Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:

Barramundi Dan wrote:I can not for the life of me understand why you guys are so afraid of public health care. For as long as I can remember we have had a public health care system that everyone here in Australia contributes towards and benifits from. Its one of the great things about our nation that makes me proud to be an Australian. "Slavery", If anything its freedom from slavery.
I've heard Americans say that they have the best health care system in the world. Well maybe you do, but whats the point if one third of your people cant access it?

the point is that if we change the best health care system in the world, and take away the focus from "being the best" to "being the fairest" well, then, we aren't going to have the best health care, and everyone can have equal mediocre healthcare and only the rich will get non-essential treatments.

I don't know about Australia, but here in America we have seen this play out many times before and it never works out the way it was supposed to and it wont help as many as it says it will and it will cost probably twice as much as they say it will cost etc...

We don't trust our gov't. Our Congress has about a 18% approval rating. We don't want them touching ANYTHING

we don't have the best healthcare system in the world. and who is we?

pimpdave wrote:But it isn't harassment when you do it to me!!! You've done it for over a year...

I don't recall going off-topic to snipe at you at every single opportunity, no.

pimpdave wrote:You mean, you don't like this? That's odd. I was sure you'd appreciate this, considering you've done it for almost everyone else on the site, free of charge, for a long, long time! And haven't ever stopped, despite repeated requests that you do so!

I don't go into threads with the sole purpose of trolling people, no.

Woodruff wrote:I don't recall

Oh that's too bad because that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Woodruff wrote:going off-topic

I can't go off-topic in a thread I started.

Woodruff wrote:to snipe at you at every single opportunity, no.

Nope, no sniping here. Just helpfulness and joyful participation!

Woodruff wrote:I don't go into threads

Yes you do.

Woodruff wrote:with the sole purpose of trolling people, no.

Oh right, it's just to insult as many people as possible. Then file spurious reports because you don't like them.

Now, let's get back on topic. (Please don't call me a fuckhead again for letting you know how you behave, Woodruff! I hope you like how I parsed the hell out of this post, it's in tribute to your insufferable habit of doing the same thing. Please don't call me a fuckhead for following your example!)




BACK ON TOPIC:
Universal healthcare is not slavery for doctors! It's a benefit to everyone and gives doctors more work, which is good!

pimpdave wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I don't recall

Oh that's too bad because that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Nor did I say it didn't...though you haven't shown any evidence of it.

pimpdave wrote:

Woodruff wrote:going off-topic

I can't go off-topic in a thread I started.

That doesn't even make basic sense.

pimpdave wrote:

Woodruff wrote:to snipe at you at every single opportunity, no.

Nope, no sniping here. Just helpfulness and joyful participation!

I certainly disagree.

pimpdave wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I don't go into threads

Yes you do.

Your trolling here is ridiculous.

pimpdave wrote:

Woodruff wrote:with the sole purpose of trolling people, no.

Oh right, it's just to insult as many people as possible. Then file spurious reports because you don't like them.

That isn't even remotely true. Of course, you know that.

pimpdave wrote:Now, let's get back on topic. (Please don't call me a fuckhead again for letting you know how you behave, Woodruff! I hope you like how I parsed the hell out of this post, it's in tribute to your insufferable habit of doing the same thing. Please don't call me a fuckhead for following your example!)

My insufferable habit of doing exactly as AndyDufresne has asked me to? You didn't really get back on topic there, by the way.

pimpdave wrote:BACK ON TOPIC:
Universal healthcare is not slavery for doctors!

Of course not.

pimpdave wrote:BACK ON TOPIC:
Universal healthcare is not slavery for doctors! It's a benefit to everyone and gives doctors more work, which is good!

More work for less money.* Sounds great!



*Remember, Medicare only reimburses doctors 60-80% of the actual costs of procedures.

Night Strike wrote:

pimpdave wrote:BACK ON TOPIC:
Universal healthcare is not slavery for doctors! It's a benefit to everyone and gives doctors more work, which is good!

More work for less money.* Sounds great!



*Remember, Medicare only reimburses doctors 60-80% of the actual costs of procedures.

Nope, it's actually more work for more money than they would get, otherwise. An old guy with insurance makes a doctor money, an old guy without doesn't. This is actually not all that difficult a concept. Also, plz define "actual cost." Pretty sure physicians don't get run dry by Medicare.

spurgistan wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pimpdave wrote:BACK ON TOPIC:
Universal healthcare is not slavery for doctors! It's a benefit to everyone and gives doctors more work, which is good!

More work for less money.* Sounds great!



*Remember, Medicare only reimburses doctors 60-80% of the actual costs of procedures.

Nope, it's actually more work for more money than they would get, otherwise. An old guy with insurance makes a doctor money, an old guy without doesn't. This is actually not all that difficult a concept. Also, plz define "actual cost." Pretty sure physicians don't get run dry by Medicare.

There's a HUGE difference between running dry and getting the money you're supposed to be paid. Most of the time, depending on your profit margins, you can skimp on a few sales as long as the bulk of your sales are at their normal prices, which allows for occasional bartering or negotiating of price rates if you really want to make a sale. However, when the government's system frequently short-changes on their purchases, then it will cause the business (in this case doctors) to close-up shop.

If you're selling a widget for $100, but customers are only paying $75 and walking out the door with your widget, are you going to be able to stay in business? In fact, isn't that considered theft if you don't pay the proper price for an item? Yet the government is allowed to get away with it on most, if not every, Medicare transaction while the doctors are still forced to do the same amount of work. If universal healthcare is supposed to be about fairness, how is it fair to short-change the doctor's compensation?

Night Strike wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pimpdave wrote:BACK ON TOPIC:
Universal healthcare is not slavery for doctors! It's a benefit to everyone and gives doctors more work, which is good!

More work for less money.* Sounds great!



*Remember, Medicare only reimburses doctors 60-80% of the actual costs of procedures.

Nope, it's actually more work for more money than they would get, otherwise. An old guy with insurance makes a doctor money, an old guy without doesn't. This is actually not all that difficult a concept. Also, plz define "actual cost." Pretty sure physicians don't get run dry by Medicare.

There's a HUGE difference between running dry and getting the money you're supposed to be paid. Most of the time, depending on your profit margins, you can skimp on a few sales as long as the bulk of your sales are at their normal prices, which allows for occasional bartering or negotiating of price rates if you really want to make a sale. However, when the government's system frequently short-changes on their purchases, then it will cause the business (in this case doctors) to close-up shop.

If you're selling a widget for $100, but customers are only paying $75 and walking out the door with your widget, are you going to be able to stay in business? In fact, isn't that considered theft if you don't pay the proper price for an item? Yet the government is allowed to get away with it on most, if not every, Medicare transaction while the doctors are still forced to do the same amount of work. If universal healthcare is supposed to be about fairness, how is it fair to short-change the doctor's compensation?

Medicare sucks. It's not good enough and doesn't go far enough.

GreecePwns wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

spurgistan wrote: Nope, it's actually more work for more money than they would get, otherwise. An old guy with insurance makes a doctor money, an old guy without doesn't. This is actually not all that difficult a concept. Also, plz define "actual cost." Pretty sure physicians don't get run dry by Medicare.

There's a HUGE difference between running dry and getting the money you're supposed to be paid. Most of the time, depending on your profit margins, you can skimp on a few sales as long as the bulk of your sales are at their normal prices, which allows for occasional bartering or negotiating of price rates if you really want to make a sale. However, when the government's system frequently short-changes on their purchases, then it will cause the business (in this case doctors) to close-up shop.

If you're selling a widget for $100, but customers are only paying $75 and walking out the door with your widget, are you going to be able to stay in business? In fact, isn't that considered theft if you don't pay the proper price for an item? Yet the government is allowed to get away with it on most, if not every, Medicare transaction while the doctors are still forced to do the same amount of work. If universal healthcare is supposed to be about fairness, how is it fair to short-change the doctor's compensation?

Medicare sucks. It's not good enough and doesn't go far enough.

This is so stereotypical. "Our shitty system doesn't work because it isn't all powerful!"

GreecePwns wrote:Medicare sucks. It's not good enough and doesn't go far enough.

Then why is there the frequent argument that "The US already has socialized health care in the forum of Medicare and people love it."? We constantly have to hear that from proponents who want to expand it to everyone else.

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Medicare sucks. It's not good enough and doesn't go far enough.

Then why is there the frequent argument that "The US already has socialized health care in the forum of Medicare and people love it."? We constantly have to hear that from proponents who want to expand it to everyone else.

Medicare is good in that it helps seniors and has helped reduce poverty among them. It sucks because it is only for seniors. For economic and ethical reasons that go beyond "herp derp freedom!" and "world leaders come here for healthcare" universal public healthcare is needed here.

The best healthcare systems in the world have it for a reason.

Phatscotty wrote:

Barramundi Dan wrote:I can not for the life of me understand why you guys are so afraid of public health care. For as long as I can remember we have had a public health care system that everyone here in Australia contributes towards and benifits from. Its one of the great things about our nation that makes me proud to be an Australian. "Slavery", If anything its freedom from slavery.
I've heard Americans say that they have the best health care system in the world. Well maybe you do, but whats the point if one third of your people cant access it?

the point is that if we change the best health care system in the world, and take away the focus from "being the best" to "being the fairest" well, then, we aren't going to have the best health care, and everyone can have equal mediocre healthcare and only the rich will get non-essential treatments.

By what measure do we have the "best healthcare system in the world?"
And how do you go from providing universal healthcare coverage to "being the fairest" and "everyone will only have mediocre care" (not to mention, even if that were what would happen, how would it be worse than what we have now when a large number of people can only access emergency care).

Phatscotty wrote:I don't know about Australia, but here in America we have seen this play out many times before and it never works out the way it was supposed to and it wont help as many as it says it will and it will cost probably twice as much as they say it will cost etc...

Explain this.

Phatscotty wrote:We don't trust our gov't. Our Congress has about a 18% approval rating. We don't want them touching ANYTHING

And your answer is to simply turn everything over to private corporations, the same exact groups that are currently distorting our system so heavily.

Night Strike wrote: There's a HUGE difference between running dry and getting the money you're supposed to be paid. Most of the time, depending on your profit margins, you can skimp on a few sales as long as the bulk of your sales are at their normal prices, which allows for occasional bartering or negotiating of price rates if you really want to make a sale. However, when the government's system frequently short-changes on their purchases, then it will cause the business (in this case doctors) to close-up shop.

If you're selling a widget for $100, but customers are only paying $75 and walking out the door with your widget, are you going to be able to stay in business? In fact, isn't that considered theft if you don't pay the proper price for an item? Yet the government is allowed to get away with it on most, if not every, Medicare transaction while the doctors are still forced to do the same amount of work. If universal healthcare is supposed to be about fairness, how is it fair to short-change the doctor's compensation?

Except, you need to look HONESTLY into how the insurance companies do their pricing, because if anyone is ripping off doctors, etc, it is the insurance companies.

Universal Healthcare is the fight before us.

We will have another Alamo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bam-ilsFTpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGrQ9uiLSo

Phatscotty wrote:Universal Healthcare is the fight before us.

We will have another Alamo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bam-ilsFTpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGrQ9uiLSo

It seems your fight is less against universal healthcare and more against rationality.

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Universal Healthcare is the fight before us.

We will have another Alamo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bam-ilsFTpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGrQ9uiLSo

It seems your fight is less against universal healthcare and more against rationing.

fixed

Mr_Adams wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Universal Healthcare is the fight before us.

We will have another Alamo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bam-ilsFTpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGrQ9uiLSo

It seems your fight is less against universal healthcare and more against rationing.

fixed

Show your work or be known as a demagogue. Then again, showing work isn't really your thing.

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Universal Healthcare is the fight before us.

We will have another Alamo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bam-ilsFTpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGrQ9uiLSo

It seems your fight is less against universal healthcare and more against rationality.

Mr Adams changed the above to:
[quote="Mr_Adams"

It seems your fight is less against universal healthcare and more against rationing

[/quote]
And claimed the quote was "fixed", but ....

Apparently Mr Adams has never dealth with insurance companies or he would know rationing is very much a part of their profit motive.. and NOT rationing based on rates of survival/success of medicine by any means.

Mr Adams..the truth is rationing not IS happening, it must. However, it needs to happen based on evidence and real availabilities.

That means BOTH that someone living in timbuktu knows they are not getting the same access as someone in downtown NY. It's just not possible. BUT, it also means that if you get cancer, whether you get drug A or treatment B is based on what will be most effective and if there is a chance of success (with the caveat that experimental treatments may not yet have a track record, but may be tried under specific circumstances as part of controlled studies, a few other exceptions). Also, if someone wants to fully fund a treatment on their own, they can.. unless it is proven fraudulant/truly ineffective.

Phatscotty wrote:Universal Healthcare is the fight before us.

We will have another Alamo

How about you debate the actual points in this thread instead of spouting these meaningless platitudes?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:The US federal government is FAR to large.

Too large by what measure? Is it really too large or just ineffective?

By this measure, sir.

Nope, sorry. Cute rhetoric, but not an answer. (and not true, anyway.. there is nothing about the exact size of government within the constitution)

Try again, with something specific

Oh shit, we got a Phatscotty clone on our hands.

GreecePwns wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Medicare sucks. It's not good enough and doesn't go far enough.

Then why is there the frequent argument that "The US already has socialized health care in the forum of Medicare and people love it."? We constantly have to hear that from proponents who want to expand it to everyone else.

Medicare is good in that it helps seniors and has helped reduce poverty among them. It sucks because it is only for seniors. For economic and ethical reasons that go beyond "herp derp freedom!" and "world leaders come here for healthcare" universal public healthcare is needed here.

The best healthcare systems in the world have it for a reason.

No, it sucks because it's insanely inefficient and, as a result, insanely expensive. And Medicare would be the basis for public healthcare (not the Affordable Care Act which does virtually nothing substantive to provide people with medical care).

Greece is going bankrupt. BUT SOCIALISTIC POLICIES ARE SO GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY, TGD! (It's on the news. Greece's banking system is within days of going insolvent if they don't do something)

Edit: This is bizarre. this post went to entirely the wrong thread...

thegreekdog wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Medicare sucks. It's not good enough and doesn't go far enough.

Then why is there the frequent argument that "The US already has socialized health care in the forum of Medicare and people love it."? We constantly have to hear that from proponents who want to expand it to everyone else.

Medicare is good in that it helps seniors and has helped reduce poverty among them. It sucks because it is only for seniors. For economic and ethical reasons that go beyond "herp derp freedom!" and "world leaders come here for healthcare" universal public healthcare is needed here.

The best healthcare systems in the world have it for a reason.

No, it sucks because it's insanely inefficient and, as a result, insanely expensive. And Medicare would be the basis for public healthcare (not the Affordable Care Act which does virtually nothing substantive to provide people with medical care).

Who says? It's not like every other country in the world runs a Medicare for all clone.

I said Medicare sucks and I'm not ignoring the obvious government inefficiency (yeah I did in the last post. My bad.) It takes a hard head to argue that our current system, by any measure, is the best. I would say the same for a free-market system as well.

I will remain a proponent of the French system, which is made up of nothing resembling Medicare and, in fact, does retain some aspect of private care (of which less than 0.2 percent of the population uses). Everyone is covered and they pay 5 percent less GDP than us. You see the same in every other industrialized nation.

And you'll argue that we waste a lot, but won't see that in a study BBS posted in some other thread (the CLEAR one by MIT, I have to find it somewhere) that we are not the most corrupt or wasteful government with a fully public system. Yet their systems are still more efficient than ours. Why is that?

Mr_Adams wrote:Greece is going bankrupt.

Why?