Why I'm Joining the GOP

[Iceberg]

The point is that both sides--the socialized health care advocates and the free market health care advocates--both want good health care to be available to as many people as possible in the long run. They just disagree on whether the free market forces will best supply such health care.

The evidence suggests not; at least not without costs to the consumer spiraling out of control. The highest average quality and the highest wuality to cost ratio, based on world experience, comes from national health care systems, not from the private sector.

[WyrdNyrd]

The point is that both sides--the socialized health care advocates and the free market health care advocates--both want good health care to be available to as many people as possible in the long run. They just disagree on whether the free market forces will best supply such health care.

The evidence suggests not; at least not without costs to the consumer spiraling out of control. The highest average quality and the highest wuality to cost ratio, based on world experience, comes from national health care systems, not from the private sector.

So, when the Right claims to also want "good health care for all", yet the evidence shows their preferred method achieves the exact opposite, one has to ask:

Are they stupid or are they dishonest?

Are they ignoring the evidence, or are they selfishly promoting their own interests over the common good?

Or is it simply blind, quasi-religious dogma? Communism = Evil, The Market = Good.

[Crown]

Reminds me of a joke my father told me one time.

If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you're old and not conservative, you have no money.

I'm pretty sure that the above might be a Winston Churchill gem, although I have heard it as;

If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you're old and not conservative, you have no brain.

[Coyote]

I believe the US and Australia opted out of Kyoto. But I could be thinking of another treaty.

It's just a humor screed, and while full of generalities and silliness there are some on-the-mark hits there too. Especially Republicanism the way it has been defined by the GWB Admin. Someone could as easily come up with some stuff about Democrats in a similar format, but like this is just a parade of cliches.

[Darth Wong]

The point is that both sides--the socialized health care advocates and the free market health care advocates--both want good health care to be available to as many people as possible in the long run. They just disagree on whether the free market forces will best supply such health care.

Wrong. The for-profit and competition model of service delivery necessarily denies service to some. The free enterprise system is not and will never be compatible with equal provision of services to all regardless of ability to pay, and if you think it is, then you're either lying or ignorant.

[Ma Deuce]

I believe the US and Australia opted out of Kyoto. But I could be thinking of another treaty.

Yeah, that was Kyoto. And the United States will never sign Kyoto in any conceivable political climate, considering the US Senate voted against it 95-0.

[Jew]

The point is that both sides--the socialized health care advocates and the free market health care advocates--both want good health care to be available to as many people as possible in the long run. They just disagree on whether the free market forces will best supply such health care.

Wrong. The for-profit and competition model of service delivery necessarily denies service to some. The free enterprise system is not and will never be compatible with equal provision of services to all regardless of ability to pay, and if you think it is, then you're either lying or ignorant.

That's a valid point. However, that doesn't mean that free market health care advocates are ignorant or evil. They want to provide the best health care for the greatest number of people in the long run. "Equal provision of services to all regardless of ability to pay" does little good if the services are of poor quality. Many people believe that only free market competition will spur innovation and drive down costs. If that is true, then the average man will be better able to afford to pay for health care insurance.

The ideal is a system that provides excellent care to everyone. But many people believe that because of lack of free-market forces, a socialized system cannot provide excellent care in the long run.

So then, which is better? A socialized system that provides poor health care to all, or a free market system that provides excellent health care to most? It's a tough call. The world is an unfriendly place and we have to make tough decisions. It's not that free market advocates are evil liars; they just made a different judgement call.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would like to point out that there ARE government programs in the US for people who cannot afford health insurance. Ever heard of medicare and medicaid? That is what they are there for. it is their own damn fault if they dont apply

One thing with health insurance and why people in the middle class dont purchase it is because they chose not to. It is something one must voluntarily purchase unless they get it through their job. Not only that, but inability to pay for life saving proceedures does not mean one will not recieve the treatment. Hospitals must help you, and if you cant pay theymust accept a reasonable payment plan (50 dollars a month I know of in some cases)

WHen people site cases of what.. 40 million people not having health insurance, I really would like to see how they arrived at that number and how they manipulate their statistics.

Regardless, the whole thing that happened in the moivie John Q with the hospital refusing to put a poor kid on the waiting list for a heart transplant... it would NEVER happen in this country.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As for costs going freakishly high in freemarket systems. Yes, yes they do. However that is because of malpractice insurance companies driving up the price because whinny fucking people sue the hospital or the doctor personally if they are left with a fucking scar after life saving surgury. Or sue the doctor if the hospital loses paperwork that proves a diagnostic test was done, and the person dies anyway... they will then try to sue the surgeon for not ordering the test done, when they knew for a fact that the patient had gone in to take the damn test... frivelous dishonest lawsuits like that...

That means of course that the doctor has to raise prices for his services in order to cover costs and make a living(and yes, they do deserve the income that they make. 7 years of schooling under high stress conditions where people just... die. Having someone die under your knife tends to be emotionally stressful)

[Rye]

How come costs aren't that high in socialised healthcare? You can sue them as much as a private company.

[SirNitram]

As for costs going freakishly high in freemarket systems. Yes, yes they do. However that is because of malpractice insurance companies driving up the price because whinny fucking people sue the hospital or the doctor personally if they are left with a fucking scar after life saving surgury. Or sue the doctor if the hospital loses paperwork that proves a diagnostic test was done, and the person dies anyway... they will then try to sue the surgeon for not ordering the test done, when they knew for a fact that the patient had gone in to take the damn test... frivelous dishonest lawsuits like that...

That means of course that the doctor has to raise prices for his services in order to cover costs and make a living(and yes, they do deserve the income that they make. 7 years of schooling under high stress conditions where people just... die. Having someone die under your knife tends to be emotionally stressful)

Interestingly, this is completely wrong. The biggest reason costs are out of control in the US is the price-gouging of prescription drugs. But now we will hear how it's their GOD GIVEN RIGHT RAR to get ridiculous profits.

[Alyrium Denryle]

(I really with there was an edit button in here, because I always forget something)

Now, what I wouldnt mind seeing is a not for profit government subsidized insurance agency call it Federal Health or something, that competes with standard insurance companies and rathe than puts the profits in their pocket books(besides their salaries of course) pays for people that cannot afford their own insurance, they just need to file a claim with the proper documentation showing that they cannot afford insurance (Like... their tax forms or something)

Avoids the issues of socialized healthcare, while simultaneously provides for people that cant afford proper insurance.

But that sort of thing makes to much sense.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How come costs aren't that high in socialised healthcare? You can sue them as much as a private company.

Less of a sue happy culture methinks.

Interestingly, this is completely wrong. The biggest reason costs are out of control in the US is the price-gouging of prescription drugs. But now we will hear how it's their GOD GIVEN RIGHT RAR to get ridiculous profits.

Notice how I was refering the entire time to surgury and diagnostic treatment.

Prescription drugs, well there are the R&D costs for one. Frankly I think we could loosen up our patent laws so that other companies can actually compete with drug producers. The problem withour system in that regard is the length of our patents, it takes a looong time for genetic equivalents to come out and actually compete with the effictively fixed prices set by the original company.

If we loosened up those laws a bit competition WOULD drive the price down. As it stands that competition just doesnt exist.

[SirNitram]

'No consensus on Global Warming'. There has been for some time, it was recently, yet again, reinforced by findings that match only the models that use industry in their equations.

Yea, brainiac. Ever occur to you that the equations themselves, the so-called Hockey Stick is bullshit?

I eagerly await you to prove this statement.

'KYOTO BAD!!!!!' is a red herring, intellectual dishonest.

Kyoto is usually what is held up as being proof that Bush wants to somehow toxify the Earth.

It is a red herring. It was not brought up. Go sit on a spike, you lying, fallacy-spewing apologist.

'KOSOVO! CLINTON DID IT!!!!!' is a red herring, intellectually dishonest.

Sorry, but the intervention in Kosovo bears heavily on the legality of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And if we were talking about Clinton in relation to Bush, you'd have something approaching a point. But we aren't. So you don't. Again, this is textbook red herring fallacy.

'There's always some propaganda..' is a black/white fallacy, intellectually dishonest.

Name a government that hasn't used propaganda.

Black/white fallacy repeated.

In short, you were an asshat.

And fuck you to.

Oooo, the little kiddie is gonna swear! Look, you semen-encrusted apologist retard. When you can come up with a rebuttal that is not 90% fallacy and 10% bald-faced lie, you'll merit something. In the meantime, sit the fuck down. The adults are talking.

[SirNitram]

Interestingly, this is completely wrong. The biggest reason costs are out of control in the US is the price-gouging of prescription drugs. But now we will hear how it's their GOD GIVEN RIGHT RAR to get ridiculous profits.

Notice how I was refering the entire time to surgury and diagnostic treatment.

Prescription drugs, well there are the R&D costs for one. Frankly I think we could loosen up our patent laws so that other companies can actually compete with drug producers. The problem withour system in that regard is the length of our patents, it takes a looong time for genetic equivalents to come out and actually compete with the effictively fixed prices set by the original company.

Have you actually stopped and thought? Their profits are through the roof, by comparison with other companies. This means that despite their R&D costs they're making money hand over fist. Of course this will bounce off the skull...

[Jew]

I have to disagree with Alyrium Denryle here. The statistics indicate that the cost of malpractice insurance on the industry is relatively small. That doesn't mean it should be ignored, but it isn't the biggest source of high costs either.

I wonder if we can make a comparison between skyrocketing college tuition and the high price of health care. They are both commodities that the user doesn't directly pay for. Students get government financial aid, and patients are covered by their insurance company. Nobody sees the actual sticker price of college or health care, so there is no real incentive for the price to come down. Why compete on price when the person making the decision (the student and the patient) don't ever look at the price anyway?

[Darth Wong]

That's a valid point. However, that doesn't mean that free market health care advocates are ignorant or evil.

The accuracy of that statement depends on whether you agree that a lack of sympathy for the suffering of the unfortunate is "evil".

So then, which is better? A socialized system that provides poor health care to all, or a free market system that provides excellent health care to most? It's a tough call.

It's also a false dilemma, since the US system does not provide "excellent health care to most", and the health-care provided to people under socialized systems is hardly "poor". In fact it's something of a stretch to even call the US system a "system" at all, since even people who are insured (thus leaving out the tens of millions who aren't) can still often find themselves being driven to financial ruin by medical costs. It's more of a "let everyone fend for himself" arrangement.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Interestingly, this is completely wrong. The biggest reason costs are out of control in the US is the price-gouging of prescription drugs. But now we will hear how it's their GOD GIVEN RIGHT RAR to get ridiculous profits.

Notice how I was refering the entire time to surgury and diagnostic treatment.

Prescription drugs, well there are the R&D costs for one. Frankly I think we could loosen up our patent laws so that other companies can actually compete with drug producers. The problem withour system in that regard is the length of our patents, it takes a looong time for genetic equivalents to come out and actually compete with the effictively fixed prices set by the original company.

Have you actually stopped and thought? Their profits are through the roof, by comparison with other companies. This means that despite their R&D costs they're making money hand over fist. Of course this will bounce off the skull...

Thanks for ignoring the second half of the post completely. They provide a service that it just so happens that people need. Seriously man making a profit is not intrinsically a bad thing and if you are going to say "look their profits are huge we should put caps on their prices) that is just spiteful. We can solve this problem by allowing generic equivalents to actually be produced for name brand drugs in order to compete with them and drive the price down. Then, everyone wins, including smaller drug companies. That is what happens with drungs like Ritalin that have been on the market long enough for the patents to expire. Ritalin is fucking cheap as far as drugs are concerned, the only real difference between it and a top of the line heart or AIDs medication is the length of time it has been on the market, if we could shorten the time It takes to get to that point... well I would jump for joy and so would most people I imagine

I wonder if we can make a comparison between skyrocketing college tuition and the high price of health care. They are both commodities that the user doesn't directly pay for. Students get government financial aid, and patients are covered by their insurance company. Nobody sees the actual sticker price of college or health care, so there is no real incentive for the price to come down. Why compete on price when the person making the decision (the student and the patient) don't ever look at the price anyway?

College tuition has to go up, it is a necessity. SHit man, colleges have to pay for new buildings and updated equipment and the school subsidized bus systems somehow.

[SirNitram]

Notice how I was refering the entire time to surgury and diagnostic treatment.

Prescription drugs, well there are the R&D costs for one. Frankly I think we could loosen up our patent laws so that other companies can actually compete with drug producers. The problem withour system in that regard is the length of our patents, it takes a looong time for genetic equivalents to come out and actually compete with the effictively fixed prices set by the original company.

Have you actually stopped and thought? Their profits are through the roof, by comparison with other companies. This means that despite their R&D costs they're making money hand over fist. Of course this will bounce off the skull...

Thanks for ignoring the second half of the post completely. They provide a service that it just so happens that people need. Seriously man making a profit is not intrinsically a bad thing and if you are going to say "look their profits are huge we should put caps on their prices) that is just spiteful. We can solve this problem by allowing generic equivalents to actually be produced for name brand drugs in order to compete with them and drive the price down. Then, everyone wins, including smaller drug companies. That is what happens with drungs like Ritalin that have been on the market long enough for the patents to expire. Ritalin is fucking cheap as far as drugs are concerned, the only real difference between it and a top of the line heart or AIDs medication is the length of time it has been on the market, if we could shorten the time It takes to get to that point... well I would jump for joy and so would most people I imagine

Thank you for whiffing the point entirely and screaming off into a rant that bears.. What? Zero resemblence to the point? The fact of the matter is that your system is not good or fair; they will lose money in this proposition. The makers need to sell for some time to recoup their money.

However, as we know from overseas sales, you can lower the price and still bring in profits. You know, like in.. Canada? The place you've been repeatedly informed of? Like the VA in this country, which is legally allowed to negotiate bulk rates, and the drug companies still make a killing?

In short, the solution is as simple as punch the fuckers in the face for price-gouging. But no. We must protect their profit line.

[Jew]

It's also a false dilemma, since the US system does not provide "excellent health care to most". In fact it's something of a stretch to even call it a "system", since even people who are insured (thus leaving out the tens of millions who aren't) can still often find themselves being driven to financial ruin by medical costs.

The US system is hardly a free market system now, is it? It's a bastardized half-way form of socialized health care, with all the disadvantages of socialism and none of the advantages. We've got the worst of both systems and it's only limping along now because America is so incredibly rich. The US needs to pick a system and stick with it.

In any case, if you want to believe the opposition is pure unadulturated evil then that is your prerogative. I just thought I'd point out that the American right is not committed to advancing the cause of evil. They do truly care about people. They just have different ideas about how to make the world a better place.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hey, if you can charge them with price gouging, by all means. ANd I never said negate patent laws either. I said shorten their length. Allow them to recoup their money, and use their infastructure for a bit, and during that time, other companies will get ready for the patent to expire... when that happens, competition will drive those prices down, and if there is price gouging(determined by comparative sales overseas etc etc) then slap them in the face.

[Darth Wong]

In any case, if you want to believe the opposition is pure unadulturated evil then that is your prerogative. I just thought I'd point out that the American right is not committed to advancing the cause of evil. They do truly care about people. They just have different ideas about how to make the world a better place.

And I'm pointing out that under their preferred system, there will always be an underclass whose suffering they will do nothing about. How you can characterize that as "caring about people" is beyond me.

[Darth Wong]

Question: if you had ten kids, and you had the following choice to make:

Option 1: 1 kid filthy rich, 7 kids middle class, 1 kid poor, 1 kid starves to death

Option 2: 8 kids middle class, 2 kids poor

Which one would you choose?

[Jew]

College tuition has to go up, it is a necessity. SHit man, colleges have to pay for new buildings and updated equipment and the school subsidized bus systems somehow.

I don't think colleges have bus systems. In any case, college tuition is out of control. I heard a program on NPR the other day chronicling the effect federal subsidies have had on tuition costs. The gist of it is this: students can get federal grants and loans to cover tuition costs, and universities know this. So the universities raise prices indiscriminately, knowing that students will simply get grants and loans to cover what they cannot pay.

New buildings generally aren't paid out of tuition costs, at least not at private universities. My alma mater keeps hitting me up for money for their new building projects.

There is no free market pressure on universities to lower prices. The students aren't paying the money anyway, the government is. I know when I applied to university I didn't worry about the tuition costs. $20,000, $30,000, no big deal. I knew I could get grants to cover it. (Incidentally, I didn't. I got a few loans but no grants. Apparently if you work hard and save money you don't get any grants. Score one for financial responsibility, eh? Ah well, college is long since over so I shouldn't still be bitter.)

And I'm pointing out that under their preferred system, there will always be an underclass whose suffering they will do nothing about. How you can characterize that as "caring about people" is beyond me.

Not quite. There will be a small underclass whose suffering the government will do nothing about. The poor and unfortunate will turn to private charitable institutions. It is not evil to think that the government cannot provide all things to all people.

[Darth Wong]

Not quite. There will be a small underclass whose suffering the government will do nothing about. The poor and unfortunate will turn to private charitable institutions. It is not evil to think that the government cannot provide all things to all people.

Unless these people are ignorant of all history, they will know that voluntary charitable giving will not get the job done. Frankly, I think that the "charity will fill up any holes left by gutting the social safety net" argument is so hopelessly untenable that even its proponents do not seriously believe it, and only use it as an excuse to avoid the charge of immorality as you are doing.