Hilary Clinton: The Next Democratic Presidential Nominee?

[Surlethe]

Socialized health care will inevitably create longer lines for the high-risk patient, a lower quality of care all around as incentives for competition are reduced, and, perhaps most important, less innovation in treatment in reaction to rising demands and bureaucratic red tape.

Evidence, please. Back up your statement with data demonstrating this lower care all around, lack of innovation, and longer lines for higher-risk, more urgent patients.

[weemadando]

"frighteningly socialistic health care package". That's beautiful. Come to Australia some time and see the kind of shocking liberial-infested slum-filled dystopia is bred through such policies

Red herring. The chief advantage of a free market health care system is innovation, both in patient treatment and in the degree of interest private firms tend to have in biomedical research.

Socialized health care will inevitably create longer lines for the high-risk patient, a lower quality of care all around as incentives for competition are reduced, and, perhaps most important, less innovation in treatment in reaction to rising demands and bureaucratic red tape.

A state-managed health care system also opens the door to greater erosion of a long-standing American tradition of rejecting certain drugs for longer periods of time than is the tendency in Europe, where there are fewer trials per capita before a particular pharmaceutical is approved for sale and use. (This creates a potential for sometimes significantly larger-than-average waves of patients with negative – sometimes fatal – side-effects as every new drug enters the market.)

What a load of fucking bullshit. Having had first hand experience in the "horrid socialist system", I can say that there is no fucking problem. Emergency and urgent work is done AS FAST AS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. The only shit that is delayed is "elective surgery" - aka minor surgery for non-life threatening or non-priority cases. And even then, you can get that shit done at a private hospital for hardly anything if you spend 25 fucking dollars a month on private health coverage as I do. So crawl back down your black and white hole you fucking moron.

As for the FUCKING BULLSHIT you are spewing about public healthcare opening up gaps in medical research and drug testing, then you have even less of a clue than I ever thought you did. I can't believe that someone who can string a fucking sentence together could honestly not be able to see the fact that Australia has some of the best healthcare in the world - as well as LEADING THE WORLD IN MANY AREAS OF MEDICAL RESEARCH. Yes somehow you can't get past the fact that in your pathetic fucking mind this cannot work. BUT IT DOES YOU COCKJAW SO GO FUCKING HANG.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Any chance that the Republicans might nominate Condi in order to throw things off?

[Axis Kast]

According to an article by Pierre Lemieux, a Montreal economist who wrote in The Freeman (http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html), a right-of-center publication, the average Canadian at one point payed about $1,200 per year in taxes for universal health care – more expensive than private insurance in a free-market system for the average family (at around $5,000). So, the first strike against a state-managed health care system modeled on the Canadian example is its higher overall cost to the average consumer.

In Quebec, virtually no doctors are available outside the structure of the public health monopoly (the number is approximately one percent). In any country where socialized health care is the overwhelmingly pervasive norm, this is a point of concern: the competitive element in the medical practice is eliminated entirely. Regardless of whether one considers medicine an ideally altruistic calling, profit motive is rather valuable. Why remove monetary incentive for innovation from the equation?

The Canadian system also suffers in that, when most doctors are operating within the state-run rubric, there is less availability of care outside guidelines handed down from above. One example is the stunted state of Quebec’s supplementary health care offerings such as home care and day clinics by comparison to the United States. In essence, quality-of-life issues come into play for certain patients.

The old Economics 101 crisis of a valued commodity offered at zero cost creating massive demand is also in play. Even if we go so far as to assume that people aren’t abusing this system as much as theoretically possible, the numbers still indicate related problems: more money is pumped into Canada’s health care system per capita with each passing year, but there remain shortages of equipment. Meanwhile, general hospital beds declined in number between ’72 and ’80 by more than twenty percent.

Between 1972 and 1987, general practitioners reduced patient time by eleven percent. In 1977, when income limitations were introduced, the typical work year of a doctor declined by two and a half weeks. (Lemieux cited Gerar Belanger, “Les depenses de sante par rapport a l’economie du Quebec,” Le Medecin du Quebec, December 1981, p. 37)

Lemieux points out that, as with Medicaid in the United States, Canadians often use emergency rooms as their places of primary care. Patients with cataracts can languish six months without treatment.

According to Section 1.1.3 of "The Health of Canadians - The Federal Role," a report submitted by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in October 2002, the Canadian health care system does face the classic dilemma of using rationing to hold back the rising number of health care claimants in the absence of major spending for systemic restructuring.

Wait times for various kinds of diagnoses vary wildly in Canada according to a CBC article, and in many cases, individuals are only entered into the few tracking systems that do exist after having undergone the part of the waiting process that is most significant. In Newfoundland, the average wait for an MRI is 400% in excess of recommended wait times.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healt ... iting.html

[Axis Kast]

What a load of fucking bullshit. Having had first hand experience in the "horrid socialist system", I can say that there is no fucking problem. Emergency and urgent work is done AS FAST AS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. The only shit that is delayed is "elective surgery" - aka minor surgery for non-life threatening or non-priority cases. And even then, you can get that shit done at a private hospital for hardly anything if you spend 25 fucking dollars a month on private health coverage as I do. So crawl back down your black and white hole you fucking moron.

As for the FUCKING BULLSHIT you are spewing about public healthcare opening up gaps in medical research and drug testing, then you have even less of a clue than I ever thought you did. I can't believe that someone who can string a fucking sentence together could honestly not be able to see the fact that Australia has some of the best healthcare in the world - as well as LEADING THE WORLD IN MANY AREAS OF MEDICAL RESEARCH. Yes somehow you can't get past the fact that in your pathetic fucking mind this cannot work. BUT IT DOES YOU COCKJAW SO GO FUCKING HANG.

These aren't facts. This is a simple rant that has no actual references other than "Weemadando the raving lunatic."

[weemadando]

So, they pay ON AVERAGE more than you would for private coverage. But what about when they actually get treatment? I notice the article avoids that.

I notice that it also cherry picks examples. In Australia there are probably more private practictioners in many medical trades than public ones. This ensures that there is a healthy free-market economy to encourage competition amongst those who would provide care, both public or private. Which means that no matter what part of the system you are covered by, you are still coming out ahead.

[Keevan_Colton]

The Freeman is not a "right of centre" publication, it is a libertarian one...you should be a little clearer about that. It comes from the same school of thought as abolishing taxes and privatizing everything...it also contained one of our latest banned trolls articles about how america is a facist state.

[weemadando]

These aren't facts. This is a simple rant that has no actual references other than "Weemadando the raving lunatic."

Go fucking hang. There were plenty of facts in there, unfortunately it would appear that the enormous wang of the right poking out of your mouth obscured your vision.

FACT - Australia has a standard of health care that is excellent, even amongst the first world.

FACT - Public health care has not degraded the standard of care, nor has it degraded the availability of care.

FACT - The presence of public health care has not led to the short-cutting and circumvention of medical research and trials.

FACT - The presence of public health care has also not led to the degredation of medical research. But I suppose Nobel Prizes for gastro-intestinal research, as well as the creation of new methods of burns care, circulatory system treatments and the continued focus on optometry and opthamalogy through groups such as the Fred Hollows Foundation wouldn't be any sort of proof to you.

[Surlethe]

According to an article by Pierre Lemieux, a Montreal economist who wrote in The Freeman (http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html), a right-of-center publication, the average Canadian at one point payed about $1,200 per year in taxes for universal health care – more expensive than private insurance in a free-market system for the average family (at around $5,000). So, the first strike against a state-managed health care system modeled on the Canadian example is its higher overall cost to the average consumer.

Wow, everyone has to pay a little bit. How is this relevant?

In Quebec, virtually no doctors are available outside the structure of the public health monopoly (the number is approximately one percent). In any country where socialized health care is the overwhelmingly pervasive norm, this is a point of concern: the competitive element in the medical practice is eliminated entirely. Regardless of whether one considers medicine an ideally altruistic calling, profit motive is rather valuable. Why remove monetary incentive for innovation from the equation?

So everyone can afford it.

The Canadian system also suffers in that, when most doctors are operating within the state-run rubric, there is less availability of care outside guidelines handed down from above. One example is the stunted state of Quebec’s supplementary health care offerings such as home care and day clinics by comparison to the United States. In essence, quality-of-life issues come into play for certain patients.

This does not address my request for evidence regarding lower care all around.

The old Economics 101 crisis of a valued commodity offered at zero cost creating massive demand is also in play. Even if we go so far as to assume that people aren’t abusing this system as much as theoretically possible, the numbers still indicate related problems: more money is pumped into Canada’s health care system per capita with each passing year, but there remain shortages of equipment. Meanwhile, general hospital beds declined in number between ’72 and ’80 by more than twenty percent.

So? This is irrelevant to my request for evidence.

Between 1972 and 1987, general practitioners reduced patient time by eleven percent. In 1977, when income limitations were introduced, the typical work year of a doctor declined by two and a half weeks. (Lemieux cited Gerar Belanger, “Les depenses de sante par rapport a l’economie du Quebec,” Le Medecin du Quebec, December 1981, p. 37)

Lemieux points out that, as with Medicaid in the United States, Canadians often use emergency rooms as their places of primary care. Patients with cataracts can languish six months without treatment.

Oh, no; someone with a life-threatening catera- oh, wait. Let's see some numbers about people with life-threatening diseases waiting months.

According to Section 1.1.3 of "The Health of Canadians - The Federal Role," a report submitted by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in October 2002, the Canadian health care system does face the classic dilemma of using rationing to hold back the rising number of health care claimants in the absence of major spending for systemic restructuring.

And this is bad ... how?

Wait times for various kinds of diagnoses vary wildly in Canada according to a CBC article, and in many cases, individuals are only entered into the few tracking systems that do exist after having undergone the part of the waiting process that is most significant. In Newfoundland, the average wait for an MRI is 400% in excess of recommended wait times.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healt ... iting.html

And when the MRI is critical?

Now, Axis Kast, explain to me this: just how is a system which covers everybody inferior to a system which misses people?

[Axis Kast]

So, they pay ON AVERAGE more than you would for private coverage.

So that state-managed health care becomes an overall waste.

But what about when they actually get treatment? I notice the article avoids that.

The average person is the one we're considering here. Since Canadian coverage is more expensive overall once taxes are taken into account, the American consumer actually has a bit of leeway (in theory) before his or her premium begins to get that much steeper than what a Canadian pays, even after consuming greater-than-normal quantities of health care.

In Australia there are probably more private practictioners in many medical trades than public ones. This ensures that there is a healthy free-market economy to encourage competition amongst those who would provide care, both public or private. Which means that no matter what part of the system you are covered by, you are still coming out ahead.

And we also have public care in the United States for some individuals. Of course, the numbers have already spoken: a free market system is, for the average person, the superior choice.

Of course, you must also remember that the smaller the size of the private sector, the less chance for innovation overall.

Then there's also the issue of pharmaseuticals, which I think is one of the most important issues overall. As I mentioned before, regulations are far less stringent in Europe, where some drugs are in approved use decades before they appear on shelves in the United States.

Some argue that European drugs are a benefit: they can be cheaper than their U.S. counterparts, and offer a better range of selection when other alternatives have failed. On the other hand, they also create a massive black hole of, "Well, I don't knows" when somebody reports a problem in the absence of the kinds of extensive tests to which the biomedical industries in the United States are put.

Implementing public healthcare will most likely increase pressure to draw down the willingness to endorse FDA conservatism, and opens the door to a deluge of drugs on the market with difficult-to-predict side effects.

[SirNitram]

According to an article by Pierre Lemieux, a Montreal economist who wrote in The Freeman (http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html), a right-of-center publication, the average Canadian at one point payed about $1,200 per year in taxes for universal health care – more expensive than private insurance in a free-market system for the average family (at around $5,000). So, the first strike against a state-managed health care system modeled on the Canadian example is its higher overall cost to the average consumer.

Funny.. Per capita expenditure on healthcare..

#1 United States $4,631.00 per capita
#2 Switzerland $3,222.00 per capita
#3 Germany $2,748.00 per capita
#4 Iceland $2,608.00 per capita
#5 Canada $2,535.00 per capita

From our last discussion on this topic. This would be why we have a rule about insipid idiots searching for previous topics before they post their inane, already-dealt-with drivel. Will Axis actually obey the rules? I'm guessing no.

[Surlethe]

And we also have public care in the United States for some individuals. Of course, the numbers have already spoken: a free market system is, for the average person, the superior choice.

Funny; the numbers say that in a free-market system like the American one, a seventh of the average person isn't covered for health care.

[weemadando]

But what about when they actually get treatment? I notice the article avoids that.

The average person is the one we're considering here.

And I'm guessing that the average person is going to visit the doctor at least once a year. Douche.

[Keevan_Colton]

So, they pay ON AVERAGE more than you would for private coverage.

So that state-managed health care becomes an overall waste.

Except that it does actually cover everyone and thus provides more for the money...gee...only in the land of Fuckwitia is a government expenditure that provides 40% or so more service for a tiny increase in cost "an overall waste"...even if it does result in an actual increase in cost compared to the current system which is unlikely.

But what about when they actually get treatment? I notice the article avoids that.

The average person is the one we're considering here. Since Canadian coverage is more expensive overall once taxes are taken into account, the American consumer actually has a bit of leeway (in theory) before his or her premium begins to get that much steeper than what a Canadian pays, even after consuming greater-than-normal quantities of health care.

Two words for you, deductable and co-pay...want to look them up?

In Australia there are probably more private practictioners in many medical trades than public ones. This ensures that there is a healthy free-market economy to encourage competition amongst those who would provide care, both public or private. Which means that no matter what part of the system you are covered by, you are still coming out ahead.

And we also have public care in the United States for some individuals. Of course, the numbers have already spoken: a free market system is, for the average person, the superior choice.

Of course, you must also remember that the smaller the size of the private sector, the less chance for innovation overall.

Then there's also the issue of pharmaseuticals, which I think is one of the most important issues overall. As I mentioned before, regulations are far less stringent in Europe, where some drugs are in approved use decades before they appear on shelves in the United States.

Some argue that European drugs are a benefit: they can be cheaper than their U.S. counterparts, and offer a better range of selection when other alternatives have failed. On the other hand, they also create a massive black hole of, "Well, I don't knows" when somebody reports a problem in the absence of the kinds of extensive tests to which the biomedical industries in the United States are put.

Implementing public healthcare will most likely increase pressure to draw down the willingness to endorse FDA conservatism, and opens the door to a deluge of drugs on the market with difficult-to-predict side effects.

The privatized system is the superior choice for those with more money which in the land of Fuckwitia where axis and the merry little libertarians live are the the only people who matter.

[Axis Kast]

Wow, everyone has to pay a little bit. How is this relevant?

See my reply to Weemadando.

So? This is irrelevant to my request for evidence.

Actually, a reduction in the number of hospital beds over time proves that there are holes in the system despite the huge outlays put forth on a yearly basis.

You’ve also conveniently ignored, I see, my even more important points about Canadian doctors reducing their time with patients significantly after the implementation of earnings limits, which relates directly to quality-of-care.

And this is bad ... how?

It’s a bad thing to make promises that will inevitably not be kept.

And when the MRI is critical?

This figure takes that into account. It clearly does not matter whether the patient is listed as “urgent-care” or otherwise; the typical individual who needs an MRI for whatever reason waits that amount of time.

Mammograms - important for early detection – average fourteen months between scheduling and receivership. In the United States, it is recommended that women undergo a mammogram yearly after the age of fifty.

Now, Axis Kast, explain to me this: just how is a system which covers everybody inferior to a system which misses people?

Because the Canadian system doesn’t cover everybody indefinitely: it covers them only to a point. The same is technically true in the United States, where those in need can usually obtain medical care through welfare channels.

[Axis Kast]

Funny.. Per capita expenditure on healthcare..

#1 United States $4,631.00 per capita
#2 Switzerland $3,222.00 per capita
#3 Germany $2,748.00 per capita
#4 Iceland $2,608.00 per capita
#5 Canada $2,535.00 per capita

From our last discussion on this topic. This would be why we have a rule about insipid idiots searching for previous topics before they post their inane, already-dealt-with drivel. Will Axis actually obey the rules? I'm guessing no.

Source? I expect that those numbers also have some context - such as clear determinations as to whether or not they include "voluntary" services purchased?

Two words for you, deductable and co-pay...want to look them up?

The deductible and co-pay are taken into account, moron.

[SirNitram]

Funny.. Per capita expenditure on healthcare..

#1 United States $4,631.00 per capita
#2 Switzerland $3,222.00 per capita
#3 Germany $2,748.00 per capita
#4 Iceland $2,608.00 per capita
#5 Canada $2,535.00 per capita

From our last discussion on this topic. This would be why we have a rule about insipid idiots searching for previous topics before they post their inane, already-dealt-with drivel. Will Axis actually obey the rules? I'm guessing no.

Source? I expect that those numbers also have some context - such as clear determinations as to whether or not they include "voluntary" services purchased?

That would be why you read previous threads on the topic, Axis. Because previous threads have dealt with this topic, but you seem to think you don't need to obey the posting rules(Specifically, number ten), as I've pointed out. I suggest you go obey them, or enjoy another trip to the HoS.

Frankly, we shouldn't have repeated socialized healthcare threads all with the same misrepresentations and lies repeated, but we do, so I'm going to invoke my Supermod status to cut down on them.

[weemadando]

Source? I expect that those numbers also have some context - such as clear determinations as to whether or not they include "voluntary" services purchased?

You really are a dickhead aren't you. I suppose by "voluntary" you mean things like visits to the A&E after a car-crash, or chemotherapy to treat a cureable cancer.

[Akhlut]

Where do you get off calling it kneejerk? She is an extreme leftist, who prefers universal healthcare to the current system, wants more government regulation/control over our lives (aka video game censorship), consistently votes for tax increases, etc.

No, Mao is an extreme leftist. Lenin is an extreme leftist. Karl Marx is an extreme leftist. Hillary is slightly to the left of center.

Plus, I can think of more than a few rightists who want more regulation and control over our lives.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Personally, I'd vote for her just because she's seen what the job entails, and not to put too fine a point on it, she's FEMALE.

I've long been a believer that we've had enough male presidents, it's time to let a woman have the helm.

Wow, that's great logic if I ever heard it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

A rebuttal to the points raised against her. She would only be defined as 'extreme leftist' in the American structure, which is tilting ever harder to the Right. If you beleive those points, they would certainly apply to you, wouldn't they?

That's the only definition which is relevent to this discussion. The rest of the first world won't be voting in any election she participates in.

[Ubiquitous]

Personally, I'd vote for her just because she's seen what the job entails, and not to put too fine a point on it, she's FEMALE.

I've long been a believer that we've had enough male presidents, it's time to let a woman have the helm.

Wow, that's great logic if I ever heard it.

Which is why the Republicans should put Condi up against her if she is nominated. Not to mention that Condi would make history as the first ethnic minority President as well.

[Surlethe]

Wow, everyone has to pay a little bit. How is this relevant?

See my reply to Weemadando.

So, a marginal increase in pay is not worth a large increase in healthcare coverage. Thank you for demonstrating moral bankruptcy.

So? This is irrelevant to my request for evidence.

Actually, a reduction in the number of hospital beds over time proves that there are holes in the system despite the huge outlays put forth on a yearly basis.

That doesn't make it relevant to my request, asshole.

You’ve also conveniently ignored, I see, my even more important points about Canadian doctors reducing their time with patients significantly after the implementation of earnings limits, which relates directly to quality-of-care.

Between 1972 and 1987, general practitioners reduced patient time by eleven percent. In 1977, when income limitations were introduced, the typical work year of a doctor declined by two and a half weeks. (Lemieux cited Gerar Belanger, “Les depenses de sante par rapport a l’economie du Quebec,” Le Medecin du Quebec, December 1981, p. 37)

This is still not relevant to my request, which specified evidence for your claimed lower quality care.

And this is bad ... how?

It’s a bad thing to make promises that will inevitably not be kept.

Actually, rationing allows the government to place the most important cases ahead of the less critical ones.

And when the MRI is critical?

This figure takes that into account. It clearly does not matter whether the patient is listed as “urgent-care” or otherwise; the typical individual who needs an MRI for whatever reason waits that amount of time.

Rephrased: "It clearly does not matter if the patient is not typical; every patient waits exactly 4 times the recommended period."

Mammograms - important for early detection – average fourteen months between scheduling and receivership. In the United States, it is recommended that women undergo a mammogram yearly after the age of fifty.

Source?

Now, Axis Kast, explain to me this: just how is a system which covers everybody inferior to a system which misses people?

Because the Canadian system doesn’t cover everybody indefinitely: it covers them only to a point. The same is technically true in the United States, where those in need can usually obtain medical care through welfare channels.[/quote]

I don't think I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, dumbass, because that red herring is so fucking obvious it's got to be intentional. You just dishonestly restated my "covers everybody" to "covers everybody indefinitely", and knocked down the damned strawman with gusto, you lying asshole.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Personally, I'd vote for her just because she's seen what the job entails, and not to put too fine a point on it, she's FEMALE.

I've long been a believer that we've had enough male presidents, it's time to let a woman have the helm.

Wow, that's great logic if I ever heard it.

Which is why the Republicans should put Condi up against her if she is nominated. Not to mention that Condi would make history as the first ethnic minority President as well.

By "great", I actually meant, "most imbecilic, arbitrary thing heard today, and I spend everyday interacting with average 19 year olds."

[Keevan_Colton]

Wow, that's great logic if I ever heard it.

Which is why the Republicans should put Condi up against her if she is nominated. Not to mention that Condi would make history as the first ethnic minority President as well.

By "great", I actually meant, "most imbecilic, arbitrary thing heard today, and I spend everyday interacting with average 19 year olds."

It has a motive/goal which is more than can be said for such gems as "because he has nice hair" or "well he looks presidental" have got going for them.