be partisan for fun's sake.

by assuming socialism is the grand evil you are oversimplifying the opposition and thus demonizing them irrationally.

1/30/2006 8:26:24 PM

Quote :

"It costs so much more for various reasons, I'm sure you know. First, liability from lawsuits eliminates a lot of the available supply of medical services. Second, strick government licensing rules then eliminate another chuck of the available supply of medical providers. Thirdly, a vast amount of users do not pay directly for services rendered, insurance companies do, and insurance companies are barred by law from taking steps to counteract this perverse incentive (HMOs were an example). "

There are some other factors at play here. One is that we pay our doctors more than any other country, per capita or otherwise.

Another is that American health insurance is always on the cutting edge of medical science. Extremely expensive procedures which are not covered in most socialized healthcare progams are commonplace here. In Europe, people often have to wait months for procedures that are standard and readily available here. A lot of frivolous testing and superfluous procedures are avoided in other countries because the problems fix themselves.

1/30/2006 10:20:28 PM

socialized healthcare aside, some of those revisions to the system scare me. i want a quality, licensed doctor taking care of me, one that can prove his worth. I don't want Dr. Nick coming in and just trying to sell himself as a good doctor. And privatizing the FDA? Ha, yeah, everyone out there with access to the market is trustworthy and wont try to market snake oil. whoopie.

i mean, i know you big L's goal is to privatize the firehouse, but come on. ill take a deregulated firehouse before the people who are responsible for lives are allowed free reign to make cash and possibly dupe the public.

[Edited on January 30, 2006 at 10:53 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2006 10:50:21 PM

As a consumer, you should make yourself informed on quality of health care providers. In this day and age of information flow, there is no reason that you cannot make informed decisions on your own health coverage. Ultra-tight regulation of the industry has led to a lack of competition in the market.

1/30/2006 10:57:38 PM

Quote :

" i want a quality, licensed doctor taking care of me, one that can prove his worth. I don't want Dr. Nick coming in and just trying to sell himself as a good doctor"

Under the current system to assume your doctor to be quality (until proven otherwise) because they are licensed no? The recomended change does nothing to change that fact, there would still be licensing, but people could operate without one as well. It's obvious to anyone that looks that licensing doesn't prevent the quacks from getting through the system, though it may limit it. The question is whether licensing keeps out more quacks than good people. As I said, my main issue with allowing unlicensed people is in a situation where a patient can't check for the license or for times when checking for the license would delay what needs to be fast care.

Quote :

"And privatizing the FDA? Ha, yeah, everyone out there with access to the market is trustworthy and wont try to market snake oil. whoopie. "

Private certification groups can and do work and rather effectively. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories and their mark which can be found on almost all home electronics.

1/30/2006 11:59:50 PM

of course, this is medicine, not electronics.

and none of this explains why most countries with socialized systems have high standards of health.

then again, whatever's most affordable and avaliable to absolutely everyone...i mean, everyone needs some kind of clinic. as long as everyone has access and its cheap and safe, i dont give a fuck.



[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 12:34 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2006 12:30:12 AM

Quote :

"There are some other factors at play here. One is that we pay our doctors more than any other country, per capita or otherwise."

This seemed to be among the most overlooked parts of my write-up. It is pure demand/supply dynamics.

Supply: Restricted by two main elements of the current system
#1: licensing regulations restrict the supply of new doctors
#2: liability hurdles throw practicing doctors out of the profession (once a doctor is sued he loses his insurance and thus his license, regardless of fault)
Demand: artificially inflated by one main element of the current system
#1: Anti-HMO laws prevent insurers from restricting frivalous or costly treatments

So, from economics, what happens when "Demand is heavily subsidized" and "supply is tightly restricted"?
That's right! Those lucky enough to practice legally receive salaries several times higher than their brethren in other countries. As such, coverage and doctor bills are several times higher than in other countries... One might conclude our laws were written by doctors to make doctors filthy rich.

As such, we MUST change the system. Either implement my suggested reforms, some other reforms, or nationalize the industry. Anything would be better than the current "fleecing of America" by the American Medical Association.

I would suggest that my reforms would be less jarring to the society at large and far less prone to subsequent strikes as doctors and nurses protest the capping of their salaries to be more in line with foreign nations. In my scenario, as competition grews wages will fall leading to falling prices, who would the doctors complain to? Their customers?

1/31/2006 1:26:22 AM

Quote :

"As a consumer, you should make yourself informed on quality of health care providers."

And I suppose you'll be making this decision as they wheel you to the operating room?

Look, if I'm in an emergency, I want the nearest person claiming to be a "medical professional" to be licensed, 'cause I ain't gonna have time to research him even to the point of asking point blank if he's licensed.

Quote :

"As such, coverage and doctor bills are several times higher than in other countries..."

And what, you think that we'll implement these reforms and doctors will say, "Well, alright, you can pay us less now!"???

Quote :

"socialism is, well, fucking evil."

YES

DAMN THOSE NORWEGIAN SONS OF BITCHES FOR NOT HAVING AS MANY DEAD NEWBORNS AS WE DO!

1/31/2006 2:10:59 AM

I must need to see an eye doctor.

Did Grumpy make a positive, though veiled, comment about socialism (or at least, one socialist country)?

1/31/2006 3:06:52 AM

i think the idea of having to do research, in generally, doesnt work.

1) plenty of dumbasses are swayed by deceptive information or dont understand the jargon
2) if we do beleive that study posted about american college students not being able to read credit card contracts, why do we think healthcare ones will be magically easier


while im sure id do fine under your plan, i always assume the avg american aint so bright...which is probably a good assumption when looking at things like economics, healthcare, politics, etc.

1/31/2006 9:22:48 AM

Quote :

"Look, if I'm in an emergency, I want the nearest person claiming to be a "medical professional" to be licensed, 'cause I ain't gonna have time to research him even to the point of asking point blank if he's licensed."

When you fall ill in public, you take what you can get. When they yell "is there a doctor in the house" you don't know who will step forward. A retired doctor, a doctor that lost his license because of a lawsuit, Dr mengele, etc. As such, in this situation you are already hard-up for a licensed doctor because, already, in an emergency you don't need a license to practice medicine.

Or would you prefer the only person in the room with any medical training to sit down and proclaim "I could save you, but I don't have a license. Let the waiter try to save you, he seems like a clever fellow."

And Grumpy, like I said, we are dying not because the system is not-socialized, we are dying because of the problems I outlined. A socialized system fixes these problems and so would a reformed private system as I have outlined.

Quote :

""Well, alright, you can pay us less now!"???"

Grumpy, what happened to you? You used to be smart when it came to markets. The fact is, no, doctors will STILL be greedy bastards demanding the highest salary they can get. Janitors have always been that way, yet check out their wages. With a greater supply of doctors their wages will be bid-down by their employers.

Ok, judging from the responses, I guess #2 just scares people too much.
Luckily, just fixing #1 would allow thousands of doctors to re-enter the medical profession (because they can now get insurance, thus reinstating their medical license).
Fixing #3 would allow the creation of affordable health insurrance for all (middle-class and above will still buy better insurance, but affordable is better than none).

And remember, it isn't your job to "comprehend" your health insurance, it is the companies job to MAKE you understand. If you feel uneasy about a policy then find another competitor you can understand. We don't have that option because right now there are only half a dozen insurers in North Carolina. This, again, because of #1 and #3. In one year back in the 1990s the number of operating insurance agencies was cut in half by a single class-action lawsuit. They weren't sued themselves, but they saw the righting on the wall and knew if they continued that they could be, so they gave up on the business, concluding the liability had become too high to justify their meager profits. Now, with so few insurers around, you can bet their profits are huge, they'd have to be to cover the rediculous amount of liability they face.

These reforms would make great strides to saving those babies you mention, Grumpy. Fixing #2 would save even more lives, but I wont let the perfect interfere with the good.

1/31/2006 10:58:50 AM

^^^^dont worry, theyre just expousing their Libertarian Party talking points

1/31/2006 11:47:57 AM

Quote :

"Did Grumpy make a positive, though veiled, comment about socialism (or at least, one socialist country)?"

He's slowly becoming a liberal.

As for the topic at hand, how about doing away with patents for drug companies? Patents are, of course, government imposed and enforced. That would reduce prices.

1/31/2006 11:51:20 AM

Quote :

"Or would you prefer the only person in the room with any medical training to sit down and proclaim "I could save you, but I don't have a license. Let the waiter try to save you, he seems like a clever fellow.""

Perhaps I worded it wrong. Yes, for immediate, on-site first aid, of course you have to take what you can get. It's when I get to an actual medical facility that I get concerned.

I would quite possibly be unable to make an informed choice in that condition. As things are now, I WILL go to a licensed physician. As you propose things, I MAY go to the same.

Quote :

"A socialized system fixes these problems and so would a reformed private system as I have outlined."

So we have one system that is demonstrably working in pretty much all of the industrialized nations that use it. Then we have your system, which probably works but hasn't been tested. You haven't actually given a reason yet why your way would be better, merely that it would accomplish the same goals without us all turning into a bunch of pinkos. And that, my friend, proves exactly the point I was making in the other thread: that you, like so many, won't go near certain policies no matter how well they may work, just because of an ideological stigma.

Perhaps the exception is your ranting about how research will suffer, which strikes me as being a bit contrived and avoidable.

Quote :

"You used to be smart when it came to markets."

Yeah, let's talk about markets.

It is not necessarily in the best interest of the market in this case for me to be healthy.

It is not an inexorable function of the market that "their wages will be bid down." Doctors are smart enough folks. I can see them getting together to keep prices high. People are used to paying a lot for health care, and people, being stupid, will not realize en masse that prices should have gone down.

If your actions really do drive medical wages down, they might also drive down the incentive to become a doctor and, thus, the number of doctors.

Unregulated business has screwed us over before.

Quote :

"He's slowly becoming a liberal."

Not so much, really.

A healthy population is in the national interest. So is saving money. If it happens that the most efficient way to accomplish this is through socialized or semi-socialized healthcare, I can force myself to come to terms with at least a part of my overall anti-socialist ideology.

There are certain things that have flourished in a free-market environment. Others, not so much. My brain isn't geared towards economics enough to understand precisely why that's the case, but I can see it nonetheless.

1/31/2006 12:34:07 PM

Quote :

"Not so much, really."

Consider how often you play the race card.

1/31/2006 12:36:17 PM

I didn't realize that hating racism was a left/right kind of thing.

1/31/2006 12:45:42 PM

Like I said, Grumpy: "...we are dying not because the system is not-socialized, we are dying because of the problems I outlined. A socialized system fixes these problems and so would a reformed private system as I have outlined."

Given two options: keeping the same broken system, and socializing the entire industry, I'd personally sign the bill to nationalize.

However, like I stated, such a step would would not work as well as simply fixing the existing private system:
#1: "I would suggest that my reforms would be less jarring to the society at large," as we are already used to a privatized system
#2: My system would be "far less prone to subsequent strikes as doctors and nurses protest the capping of their salaries," which is not a problem with a privatized system because centers of control are distributed
#3: A socialized system eliminates research, for future/better drugs and treatments by instituting price controls, or similar measures. "Yes, drug companies elsewhere in the socialized world still do research, but their goal is to sell in the US Market. Take that away and what is left of Europe's private drug research companies also goes away."
#4: A socialized system does not check waste/bad performance as effectively as a private system (if your hospital sucks you have no choices)
#5: lack of escape from a socialized system. For example, in other socialized systems, there is a quota of treatments available and if you do not qualify you cannot be treated. At least in America, if your insurance refuses to cover the operation you can still mortgage the house and pay for it yourself. Thankfully, Europeans and Canadians have been able to use America as their escape hatch. To stretch a bit, nationalizing our medical system would do harm to Canada's health statistics.

But like I said, all of these can be lived with. Clearly the problems with socialization of health care pale in comparison the the problems with our system of perverse-incentives.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/31/2006 12:52:09 PM

Quote :

"My Fix: #1: Implement the British Rule of Loser Pays for lawsuits"

This is something that can clearly be manipulated by those who have money against those who do not have money. Besides, malpractice suits make up less than 1% of healthcare costs

Quote :

"#2: Deregulate the medical profession so anyone can practice. Doctors will still be licensed by the state, but a license will not be mandatory and a doctor should be required to notify patients if he is not licensed"

You have to be licensed by the state for other jobs, such as being a teacher, automechanic. So why in the world would anyone want an unlicensed doctor?

Quote :

"#3: Deregulate the insurance industry so the companies can be more selective about what they will not cover. They should be allowed to restrict service to select providers, etc. The Government should retain its information gathering activity to better inform customers of the various insurance agencies on offer"

You have cancer? Too bad, we don't cover cancer. Many health problems are things people don't plan about having. I know I didn't plan getting Mono and didn't plan on getting allergies or asthma, but shit happens.

Quote :

"#4: The FDA should lose its policing ability. It will continue testing drugs for safety, tier 1, and effectiveness, tier 2. All drugs should be required to display, prominently, their FDA rating as either "untested," "tested safe" and "tested safe and effective""

Those altruisitic companies. They would never put something on the market that would hurt pepole (thalydomide).

Quote :

"#1: "I would suggest that my reforms would be less jarring to the society at large," as we are already used to a privatized system"

I'm pretty sure saying, guess what everyone, you don't need a medical license to practice medicine would be fucking jarring as hell

Quote :

"#2: My system would be "far less prone to subsequent strikes as doctors and nurses protest the capping of their salaries," which is not a problem with a privatized system because centers of control are distributed"

You really don't know much about the healthcare industry. for a company that almost had doctors and nurses strike look up Geisinger. With socialized medicine there would be less of a reason for doctors to strike. Besides can you point to one instance of doctors going on strike in a country with socialized medicine?

Quote :

"#3: A socialized system eliminates research, for future/better drugs and treatments by instituting price controls, or similar measures. "Yes, drug companies elsewhere in the socialized world still do research, but their goal is to sell in the US Market. Take that away and what is left of Europe's private drug research companies also goes away.""

Prove it. Cuba (socialized) puts a lot of money into research.

Quote :

"#4: A socialized system does not check waste/bad performance as effectively as a private system (if your hospital sucks you have no choices)"

Do you know anything about socialized medicine? Hospitals and such are highly regulated.

Quote :

"#5: lack of escape from a socialized system. For example, in other socialized systems, there is a quota of treatments available and if you do not qualify you cannot be treated. At least in America, if your insurance refuses to cover the operation you can still mortgage the house and pay for it yourself. Thankfully, Europeans and Canadians have been able to use America as their escape hatch. To stretch a bit, nationalizing our medical system would do harm to Canada's health statistics. "

What about the European countries that cannot escape to the grand ol' United States? They seem to be functioning fine. Furthermore, Quit spouting the same nonsense about having to escape socialized medicine to get the proper care. You hear one thing from one Libertarian and you take it as gold standard without doing any research.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2006 1:26:47 PM

Quote :

"The FDA should lose its policing ability."

Second most horrible idea ever to come from LoneSnark


the worst--that a Monarchy is the best form of gubment

1/31/2006 1:29:51 PM

I think we should eradicate doctors all together. They're too expensive.

Instead we should have the free market operate directly on patients.

1/31/2006 2:35:17 PM

LOL

1/31/2006 2:40:21 PM

dont you get it? we should shut down nc state, get rid of all this bureaucracy for education, and let the free market educate us directly, without regulation.

im going to start attending the Best Buy School of Sales next year.

1/31/2006 2:41:31 PM

My plan depends on invisible hands beng able to hold surgical tools, so we'll see how it goes.

1/31/2006 2:44:13 PM

1/31/2006 2:50:21 PM

Quote :

"If the US had to socialize something else, why not socialize something that everyone actually needs equally, not something that irresponsible people need more... Our country has no shortage of idiots who do nothing but eat junk food, chain smoke and drink all day while having lots of unprotected sex with strangers. The idea of individuals like myself having to "subsidize" their health care costs through my tax dollars is nothing short of insane."

Anyone agree? It seems fucking obvious to me…..

Seriously though, why should someone be forced to pay even one penny for someone else's mistake?

Note: I am obviously not talking about unpreventable harm to one's health--I'm only talking about preventable harm to one's health. IOW, if health care were to be socialized, why not just socialize that portion of health care associated with unpreventable harm?

1/31/2006 3:12:45 PM

Quote :

"Anyone agree? It seems fucking obvious to me….. Seriously though, why should someone be forced to pay even one penny for someone else's mistake? Note: I am obviously not talking about unpreventable harm to one's health--I'm only talking about preventable harm to one's health. IOW, if health care were to be socialized, why not just socialize that portion of health care associated with unpreventable harm?"

I take it a step further. Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's living expenses, planned/unplanned;accidental/nonaccidental? That's why I'm here at State, to gain an education so I can pay for my own expenses. You fuck up, to bad. I don't care about other people's problems. Other people's problems are just that: their problems. Under no circumstances should the wealthy/middle classes be saddled with the circumstances of the poor. We are all adults here, look after yourselves. I don't need, nor do I want to have to turn to the government for pay for my medical expenses. Now I am willing to compromise though. I say no socialized healthcare on the federal level EVER, but the states should be able to implement their own social healthcare systems as they see fit. I would just move to a state that had little to no taxes to pay for such things.

1/31/2006 3:20:02 PM

Furthermore I think all the socialists who want socialized healthcare and other services from the government given to them like children should move to Europe and other socialists countries. Keep the socialist bullshit out of the US and allow the ADULTS to pay their own way.

1/31/2006 3:22:11 PM

</thread>

Well, that was fun while it lasted. I guess the thread is over now, the people that don't bother reading and just spit their brain on the keyboard have arrived.

Just in case I'm wrong, here is a test:

Quote :

"So why in the world would anyone want an unlicensed doctor?"

If that is all you can afford, sure. Or, more accurately, if you just want to ask someone "does this llook infected to you?" or "I think I have a cold?" If you plan on asking whether or not you have a tumor, then yes, you should probably go to a licensed physician. Or you think every little bruise deserves the attention of a $100 an hour doctor? Or do you call Johnny Cochran whenever you get a speeding ticket?

Quote :

"Besides can you point to one instance of doctors going on strike in a country with socialized medicine?"

google search turned up:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18012006/323/doctors-strike-closes-50-000-medical-practices-germany.html

Quote :

"Do you know anything about socialized medicine? Hospitals and such are highly regulated."

So is the DMV.

1/31/2006 3:30:51 PM

1)

Quote :

"Protostar The Anti-Socialist 2456 Posts user info edit post"

2) You're forced to pay their living expenses to an extent as a means of pacifying them. Even the neo-cons know this.

1/31/2006 3:32:02 PM

^^^gg--seriously, if you want a nanny state, then GTFO of my land of liberty and justice.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2006 3:32:30 PM

all i see here are a bunch of guys with the same political views and values having a circle jerk.

i dont believe that MY TAX DOLLARS that I EARNED WITH MY JOB should go towards this PUBLIC UNIVERSITY that is allowing people like protostar to get a PUBLICLY SUPPORTED education. WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY?

CAPITAL LETTERS

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2006 3:39:06 PM

And what's the deal with me having to pay for all those highways in Alabama that I'll never use?

TOTAL BULLSHIT!!1

1/31/2006 3:49:19 PM

Quote :

"And what's the deal with me having to pay for all those highways in Alabama that I'll never use? TOTAL BULLSHIT!!1"

Exactly. That's why public roads should be privatized. The only people who pay for roads should be the ones who use them. Private companies would do a helluva better job keeping up the roads and building new ones than the slow ass state/federal government. Plus if you don't have a car, why should you be forced to pay for the roads other cars ride on? For the convieniece of everyone else?Makes no sense.

1/31/2006 3:51:54 PM

Quote :

"2) You're forced to pay their living expenses to an extent as a means of pacifying them. Even the neo-cons know this."

Like I said, aren't we all adults? Why do adults need to be pacified? That's one of the many reasons I detest socialism, is because a socialist government treats its citizens like children.

1/31/2006 3:53:56 PM

Oh, and don't forget about the President's salary. If I didn't vote for him, I shouldn't have to employ him.

Quote :

"Why do adults need to be pacified?"

Study history sometime.



And, yet again.

Quote :

"Protostar The Anti-Socialist 2459 Posts user info edit post"

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ...]

1/31/2006 3:54:58 PM

LIKE I SAID, IM TIRED OF PAYING FOR A SCHOOL THIS GUY IS USING

1/31/2006 3:57:10 PM

That's why we have the police. And the second amendment. If people wish to riot because they feel they are "entitled" to something, then the appropriate consequences will result. I would have no problem putting down a couple of leeching motherfuckers attempting to destroy/steal my property.

1/31/2006 3:57:53 PM

Quote :

"LIKE I SAID, IM TIRED OF PAYING FOR A SCHOOL THIS GUY IS USING"

Why? I pay for you.

1/31/2006 3:58:46 PM

WHY SHOULD YOU PAY FOR ME TO SIT HERE AND WASTE TIME ON THE INTERNET

1/31/2006 4:02:32 PM

Quote :

"IOW, if health care were to be socialized, why not just socialize that portion of health care associated with unpreventable harm?"

Possibly acceptable, but your whole concern seems, to some extent, to be based on the idea that people will say, "Well shit, medical care is free now, so I'll just do as much stupid shit as possible." It's not like medical care or the problems they fix would suddenly be made fun, so I find it unlikely that you'd have a sizeable population that could reasonably be expected to prevent certain problems.

Poor people wouldn't eat McDonalds all the time because they new they'd get a free bypass, they'd eat McDonalds because they could afford it easily, get to it easily, and/or because they didn't really understand how bad it was.

Quote :

"Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's living expenses, planned/unplanned;accidental/nonaccidental? That's why I'm here at State"

So wait...you're at State...having your education subsidized by the government and thus the taxpayers...so that you can get a job and never want to subsidize anyone else?

Oh, but you're paying for me, too, huh? I bet you're paying an infinitely smaller percentage for my education, just in terms of tax dollars, than my parents are. They want their money back.

What a fucking joke. Get out, hypocrite.

Quote :

"That's why we have the police."

Why not privatize them?

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2006 4:18:06 PM

Quote :

"If that is all you can afford, sure. Or, more accurately, if you just want to ask someone "does this llook infected to you?" or "I think I have a cold?" If you plan on asking whether or not you have a tumor, then yes, you should probably go to a licensed physician. Or you think every little bruise deserves the attention of a $100 an hour doctor? Or do you call Johnny Cochran whenever you get a speeding ticket?"

so you are playing class warfare then.

and guess what, when someone has a cut or a bruise they generally don't see a doctor. They see someone called a Physicians assistant, or a Registered Nurse. In terms of your anaology, it's like seeing a paralegal for a speeding ticket.

Seriously, do you have any such connection to the medical world? the nonsense the drip from your posts can easily be discredited by a four year old child.

Quote :

"google search turned up: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18012006/323/doctors-strike-closes-50-000-medical-practices-germany.html "

Private Practices that closed, not hospitals.

Quote :

"So is the DMV."

and your point is?

Quote :

"Well, that was fun while it lasted. I guess the thread is over now, the people that don't bother reading and just spit their brain on the keyboard have arrived. Just in case I'm wrong, here is a test:"

Ironically, this is how the thread began. You posting bullshit. Furthermore, you did not read beyond the first sentence of my response. Why is that? Because you had nothing that could possibly be said in contrary?




[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2006 4:39:25 PM

INAPPROPRIATE TAX BURDEN

(which i need, so i can complain even more about paying for other's services)

1/31/2006 4:40:31 PM