• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Wicked Witch of the West and Obamacare

Architect said:
Okay, let's look at two competing arguments here:

1. UHC is more cost effective at providing medical treatment to the population as a whole, with outcomes at least comparable to the world's leading private system.

2. THe problem with the world's leading private system is too much regulation, get the government out of it an it will be fine.

Now (1) has been proven empirically time and time again by the likes of Canada, the UK, and much of mainland Europe. (2), on the other hand, is unproven.

Against that background, I have to ask what logic would lead anyone to hang their hat on (2) as the way forward?
Click to expand...

The superior principle of competition and free enterprise, which the US basically enjoyed till around 1965 when the government got into it and costs soared.
 
This US sounds like a terrible place. Almost a third world country. "Too many deadbeats"? How absolutely appalling. And there was me thinking it was an absolute paradise, as presented by many of the people who live there.

Well, we live and learn.

Rolfe.
 
Robert Prey said:
The superior principle of competition and free enterprise, which the US basically enjoyed till around 1965 when the government got into it and costs soared.
Click to expand...

And do you have firm staistical evidence to support this proposition?
 
Because I don't have a uterus I should be able to opt out of having any of my insurance money go to women's reproductive health and pregnancy care? How would you accomplish this without separate insurance companies for men and women? Can women opt out of paying for any penis cancer research?
 
At least after sushi, you have had -something-.... :)
As opposed to RP's wanderings.
 
Biscuit said:
Because I don't have a uterus I should be able to opt out of having any of my insurance money go to women's reproductive health and pregnancy care? How would you accomplish this without separate insurance companies for men and women? Can women opt out of paying for any penis cancer research?
Click to expand...

Not only that, would women object to paying for the four meds I have to take for prostate problems?

And again, men do participate in pregnancy.
 
This idea of individual people "paying" for different things is bananas. From where I'm sitting, everyone contributes to the funding of the system as a whole, so that it's there if and when they need it. "Your" money doesn't pay for any particular part of it.

You might as well say you pay your taxes for the upkeep of the road system, and then start complaining because you're paying for a road you never plan on travelling down.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
This US sounds like a terrible place. Almost a third world country. "Too many deadbeats"? How absolutely appalling. And there was me thinking it was an absolute paradise, as presented by many of the people who live there.

Well, we live and learn.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well you have to visit the other side of the tracks. But you better not go alone.
 
Oh, I've been there. You're spinning a line. I don't believe it's any poorer than where I live.

Rolfe.
 
Architect said:
Do you have statistical data to back up your claim or is it unsubstantiated hyperbole?
Click to expand...


A hundred fifty or so years of general prosperity in the US. Not so much since 1965. Prior to that, most families had only one bread winner. After that, you had to have one breadwinner to live, the other to pay for the taxes and the daycare.
 
Robert Prey said:
A hundred fifty or so years of general prosperity in the US. Not so much since 1965. Prior to that, most families had only one bread winner. After that, you had to have one breadwinner to live, the other to pay for the taxes and the daycare.
Click to expand...

Utter bull ****.
 
Robert Prey said:
Architect said:
Do you have statistical data to back up your claim or is it unsubstantiated hyperbole?
Click to expand...

A hundred fifty or so years of general prosperity in the US. Not so much since 1965. Prior to that, most families had only one bread winner. After that, you had to have one breadwinner to live, the other to pay for the taxes and the daycare.
Click to expand...
Err, Architect asked for statistical data, not opinion.
 
Robert Prey said:
A hundred fifty or so years of general prosperity in the US. Not so much since 1965. Prior to that, most families had only one bread winner. After that, you had to have one breadwinner to live, the other to pay for the taxes and the daycare.
Click to expand...

Do you have statistical data to support your argument or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom