Funny How The Pendulum Always Swings Back

Bill Clinton wasn't a centrist, he was a neoliberal, which is right of center.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/bi...m-milton-friedman-democrats-market-capitalism

 

Your example was a simple transactional circumstance, typical of an earlier era, a simpler time.

Writ large, your 'policy' (for lack of a better word) is utterly lacking in comprehensiveness, nuance, detail, and so woefully narrow in scope that it couldn't possibly address the complex needs of health care for Americans in modernity.

Posturing, even disguised as a rhetorical question, does not improve an argument. Such is a non argument.

Yes, you've repeated that many times, but since eliminating corporations and the government isn't possible, nor is it a viable idea, nor a good idea, the solution is better leadership, regulation and governance.

Your longing for a simpler time is not a comprehensive health policy.

They still make decisions.

Again, you are looking at the subject through a simplistic lens.

 

Incompetent rebuttal; weasel words are not a merit worthy argument.

 

There are three ways to learn. The first, experience, is by far the best. Second is listening to somebody else who has first hand experience, and third [and the least accurate/reliable] is reading/studying/gathering information from other than first hand sources.

I have seen over two hundred thousand patients, talked at length with literally hundreds of people about their experiences in the system and have my own experiences on top of this. Now, I do understand that I come from a different place than most, but this is what's needed now. If you don't choose to believe me, that's fine. It's my opinion based on all of the above.

Every facet of medicine is multifaceted and extremely nuanced. You ask these general questions like there's a yes/no answer. All physicians try to follow legit science but it has become more and more difficult to figure out what's legit because of corporate influence. COVID demonstrated this in spades!

It would be like asking a parent, "What do you think about punishing kids?" There's a lot to questions like that.

 

Just like all socialists, the problem is that the wrong people were in charge. Keep the government in control because they know better, right? I get it and this has been at the heart of failure in public policy for the past century and a half.

Yes, you can drastically reduce the role of government and corporations in health care BUT only if you want a better system. You and people like you want the nanny state to take care of everything for you. You want to be bailed out and told that yes we will have other people pay for your health care and you won't ever have to make a decision for yourself again.

Weak people end up with authoritarian governments.

 

At the very least, be original.

 

I don't accept that AT ALL.

The issue here, as you have pointed out, isn't the treatment of individual patients, but the overall structure of how the USA does healthcare.

We all have experience with that.

The problem with your descriptions is that you use terms like "corporate influence", but you don't even specify what types of corporations you are concerned about. And, that does make a very real difference, as addressing issues like the cost of medicine is not the same as addressing the problems of insurance or of hospitals.

In general, your proposed solutions are highly vague. It's impossible to tell how they would affect most real world scenarios. And, beyond that I do NOT believe America is ready to attack healthcare costs by serving only those with significant money while letting the rest be unserved. In fact, that situation would continue to make it important to have healthcare insurance - which is one of the reasons our healthcare is so expensive.

After all, the major steps forward in terms of reducing overall cost are modeled by the UHC systems of every other first world country.

 

No, the main problem is EXACTLY the treatment of individual patients [which is (controlled in large part) by corporations and government]. THIS is why you want a system controlled by individuals.

This is not my full-time job. What type of corporations do you think we are talking about? Insurance companies, technology companies, BIG Pharma. These are the three biggest players [and they are in bed with the government].

That's not what I am saying, but if you believe that health care is a right and that everybody deserves state-of-the-art health care, well, good luck with that! It can't be done. You would bankrupt the country in a couple of years. THIS is what people need to understand. There is enormous self-interest by folks who keep telling everybody they can have their cake and eat it too. It's not going to happen, but in the meantime, these people are going to keep raking it in. Just like the war industry.

I get that but health care costs are a major problem everywhere. It's less of a problem in other places because we have been paying the entire free world's defense post-WWII. And we haven't even gotten into the demographic catastrophe that is creating an enormous number of old people just about everywhere. Who is going to pay for their care?

The bottom-line is that the world is now going through changes that only happen every 80-100 years. Most institutions are breaking down because they no longer work as well as being incredibly corrupt. You cannot finance your country counterfeiting M1 and M2 and racking up incredible debt. The ponzi scheme is over and it's time to act like responsible adults. If you had a large enough prison, you could probably put tens of thousands of people away for massive fraud and outright stealing over the past 50 years!

 

You are ignoring that all other first world countries (and most other countries, too) DO serve the public as equally as we do today, but at a cost WAY lower than what healthcare costs in America.

There results are good, as we are not achieving high longevity or other such measures.

Plus, if these countries wanted better healthcare (such as faster response to discretionary care), they could vote for that.

Yet you keep saying it can't be done, and instead proposing that healthcare be commoditized like TVs.

But, healthcare is NOT like TVs as has been repeatedly explained.

Also, that is still going to drive people to insurance companies, as that is the only way that most Americans can afford the high cost of healthcare incidents.

 

In other words, you want to save money by ignoring standards of care for those who aren't wealthy.

Again, other countries are providing care to everyone for FAR less than what we spend on healthcare.

This is not even slightly like war.

This makes NO sense.

There is no cross talk between our defense expenditures and our healthcare costs.

You keep saying "corrupte", "corporations", "ponzi", "fraud", "prison", etc.

But, you give no indication of any of that.

That hits your credibility pretty hard.

 

How do you know the results are good? And what do you mean by good? Can you grade an entire health care system by saying it's good?

First of all, which country are you speaking of? And what part of the system is good? Do you know any of this? Are you a scholar when it comes to researching national health care system around the world? Where do you come up with these opinions?

Care is rationed in all of these UCH systems. Did you know that? Ever talk to a Canadian about their system?

They can't afford it. Health care expenses have been the number one reason why most American declare personal bankruptcy and has been for many years. And most health insurance sucks. High deductibles and high co-payments. Is that a system that works?

 

Why do you believe this is the case? How can they accomplish this? And on the other hand, why do you believe health care is so expensive in the U.S.?

Answer these questions and you will understand what the problems are.

 

You should know this stuff if you are going to propose that America completely change the way it does healthcare.

The reason I'm not answering the specific questions is that you need to know a more thorough comparison, including how different countries do it, how the public accepts it, etc., before proposing a sweeping change.

You are proposing a rationing system, too - just one that is based on whether the person is rich or not as rich.

You will notice that I haven't argued in favor of what we have.

Our nation just wasn't ready for a change as large as moving to a UHC system. We more or less demanded that healthcare coverage by a for-profit business.

Plus people shy away from increased federal expenditures even though they spend WAY more when they have to do it on their own through for-profit insurance corporations.

And, again I'd point out that your idea does not eliminate for-profit insurance, as people don't have enough money on hand to pay for healthcare incidents that happen. And, that's not going to change. If you need chemotherapy or radiation, or whatever, if you need an organ transplant, etc., etc., and you don't have insurance, your system will leave many of those people dead for not being wealthy enough.

 

One of these days you'll understand, when an honest politician finally gets up in front of the American people and tells the truth. No country can afford to provide state-of-the-art health [sick] care to all of its citizens. The cost would be absolutely astronomical. This is why I am proposing what I am...a MUCH better, MUCH cheaper alternative...the catch being that people actually have to take responsibility for themselves, something few are willing to do.

 

Since that is the opposite of the truth I barely know where to begin in responding. Let's take voting rights and access to the polls. An essential element of a thriving democracy. The Left is steadfastly for the protection of voting rights, making voting easier for registered voters, and making it more difficult for red states to enact restrictive voter laws. By comparison, on the Right you have things like this.......


New analysis by Democracy Docket reveals a steep jump in voting and election lawsuits filed by Republican-affiliated groups so far this year when compared to 2021. Democracy Docket is the leading platform dedicated to covering and tracking democracy-related activity in the courts and has a comprehensive database of nearly 400 democracy-related lawsuits filed since 2020.

Our database reveals a compelling trend — a marked increase in GOP lawsuits in the voting and elections sphere since January of this year.

• In 2021, GOP-affiliated groups and individuals filed seven lawsuits, accounting for 13% of the total voting cases we tracked in 2021.
• In contrast, as of Sept. 16, 2022, GOP-affiliated groups have filed 41 lawsuits, accounting for nearly 54% of all voting cases we tracked in 2022.

The number of lawsuits filed by Democratic-aligned organizations and other groups remained relatively constant when comparing this year and last (35 so far in 2022 and 45 in 2021), although there has been a jump in the total voting cases between years (76 so far in 2022 and 52 in 2021). This difference is explained by an increase in GOP activity in the courts (41 lawsuits so far in 2022 and seven in 2021).
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/gop-anti-voting-lawsuits-increase-nearly-five-fold-in-2022/

 

So........you haven't heard about the national healthcare systems in many developed countries?

 

What country is providing state-of-the-art health care to all of its citizens? This means not only providing ALL the latest technology for every citizen but also allowing sufficient time for providers to educate their patients to a level where they can [materially] participate in the decision making.

 

Let's not because both sides have made the same claims over the past couple of election cycles [and I am not really interested in this topic].

I stated that the left is anti-intellectual, racist, and authoritarian. I stand by that. Take COVID as a perfect example. TPTB were anti-science [politicized the pandemic for political power], racism [against the entire while race] is their answer for everything bad that happens, and authoritarian [this should be pretty obvious as Leftism IS authoritarianism, i.e.,centralized control].

The left has been a massive failure for 150 years. Because you cannot defend it intellectually, it was basically made into the religion of social justice which carries on the entire victims v. oppressors meme. Victims are never at fault because the system made them "do it," but the so-called oppressors are always to blame even though the system made them "do it," as well. How's that work?

The bottom-line is that freedom works. As sloppy as it is at times, it has accounted for all the great things that have happened in this world and will continue to do so long after leftism is re-buried once again [and hopefully for the last time].

 

You've assumed I'm a socialist. You'd be wrong.

Which makes your point moot.
.

A system you have yet to tell us, other than some simplistic transactional example utterly devoid of the comprehensiveness a viable health care policy demands.

Point fails. Weasel words are not an argument, they lack objectivity required for a well-honed point or point of view, one derived from facts, real life examples and reason.

Point fails. Stale, boring, right wing platitudes are not a merit worthy argument given that they consist entirely of weasel words arising out of a partisan lens.

Stupid people vote for simpleton demagogues who traffic in weasel words, boring platitudes, simplistic solutions, thought-terminating clichés and imagined enemies

.

 

Facts need only to be true.

Originality is for creative works

 

Epic fail: Vacuous rant consisting of weasel words, right wing platitudes, unsubstantiated and false assumptions,
disingenuous characterizations and assorted drivel ad nauseum.

My original reply still is appropriate

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...um-always-swings-back.603769/#post-1073725075

You've demonstrated over and over that you are unable to frame a proper argument, but that fact plus your smug arrogance makes for your particularly stench worthy verbiage. Sad thing is, you don't even know it, nor can anyone penetrate your skull to get you to see it.

 

Your solution to just about everything is more government.

Government should concern itself with four things only...defense of the nation, system of justice, policing, i.e., safety of its citizens, and minimal regulation where self-regulation is not feasible.

 

And whose truth might that be?

 

You ever consider that you might have weasel perception? Or is it that your reality is universal?

 

The problem with Universal Healthcare was that it was not more affordable than what we had before. Premiums increased from $500 up to $5000 for the same price one paid for the so called Affordable Healthcare Act.

If the government truly wanted to help people, they wouldn't increase the cost of healthcare when attempting to provide universal healthcare.

It was like the Left created a plan that gave even more money to the Healthcare providers who in the end had all contributed to each and every Congressman and presidents campaign.