Schrodinger's Cat
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2010
- Messages
- 3,456
Uh, actually, look up mock in the dictionary. It doesn't just mean imitate. It can also mean:
attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.
Which is exactly what you did by saying that if he feels that government should handle this particular aspect of society, then it is because of "state worship." You don't have to worship the government in order to feel that one aspect of society would be better handled by them. It's a typical right wing talking point though. If anyone wants the government to handle anything, it's "state worship." It's an easy way to make fun of someone without actually making a point.
But you are right, I did mock you in return, which was wrong of me. And I do apologize. It's just that I actually have to spend every day seeing people suffer and die because of people like you who want to prevent a system which can help them, and it really upsets me. It also really bothers me that you just mock the patients I have seen lose everything who absolutely were responsible, educated people with money by saying they are in the situation they are in because of their own irresponsibility. It's an emotional issue for me, but you are right that I should not let that enter this debate. You have to understand that while it's easy for you to spout your ideology from behind your computer screen, I have to watch the people who die, or are ruined, as a result of it. There's a reason that every single major medical association, and most major/top hospitals in the United States, lobby in favor of universal healthcare.
You know that's not how it works with private insurance, right? That private insurance actually denies medical care that doctors say their patients need more than government insurance does. And competition doesn't really work, because all private insurances do this, so if you drop one insurance because it denies you for something and go with another, that other insurance may just deny you for something else.
And I still am really trying to figure our your argument in which you said that people and their friends used to be able to cover costs, but can't anymore because they compete with the government. I don't understand how I am competing with the government if I can't afford a health care service, or if I go completely broke in order to pay for that health care service.
Actually, our health care costs are much higher as a nation than nations with subsidized healthcare. Also, countries like South Korea, France, Germany, Israel and others are well known for innovation and medical advances. In fact, America isn't even one of the top countries for people to go to to get medical care. Countries with socialized medicine are the top "health care tourism" countries - i.e. places where people go internationally to get care.
You're right that I should not have spoken to you with derision. That is wrong. But it is annoying that every single thing you've said on this thread - from the effect of tort reform to the effect on innovation, has been completely wrong. It is just frustrating debating someone who is trying to argue from a position in which everything they say is factually incorrect.
Exactly. Although I firmly disagree with Neally's philosphy, at least they are being honest in that the position they are presenting will lead to more people dying and worse care for most people overall. They aren't pretending their system will help more people. They know it will not. They just still prefer it to the idea of government subsidizing of health care, disasters, etc.
First of all, why would subsized people be more likely to overconsume? Let's say I have a private insurance, and I have a five hundred dollar (or maybe less, maybe it's only $100) out of pocket maximum on physician visits. After I reach this amount, I will not have to pay anything out of pocket to see my physician. So essentially, all my MD visits would now be free after I've met my cap. Why would I be less likely than someone with Medicare - who still has a 20% co insurance on all their doctor visits - or someone with Medicaid who has say a $30 co pay - no matter how much they spend (as there is no out of pocket maximum with Medicare and many Medicaid programs), when my doctor visits with my non subsidized health insurance are completely free?
Also, it's not like hospitals are going to give you unnecessary chemotherapy or surgeries (unless the health care provider themselves is fraudulent). The only thing people can really overconsume is routine office visits and some diagnostic testing. At the end of the day, that's a pretty unsubstantial amount of money. Most money in health care is spent when people are catastrophically ill. Preventative medicine is really comparatively cheap. It's end of life/chronic care that really adds up and makes up the bulk of health care costs. If anything, the person who overconsumes simple office visits is more likely to have an actual health care problem caught early. The earlier something is caught, the more likely the problem can be treated more quickly, and more cheaply. So someone who goes to the doctor more than they need to may end up saving the system a lot of money in the long run.
Also, it should be noted that if you look at this year's US News & World Report's listing of America's best hospitals, both in terms of overall care and for medical specialties, every single one on the list is non profit and government subsidized.
Last edited:
