-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
My coworker just said he hates Americans
- Thread starter commish
- Start date
- Status
ManDudeChild
Member
Alucard said:
Edit your post man
. Some people still could fall for it :lolEh, I wasn't joking about the whole penis envy thing, so I'm sure some Americans and non-Americans who realize what moral attacks are found my posts at least a bit amusing (perhaps the earlier ones more so than the later ones).Socreges said:It IS fun, yes. But you have to put in some humour besides strictly imitating Cooter or whoever, so the rest of us can have a laugh.
Yeah, I've got that funny/confrontational thing down. I'm still working on the funny/cocky, though. Congrats on modship.Alucard said:
You actually think people are critical of America because of jealousy?NLB2 said:
No, I think you've got some work to do yet! Specifically, when people are baited, don't continue along the same level of absurdity. Push it up a notch and see how far you can go before they begin to suspect anything. Because for people that don't know you, much of what you said wasn't any different than what we hear on a daily basis from our unfortunate friends on the right. If I didn't know you were more liberal than this, I'd have thought you were completely serious.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Tabris said:
Same goes, I haven't read enough of NLB2's real posts to figure out he was joking. I just had him marked as a cock, consider me fooled.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
Glad to see that intolerance and preconceptions aren't strictly American traits. Go World!
NLB2 said:
Wait it's ok for this guy t over generalize people who hate America. Also where were you people a couple of months ago when all the red necks in the coutry where screaming bloody murder about them "cheese eating surrender monkeys," ie the French. Hypocracy is a bitch ain't it.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
If only the US military had been legislated out of existence after the Revolutionary War, the world would be such a better place. Think about all of the immoral wars that would never have happened. Think of all the governments left in the wake of our bloodletting: the Southern Confederacy, the Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, North Korea, Qaddafi, Noriega, the North Vietnamese, Saddam, Milosevic, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. If not for the scourge of the American military, they would have prospered, unmolested by our bombs and guns.
Who can deny that without American interference, a global utopia would have been born, sheperded by these exemplars of wise moral leadership. Instead we live the dreary life of the citizen of the prosperous, modern Western democracy. Woe unto us, indeed.
This thread should be permanently archived so that future generations are exposed to our wisdom.
Who can deny that without American interference, a global utopia would have been born, sheperded by these exemplars of wise moral leadership. Instead we live the dreary life of the citizen of the prosperous, modern Western democracy. Woe unto us, indeed.
This thread should be permanently archived so that future generations are exposed to our wisdom.
Why does it have to be all or none? Can't you distinguish between fighting a military power that invaded countries (killing millions) and invading an apparently dormant country for suspicious reasons?Guileless said:
America, in the 20th century, did an unprecedented amount of good as a superpower. No one will argue that. But such positives don't mean that we shouldn't criticize the US for where they've obviously gone wrong. At the moment, people are not willing to forgive recent conceivable grievances because of what was done decades ago.
All those positives America has done, they had to be pushed into doing it.
I don't think there's a single "positive" thing America has done that they were the first in. They only get involved if there personal interests (economic or imperialistic) or security (pearl harbour, september 11th) are threatened.
There's always an ulterior motive.
I don't think there's a single "positive" thing America has done that they were the first in. They only get involved if there personal interests (economic or imperialistic) or security (pearl harbour, september 11th) are threatened.
There's always an ulterior motive.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
You mean like a country that invaded and attacked Iran, Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia? That caused an estimated 1 million deaths in the Iran-Iraq War alone? Now what is it that you wanted me to distinguish?Socreges said:
Really? Countries act out of self-interst? I assume from your spelling you are from the UK. What was America's dirty, nasty self-interest in sacrificing thousands of its people to defend your home? Did Hitler ever directly threaten the security of the US? Do you wish America had not acted in its dirty, selfish self-interest to defeat the Nazis?
Please enlighten us with the ulterior motive for bombing Serbia. Please. I really want to hear this. Don't abandon the thread or resort to vague insults and Fox News references. I want to hear the ulterior motive. Pretty please?
Even Susan Sontag (God rest her soul) eventually turned on the North Vietnamese. Perhaps you should research how things went under their governance. Hint: people risked their lives to flee the country on rafts.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Guileless said:
I thought a lot of people in this thread stated that they began to dislike America OR Aspects of America about the time George Bush started fucking up the world. I don't think many are going to fault America for getting into WW2.
I can just quote myself, if that helps:Guileless said:
The operative word there being "dormant". As in, not active. Why do you think Bush and co tried to sell the world on Saddam being an imminent threat? Because that's required. Only they turned out to be wrong (if they didn't already know all along) and changed the story to some fucking humanitarian mission for the sake of wonderful "freedom".
That doesn't address what I said.Guileless said:
Dude such a bad example.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html
Iraq never attacked Saudi Arabia.
And it attacked Iran with America's *support*.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Iraq invaded countries (killing millions)--"apparently dormant" or not. What do you want me to distinguish? A country fresh off invading countries (killing millions) from a country that hasn't invaded countries (killing millions) in a few years? Do you want a statute of limitations on governments that are invading countries (killing millions)? Why did Saddam stop invading countries (killing millions)? Did he have a change of heart?
What did you want me to address? I assume you think it was inappropriate to mention North Vietnam, but I can only guess because you did not elaborate.
You didn't "say" anything; you asked two questions: "was it appropriate to mention Vietnam?" and "how did that go?" I replied that it went very bad because the North Vietnamese won the war and ruined the country with their policies, so much so that prominent leftist Susan Sontag came out against them despite her ardent support for their cause during the war.
What did you want me to address? I assume you think it was inappropriate to mention North Vietnam, but I can only guess because you did not elaborate.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Dude you are mistaken. Iraq fired lots of SCUD missiles at Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War.Azih said:
The Iran-Iraq war was caused by border disputes, Iranian-supported assisination attempts on Baathist officials, and sectarian tension. It would have happened regardless of what Jimmy Carter thought about it. At the time, Saddam was wrongly viewed as the lesser of two evils. This view was reasonable at the time.
Man these threads are so predictable. The excuses and qualifications for Saddam's mass murder just pour out of the electronic ether shortly after I post.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Does anyone think NBL2 has been outside his own country?
Do you think he would dare talk to anyone like that?
Hey Mr Japanese business man you have geopolitical penis envy, America fuck yeah.
P.S your joke got old after two posts.
How much you paying for your education? I bet its absurdly over priced.
Do you think he would dare talk to anyone like that?
Hey Mr Japanese business man you have geopolitical penis envy, America fuck yeah.
P.S your joke got old after two posts.
How much you paying for your education? I bet its absurdly over priced.
Fresh Prince
Banned
I don't know what to make of this thread:
1) Is NBL2 joking?
2) Is he half joking?
3) Is he serious?
I think it's 2)
1) Is NBL2 joking?
2) Is he half joking?
3) Is he serious?
I think it's 2)
I'll translate this into what it means in our discussion - "Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah."Do The Mario said:
First of all, I've never heard a Japanese person say something like "America is evil! Look at all the babies in Iraq that have died!" Second of all, there are some countries the United States isn't going to fuck with because they have a close amount of power to the United States. Japan is one of them. Perhaps this is why you don't here Japanese people attacking the US on a moral basis.Do The Mario said:
Though this isn't really relevent to the duscussion, I pay about eight thousand a year after scholarships.Do The Mario said:
Tabris said:
So what?
Dammit I was IN Saudi Arabia at the time the SCUD missiles were being lobbed in. I KNOW this. Iraq was attacking (pathetically) every country that was allied against it and especially those that had American troops in it. That's what happens in a WAR. If Saudi hadn't had American troops then Saddam wouldn't have attacked (of course American troops were there because of an American lie). So sure I'll give you that he attacked Saudi Arabia, but only after the place had declared war on him and become the base for his strongest enemy. To spin it as one of Saddam's evils is god damn stupid as it isn't one, there are much better examples to give, and brings up one of America's less then shining moments of diplomacy to boot.Guileless said:
Like I said that was a BAD example.
My point was that Iraq was the aggressor (it started the war) and was supported by America. Is this in dispute? No.
Straw man. No one's ever done that. Well except maybe Che and he doesn't count.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Iraq shot missiles into Saudi terrirtory and people died as a result. How is shooting missiles into a country not an attack on it?Azih said:
What is this "American lie" that put troops in Saudi Arabia? I thought it had something to do with the invasion of Kuwait six months earlier and the war that followed to remove Iraq from Kuwait involving those same troops. Where does the lie come in?
And what's your point here anyway? How is my argument undermined if you remove Saudi Arabia from the list?
Again, what's your point in saying this? How does this undermine my argument? Iraq would have invaded Iran regardless of US support. It's not like Saddam was waiting expectantly by the phone for Jimmy Carter's order to wage a ruinous, decade-long war.
Drinky Crow said:
What I elaborated upon in my initial post were not my "ethical objections" to socialized medicine, but rather were some of my "reasons for 'hating' on socialized health care" (which is the quote of Azih's that I responded to when I said that "I had articulated my reasons for disagreeing with it, including above"; see my post); the "ethical dilemmas" I alluded to in my initial post were not made explicit beyond the broad concept of "the interests of the payor" conflicting with "the interests of the patient" (though it is this very concept which much of my ethical disagreement stems from). I will explain my reasoning (re: ethical objections) more thoroughly as I respond to Azih...
Your analogy, though somewhat relevant, is flawed in that the institution of government is necessary for the maintenance of a civilized society; nationalized provision of health care is not, no matter how some would paint it. Further, allow me to just say that "forewarned is forearmed" in this instance; that is, if we know beforehand that there will be vast exploitation and waste, and that absolutely nothing will be done to curtail such abuses (no action of my government in the last few decades in any sphere would cause me to believe otherwise, to be quite frank), then we would be remiss in not seeking an equally viable alternative that minimized this potential exploitation, avoided the other pitfalls of socialized systems (discussed below), and gelled better with our prevailing sentiment in the social and economic spheres, would we not? One should not expand the dominion of government willy-nilly, nor blithely cast aside the potential for abuse should it be shown that these cases would, in large part, work against the solvency and ultimately the efficacy of the system, undermining one of its very purposes (viz. to lower costs).
Azih:
First, allow me to state that if you're going to call me out for "hating on" something, you had better be sure that you've taken the time to read what I've written (no, I don't care how long it is-- don't comment, then
). First, you stated this:Azih said:
Despite the fact that in my post, I first stated the following:
Loki said:
Now, in light of this fact, it can reasonably be assumed that either A) you can't read, or B) you feel that any sort of ideological disagreement with socialized systems, however well-founded, is bullshit, since you feel socialized medicine to be the "best of all possible worlds". The only other option, "C", is that this was one of the lines you skipped over as you were "skimming" my post (since apparently it's not important enough to read fully, yet despite this you saw nothing improper about taking me to task on it-- something to think about for the future
), and you therefore didn't realize that I wasn't "hating on" socialized medicine. Since I know very well that you can read, we're left with "B" and "C". If "B", then you're basically an totalitarian ideologue who can brook no dissent when it comes to this issue; while that's your prerogative, please realize that it's incredibly closed-minded and ultimately counterproductive in terms of advancing the discourse. To be unable to admit that there are any flaws in your system is, to be frank, silly-- just as it would be silly for an American to sit around and say that there's nothing wrong with ours. Serious issues plague both systems. Now, you may very well believe that socialized medicine is the best possible system, all things considered (just as I feel that there is a different system that would be best); this, too, is your prerogative, and I would be perfectly willing to listen to your reasoning, just as I hope you're willing to listen to mine. Ultimately, however, it comes down to something of a balancing act, since injustices and inefficiencies inhere in all possible systems (socialized, managed care, free market etc.)-- what we should attempt to do, insofar as possible, is to minimize these injustices and inefficiencies rather than just shift them to different sectors or allow them to interfere with the provision of high quality medical services.
If "C" (that is, you didn't read the line of mine that I quoted), then just say so and we'll leave it at that. I'm not looking to bicker.
Now, as for your (and Doug's) queries re: ethical issues:
First off, let me make it clear that the ethical issues I am referring to largely stem from the third-party payor system in general as opposed to socialized medicine in particular. The current "managed care" paradigm in the US forces people into many of these same predicaments-- issues which we see play out before us every day. Be the payor a private insurance company concerned with minimizing costs and maximizing profits, or a government entity concerned with staying under budget (rather than making a profit), it is an inevitability that the interests of the patient and the interests of this third-party will conflict at times, and this conflict will and does lead to constraints on care. I can dredge up literally hundreds of articles from Canadian and European periodicals (note: from their own country's publications, not from American publications looking to slight socialized medicine) regarding these issues and how they play themselves out-- often with tragic results-- in these nations daily. It's commonly called "rationing", and occurs in every socialized system in the world, some more than others (which is dependent upon various factors: tax base/rates, age/health of the population etc.).
This even happens, to a much more limited extent, in the United States. Surely some of you have heard horror stories of someone under an insurance plan for many years, and then that insurance plan reneged on their obligation to pay for some expensive therapy/drug regimen (say, chemotherapy, or a transplant, or a schedule of AIDS medication etc.). I know I've heard of these things occurring in the US, and I've heard of it occurring much more frequently in countries other than the US. This is not to say that such rationing is "prevalent" in these nations (i.e., that it occurs in a majority of cases), but it is without question more prevalent in socialized nations than it is here in the states.
The simple fact of the matter is this: to the extent that third parties (again, be it gov't or insurance companies) are involved in the health care process, in any system, so will rationing be proportional to the level of their involvement. Make no mistake about it, this is an ethical dilemma, and it was unprecedented in history prior to the socialization of medicine in Russia in the early 20th century (and it continues in socialized systems today, though not with the same horrible results, obviously; it also occurs in the US to a more limited, yet perceivable, extent, as noted). The physician-patient relationship was sacrosanct, and for good reason; this ensured the highest quality care with a minimum of inducements to unethical behavior.
For example, nowadays an HMO exec may say to their salaried physicians: "see 700 patients this month or we'll withhold a percentage of your pay"-- never mind the fact that this then causes the physician to rush through visits and not take the proper time with each patient (forget bout developing any sort of rapport with them), leading to both potentially worse health outcomes as well as patient dissatisfaction with the medical system, which is increasingly common; another example would be an insurance company telling a private practice physician that he may only prescribe drugs on their company's formulary to members of their plan if he wants to get reimbursed for the visit. This often leaves physicians up againt a wall, since they realize that their patients will not be able to afford the drug that their expertise deems necessary and so they'll often settle for a less than ideal substitute due to the whims and interests of the payor as opposed to the patient, who would clearly want the most effective drug available for their particular situation. Or perhaps a doctor feels an imaging test is necessary, but has to wrangle with the insurance company to get it covered (physicians spend an inordinate amount of time that should be spent on patient care and continuing education on the phone with HS grad insurance reps who read prompts from a computer screen making sure the doctor covered all the insurance-mandated bases while he was practicing medicine-- is this not ridiculous in and of itself?); speak to any physician in the nation and they'll relate to you similar stories-- I'm not making this stuff up. There are literally dozens of such examples I could cite, but this should suffice to show how such things play themselves out in the real world.
The interests of the patient should, ideally, be preeminent; they currently are not, however, in far too many instances. It is these sorts of situations that I vehemently disagree with and would try to minimize as far as possible. And believe it or not, the only way you can ameliorate this situation to any appreciable extent is to remove third parties from the system as far as possible-- to marginalize them except for "catastrophic" incidents which are beyond one's ability to pay-- and to extricate providers from the constraints imposed by these third parties; not to enlarge their sphere of involvement, as this would only exacerbate the problem. It's not a coincidence that self-reported patient satisfaction with medical care in the United States was at an all-time high prior to the insurance companies and managed care plans making their inroads, and has been dipping ever since. Catastrophic coverage was the dominant paradigm during that era as well, also not coincidentally. Note also that when I speak of "catastrophic incidents", I am not using the phrase as commonly conceived, but rather referring to costs that go beyond one's reasonable ability to pay as defined by income bracket (see my "plan" linked to below for elaboration).
The following commentaries do a good job of further elucidating these ethical issues:
Have doctors forsaken their ethics?
An interesting psychological/metaphorical take on the situation
A general look at socialized control
What is lost in all this discussion is that these ethical issues affect both patients and providers. Our own family doctor told my father of his dismay when, after fighting with the insurance company for several days, they refused to permit him to get surgery when he tore his rotator cuff (not severely, but it was, and still is, torn). They said to first get physical therapy, despite the fact that this would take much longer and might perhaps be of negligible benefit; further, he could reinjure it at any point due to the demands of his job. So he went for therapy, and it helped. Somewhere along the line while compensating for the first injury, he slightly tore his OTHER rotator cuff, and now has limited range of movement with both arms (can't lift them a certain way above shoulder-level), even with months of physical therapy. Our doctor was quite torn up (no pun intended) over it, and you could tell that it weighed on his mind. Why should physicians-- people who desire to see their patients made whole again-- have to suffer these situations constantly? The doctor knows what's best for the patient, yet based on the reticence of the proxy to pay for it he may not be able to implement the desired remedies. The insurance company (or other third party)-- a faceless, disembodied entity-- suffers no ill effects from such denial of necessary care; physicians, the ones who've actually cared for, developed a rapport with, stood by, and championed the interests of their patients over the years, do suffer ill effects, and it is draining. Go talk to any doctor and he'll tell you these same things.
Some Canada-specific critique (and some more discussion of the ethical/financial dilemmas inherent in these systems) is discussed by a Canadian think-tank here:
Top 10 myths about Canadian Medicare
My point in posting the above is not to get into some protracted palaver about this-or-that point of fact. It is simply to show you that your system is not perfect; since it is not perfect, I am well within my rights to criticize it, just as I criticize the American system. I can cite literally hundreds of articles and analyses from Canadian periodicals and medical journals lamenting these very same issues within the Canadian system; ditto for European nations. But my aim in posting is not to bombard you with information that is readily available to anyone who's interested (indeed, if you truly have never been exposed to the problems with socialized systems, then it tells me that you haven't at all looked at the literature and reports from people in your own country), but rather simply point out that I do not feel that a socialized system is perfect, nor do I believe it to be the best possible system (i.e., one which minimizes the ethical and financial concerns noted). This is all I said, yet you're acting as if I lambasted socialized medicine to the exclusion of the American system; this is not so-- I've stated my distaste for both systems, yet obviously this wasn't enough for you. You obviously cannot handle any sort of criticism of socialized systems, no matter how well-supported that criticism is; this, I cannot agree with.
Now, the ethical issues I have with socialized systems do not solely revolve around patient-side issues, nor around the physician-patient relationship (though these two concerns are paramount). It also has to do with the fact that I find it unethical that physicians (or anyone, at any time) are not paid via the traditional customer-provider interaction that holds in every other sphere (i.e., "fee for service"). Now, to delve into the basis for my beliefs in this area (i.e., how compensation, bartering, and even the concept of "work" is related to the ethics and, indeed, the very constitution of civilized society) would take quite a long time-- time that I don't have (believe it or not
). Suffice it to say that I have never heard a single cogent philosophical argument as to why we should set one class of people apart (physicians and health care workers) and remove them from traditional social economic interaction. The only thing which could support this-- and this is what is commonly proffered-- is the belief that the "greater good" outweighs the economic injustice inflicted upon this relatively small segment of society (i.e., providers). And let us be clear that there is economic injustice being perpetrated via price controls in socialized systems. Canada happens to have the most adequate compensation for health care workers, with physicians typically earning $85-95K USD (specialists such as neurosurgeons earn ~$150-180K USD), and this is to its credit (even though it, too, is wholly inadequate imo). From there, compensation declines when one looks at the European nations; the typical physician income among socialized nations ranges (in $USD) from $55K to ~$90K (Canada). In France, nearly a third of the neurosurgeons in the country went on strike a few years back because postal workers were earning as much as they were (I'm not making this up). Think about that for a moment and tell me whether you'd call that "just", or "fair". As an American, I have strong ingrained (yet examined) notions of capitalism and the idea that pay should reflect one's knowledge, expertise, and value (i.e., a meritocracy, which America has largely moved away from in favor of a "risk-reward" paradigm, but I digress). I cannot conceive of a cardiothoracic surgeon earning $160K when my cousin, a man with a two-year MBA and no other obligations after he comes home each day at 5:30, makes $190K at age 29. It's just not something I agree with philosophically, and nothing will ever change that; nothing you can toss out, like cutting the costs of medical education, limiting liability etc. will change the fact that the cost of living and wage scale in the US is entirely different from that in other nations, and since we're not going to change our entire society (say, by flattening out the income scale from the top down, or by drastically lowering the cost of living and raising a family etc.), I cannot in good faith get behind an initiative which will deprive one segment of society (indeed, possibly the most deserving sector based on expertise, the rigors of the job/training, and dedication) from the fruits of their labor in the same fashion as holds for every other professional in the country.
This, I cannot agree with philosophically. Realize also that though I myself have invoked "greater good" arguments in the past as regards social improvement, the difference is that in this instance I honestly do not feel, after having examined all the pertinent issues, that we cannot achieve that same measure of good through less stringent and drastic measures than by implementing a socialized system. Anyone who thinks that I'm arguing for the status quo here is sorely mistaken-- I have as many issues with the current American system as I do with socialized medicine (some are similar, such as the proxy-payor system which creates ethical dilemmas for providers and detaches patients from the costs of medical care, thus spurring overconsumption, and some of which is unique to the American system, such as certain access to care issues, e.g., the uninsured; our system is also woefully inefficient in terms of bureaucracy, as it's a haphazard melange of socialism, privatized insurance, and fee for service). The good of socialized systems lies in their inherent humanity, which leads to universal access (which is certainly something I respect, and which would obtain under my "best possible" system); the good of our system lies in its greater conformity to human nature and the nature of civilized societies, and the fact that our semi-privatized system allows money to flow into the system, leading to more frequent medical advancements in both technology and drugs.
As with so many things in life, I feel that the best possible solution lies somewhere in between these two systems, in attempting to retain the best qualities of each while eliminating, inasmuch as possible, their respective deficiencies; I don't see why I should be derided for at least honestly seeking such a system given the issues discussed herein (and the troubling issues that are quite visible in our own system as well) as well as the fact that there is no such discussion of possible alternative systems taking place on the national stage beyond the commonly discussed socialized medicine, free market medicine, or the continuance of our managed care paradigm (all of which have issues, as I've shown). Why should Americans not seek a system that is more in keeping with our capitalistic, meritocratic ethos while emulating the best qualities of socialized care and preserving the best qualities of our current system? Why should we not seek a system where we can balance our humanity with economic reality?
I feel that it is a discussion whose time has come, yet such honest searching gets short shrift in the media and amongst our political leaders. And just so you know, the only reason that I speak out against socialized medicine explicitly more than I do our current system as of late (though I have spoken out against both quite consistently over the years), it's because in the past year or so the proponents of socialized medicine have been much more aggressive in their clamoring for it, and interject discussion of health care into any conversation (witness this thread, for instance, which was not explicitly concerned with health care; invariably, someone has to beat the drum for socialism as though it's a panacea). If someone walked into every thread extolling the virtues of American medicine (and yes, such virtues exist) and mocking socialized medicine, I'd just as soon take them to taask for their myopia, and their inability (or unwillingness) to see the shortcomings of our system, which are myriad. But that never happens; I attribute this to both the general political makeup of the board (which leans somewhat left; no, I won't take a poll to corroborate this-- I think we can agree on this
) as well as the fact that many people hail from Canada/Europe and have been raised under socialized systems their entire lives; such conditions lead to a lack of scrutiny until one experiences the deficiencies of the system for oneself (and given that the demographics of the board skew young, we're likely relatively healthy), or until one has taken an honest look at the various issues-- both financial and philosophical-- that are intimately tied up with these things; to this end, my discussion herein has been but a primer. Anyone who cares to examine these things more thoroughly is encouraged to do so, as I believe a better way is possible.Note that it is not my intention to label anyone, or deride anyone for their beliefs. All I stated is my disagreement with a system, not a person-- not you, Doug, or anyone else. I believe that all decent people largely desire the same ends-- we just disagree on how to get there based on our own knowledge, experiences, and thought processes; there's nothing wrong with this.
Note also that I have entirely avoided a discussion of the financial issues with socialized medicine, many of which are beginning to manifest themselves in Canada and Europe (witness your nation's recent squabbles over whether to increase funding to your health care plan, to say nothing of intra-province dilemmas regarding this). As the finite resources (money, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, drugs etc.) dwindle, the population ages and becomes increasingly demanding (demand cannot wane when people are detached from the costs of consumption), and health care consumes an ever-increasing percentage of the national budget (European nations are struggling with this issue-- particularly Sweden, iirc, though don't quote me), governments are rationing care to an even greater degree as well as attempting to introduce free market aspects to their systems with little success. Once people get on the government tit, it is extremely difficult to wean them off of it. Government expands-- it seldom contracts; this is yet another reason why no such radical shifts should be undertaken without a thorough examination of all the relevant issues, which I feel has not occurred. Hell, here in the US, people often become indignant over having to pay a $10 co-pay for a doctor visit. :lol And these are people who, by and large, can more than afford to pay for the entire visit out of pocket, and who spend > $100 per week on luxuries. Talk about "being detached from costs"...
The larger point that I'd like to drive home is that third party proxy systems, be they socialized or privatized via insurance companies, are broken and unethical; it is the third-party payor system itself that is irremediable, as its problems are inherent in the nature of the beast. Insurance companies seek to maximize profit, reimbursing physicians and hospitals literally pennies on the dollar, denying necessary care in many instances due to cost considerations while they reap record profits and their execs live like kings; government does not seek profit but rather looks to contain costs at any expense through rationing. Choose your poison. As an example, my family physician does not offer flu shots for "free" any longer unless the patient pays $10 or so, which covers his cost (not profit, "cost") for the shots. Apparently the insurance company was reimbursing him at less than cost for the shots, and expecting him to eat the difference; when you consider that his practice consists of over a thousand patients, it adds up. These sorts of things happen every day, and immense injustice is being done to providers of all sorts as a result of third parties who are seeking their share of profits off of services that they did not provide. How is this ethical? How is it proper? Do you think that any other professional would permit this to occur?
Next time you go to your accountant, try to tell him that you won't pay his expected fee, but that your "friend" will pay him 20-50% of that, and see how he reacts. There is a very good reason why such systems do not exist in any other sphere; the only thing that could mitigate such injustices (as well as the other injustices discussed) would be "the greater good"-- yet since I feel that that "greater good" can be had via a different (and overall better) route, I am under no obligation to sanction such behavior, and in fact will always speak out against it in the clearest possible terms. Don't like it? Tough noogies.
Fact: Rochester, Minnesota (population: ~20,000) has more MRI machines than all of Canada (population: ~30 million). Scheduling imaging tests (MRI, CT scans etc.) takes days here, not months as is frequently the case in Canada.
Fact: nearly 25% of Canadian physicians spend a significant portion of their year (say, 2-3 months) in the United States practicing medicine, since they have no incentive to see people for "free" after they have met their patient quota mandated by the province; this contributes to the dearth of physicians (primarily in primary care) in Canada at any given point in time.
Fact: nearly one-third (30%) of Canadians polled did not have regular access to a primary care physician, and felt that they had lacked care at some point within the past year when they felt they genuinely needed it (see above).
Again, I do not post these facts to demonize Canada or socialized medicine, but to point out that it quite clearly does have issues that would need to be addressed before we even consider implementing it here. Do you think an American is going to wait months for diagnostic tests, or half a year for a hip replacement or chemotherapy? Canadians are, by and large, a more temperate people than Americans, and this is laudable. Americans, however, want the best and they want it now; this is simply our sociocultural reality. Since that's unlikely to change (in fact, all signs in our culture at large point to it worsening), it would be foolhardy to jump into a system where rationing and substandard care is prevalent (or at least "more frequent" than it is here) without due consideration.
As an aside (if anyone's still reading
), I would just like to point out that referencing health indices (infant mortality, life expectancy etc.) for America versus other nations is entirely misleading for various reasons; further, I can just as easily cite statistics that put America far ahead of every other nation on various health-related dimensions. For instance:5 year survival rates - Colon Cancer
USA 60%
Germany 48%
France 45%
Denmark 38%
UK 36%
5 year survival rates - Breast Cancer
USA 82%
Germany 68%
France 72%
Denmark 69%
UK 63%
(source: BBC News )
For further discussion of why certain health statistics are misleading when speaking of the US, see my posts in this thread (notably post #70; my other posts therein speak to related issues as well). I will say no more on this topic other than to state once again that the commonly cited statistics are tied up in various social and systemic maladies that are seldom given an honest account when the raw numbers are invoked; towards that end, my post in the thread I linked to attempts to detail such thinking in a limited way and explain what some of these confounding variables are. While you're busy laughing at where the US ranks in life expectancy and infant mortality, consider as well:
Take note of these numbers; there are literally dozens more I could cite to support my case, but my name is not Mandark (hey bud, you got a cheap shot in on me, so now we're even
). People can do the leg work on their own if they so desire. I have nothing to prove to anybody when I state that I have thoroughly examined these issues both qualitatively and quantitatively from all possible angles, and these are the conclusions I have arrived at. Anybody who wishes to depict me as some sort of monster just because I don't fully buy into the socialized rhetoric is deluding themselves. My heart beats the same as yours, and I have the same exact concerns that you all have. If after reading all this you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that my thinking on these matters is lacking in some way, in terms of its scope or rigor, then so be it-- there's nothing I could say to convince you otherwise. Also please keep in mind that there are numerous other ethical issues that I could elaborate upon with regards to the concept of socialized systems (e.g., the fact that others will ultimately bear the responsibility/consequences for one's freely chosen actions such as smoking, obesity, drug use etc.; the fact that there can possibly be encroachments upon personal liberties in the name of cost containment, cf. this front-page thread; note that the particulars are insignificant, ultimately-- it's the fact that one has essentially ceded responsibility for payment for their own health to a third party that is at the heart of the matter). This is to say nothing of the financial issues of sustainability, upkeep of equipment and medical advancement etc. I could go on for days (oh yes, you know I could
), but I'll spare you. My only intention in making my initial post was to give a different perspective-- one that is never heard on this board (and almost as rarely in the public discourse, which has become increasingly polarized); for this, I am assailed. For this, I am implicitly portrayed as "inhumane" despite the fact that under my ideal system no person would be denied care based on an inability to pay, and despite the fact that my compassion and humanity is clearly evident from other posts in other threads (as well as in this one). For merely giving my own considered opinions, and giving people a different take on things that they might not have considered, I'm called a "hater" (i.e., that I'm "hating on socialized medicine). I hope that anyone who was entertaining such ideas prior to reading this post has been disabused of such farcical notions and can appreciate my ideas for what they are: the result of examination and reflection; not the insubstantial caricatures that exponents of socialized medicine would like to have you believe I must adhere to in order to not fully subscribe to the socialist weltanschauung. Obviously, people are free to disagree with my reasoning, but please do not A) tacitly assert that socialized systems have no problems, or B) that my opinions on these matters are not well-considered. You only make yourselves look like ideologues, quite honestly; I've never taken anyone to task on this forum for mere dissent expressed civilly and sustained by adequate reasoning. You should grant me that same respect.
I can respect and recognize the thought and subtlety present in your arguments even when I vehemently disagree with you; can you appreciate the same in mine? Or do I have to go all the way to "your" side and say that I support something I do not support (for good reason) in order to be afforded respect? I'm hoping it's the former...
Incidentally, I only make that last point (about respecting dissenting opinions) because of Azih's initial comments, which would lead one to believe that he either feels that socialized systems are perfect (in which case I could have no logical reason for opposing them) or believes that I'm not entitled to have arrived at a different conclusion than he did after examining the facts. Whatever the implication, it's just silly. People come to different conclusions in life, and that's all it comes down to. The most that we can ask of another is that they've considered divergent viewpoints honestly in arriving at their conclusions; to that end, I feel that this post stands as a testament to the fact that I have. Like I said, anyone who thinks I haven't is free to believe so-- no skin off my back.
Believe it or not (and I'm sure you'll all believe it
), I can say much more on these issues, as this has been but a cursory examination of many of the topics discussed despite the lengthiness of this post. And so I hope that we can leave it at this, because my aim in posting this was not to get involved in a drawn out parley, but rather to offer some substantiation for my own thoughts, as was requested. Whether you agree or not is ultimately irrelevant (though duly noted)-- all I wanted to illustrate was that there can be rational bases for disagreement with socialized systems, just as there are for disagreement with our system; I believe I've been entirely consistent and reasonable in this regard. I've only said these things to make people think a bit, nothing more or less. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, particularly not in all the details.Seriously-- don't quibble, just think on these things. I will not respond to any point-by-point dissection of this post (if that's even possible-- someone would have to be more of a masochist than I am
), so forget it. If I've made one person think about even one of these issues in a slightly different way, then it will have been worth it imo. Finally, for anyone whose eyes haven't put in for vacation time yet, you can see my full views on the "best possible system" (as well as related discussion on the reasons for our rising health care costs etc.) in this thread, starting at post #26 and fleshed out throughout the remainder of the thread, most notably post #37 and the latter half of post #79. If anyone is interested (which I doubt, but I'll just throw it out there), they can PM me and I'll send them further justification as to why I feel that such a plan as I've proposed is the best possible system (viz., how it would address the issues of the uninsured, rising costs, beleaguered providers, and would serve to largely realign the interests of the payor and the patient).
I realize that I'm going to get the usual ribbing about the length of this post (I started classes today, so I figured I'd make one last substantial post as a "send-off" of sorts before things get heavy
), and also the typically puerile mocking at Opa-Ages, where I will be lampooned as "mentally ill" for making a post of this length. In other words, ridiculed for caring. I can assure you that I don't do this for my own enjoyment in any sense of the word, though that's likely to fall on deaf ears among the less mature and dimmer minds among us. Oh well, c'est la vie, right? Again, I am not responding to any critique of this post, both because my aim wasn't debate but rather clarification (as requested) as well as the fact that I literally cannot type any more (I mean, look at this shit
). And yes, I'm well-aware of the fact that < 2 people (if that) will read this in its entirety. It's been real.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
loki, do you wear eyeglasses? cause i know someone who writes for that long in front of a PC monitor must be half blind or going blind. (i know i am)
all i'll say is that socialized medicine isnt the best option for THIS country but our current health care system of price gouging needs to be fixed. our labor force is far too large and far too important to be left to chance that it cant get sick or hurt.
all i'll say is that socialized medicine isnt the best option for THIS country but our current health care system of price gouging needs to be fixed. our labor force is far too large and far too important to be left to chance that it cant get sick or hurt.
Fifty:
Quite a while (several hours, I'd say), though I was splitting my time between writing it, watching the ball games on TNT, and trying to dig my car out of the snow, where it's been sitting buried under our "pile" since Saturday. My father and I tried to shovel/scrape the snow/ice off my side windows and thought we had enough off so that I could just step on the gas and escape the pile, but somehow neither of us thought about the fact that the sideview mirror was buried in the pile as well, and when I hit the gas I ripped my sideview mirror off, which I'm not very pleased about.
Now tomorrow after class, instead of relaxing and doing my reading, I'll have to go shovel the entirety of the car off and bring it to the shop.
Carlos:
You're absolutely correct-- such things must be addressed; I've tried to address them as honestly as I could in previous threads, some of which I linked to above. And yes, I wear glasses, but only for distance; I never wear them except for night driving if I'm in unfamiliar territory and need to read highway signs at a distance so as to not miss an exit etc.
Heh, nice synopsis. Better than what I wrote, at least.
Anyway, off to bed-- class at 9 AM and it's past 3:30 here.
Quite a while (several hours, I'd say), though I was splitting my time between writing it, watching the ball games on TNT, and trying to dig my car out of the snow, where it's been sitting buried under our "pile" since Saturday. My father and I tried to shovel/scrape the snow/ice off my side windows and thought we had enough off so that I could just step on the gas and escape the pile, but somehow neither of us thought about the fact that the sideview mirror was buried in the pile as well, and when I hit the gas I ripped my sideview mirror off, which I'm not very pleased about.
Now tomorrow after class, instead of relaxing and doing my reading, I'll have to go shovel the entirety of the car off and bring it to the shop.
Carlos:
You're absolutely correct-- such things must be addressed; I've tried to address them as honestly as I could in previous threads, some of which I linked to above.
And yes, I wear glasses, but only for distance; I never wear them except for night driving if I'm in unfamiliar territory and need to read highway signs at a distance so as to not miss an exit etc.etiolate said:
Heh, nice synopsis. Better than what I wrote, at least.
Anyway, off to bed-- class at 9 AM and it's past 3:30 here.
You listed off several supposedly wonderful things that America has done. Such as helping out (however late) in WWII, and invading Iraq - removing Saddam. My point was that one WAS admirable, since this was to stop a force that was in the process of taking over Europe and continuing to kill millions more, while the other (of recent and infamous fame) was not so. Now, what you're trying to do is justify this war by highlighting past abuses. FYI, the most recent war was over a decade ago and saw 2,000-5,000 Kuwaitis dead. Sure, that's awful. But you don't wage war on a country for what they did decades ago. You risk money, stability, and lives for what WILL be. And my point remains that this war wasn't necessary, regardless of what Iraq HAD done. Other measures could have certainly be taken to contain Iraq. But, I suspect, the Bush administration wasn't interested in them.Guileless said:
And just for the humour of it, since we're talking about the great things that America has done, and the bad things that Iraq has done (such as the war with Iran that killed enough to qualify your "millions"), did you know that:
"Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), allegedly also supplying weapons"
Isn't that terribly ironic! Why do we remove Saddam? Because he "killed millions [in the Iran-Iraq war]". So God bless the US for righting that wrong. Of course, they had SUPPORTED that wrong. What a fucking mess.
My "How did that go?" was pointing out that:"Think of all the governments left in the wake of our bloodletting...the North Vietnamese..." probably did not fit, just as one example. You skirted over that.Guileless said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
holy shit. this is the longest post i have ever seen on gaf.
edit: I don't think anybody's going to accidentally skip over Loki's post.
edit: I don't think anybody's going to accidentally skip over Loki's post.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Out of all of those opponents, only fighting Hitler was admirable? You won't even give me North Korea or Milosovic?
My point is that Saddam easily fits into the continuum of opponents of the American military. When you look at that list, you have to admit that it would be hard to come up with a worse group. Right?
I'm not talking about the relative necessity of wars. I'm talking about the broad similarities shared by the opponents of the American military.
As I've said a hundred times, supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War was, in retrospect, a mistake. Every country makes foreign policy mistakes. But everyone here is ignoring my point: the Iran-Iraq War would have gone on much as it did regardless of what the United States said or did about it.
I'm not sure what your point is. Should the US government have thrown up its hands and said, "Well Saddam we thought you weren't as bad as the Ayatollah back in 1982, so you invade Kuwait and move on through Saudi Arabia at your leisure. We can't stop you, people would call us hypocrites and delight in the irony."
Why do the North Vietnamese not fit? You still haven't said why. I can't respond until you make some sort of argument.
Tabris, don't forget to tell me about the ulterior motive for bombing Serbian forces in 1998.
I can answer many of your questions, Guileless.
Officially, it was to stop ethnic cleansing, but unofficially, crushing the Sebs was all about imposing the status quo, of maintaining stability in a region known to be a powder keg. They could afford to waste time and let Croatia and Bosnia being bled, but Kosovo was different and they couldn't allow it to be exterminated, let it become independent or have it swallowed by Albania, in fear it would awaken old rivalries with many neighbouring countries, including two NATO members by the name of Greece and Turkey, already at odds with each other.
It's like how the US insists to keep Iraq whole when the Shiites would probably like to be closer to their cousins in Iran and the Kurds would like nothing better than to have their own Kurdistan, much to the displeasure of Syria, Iran and, most importantly, staunch US ally Turkey. Keeping Iraq whole was a concern when the first Bush didn't finish the job in 1991 and it is still a concern now.
Ultimately, The Vietnam war was one of independence. After being colonized by the French and occupied by the Japanese, Vietnam may not have been a cohesive whole after WW2, but there was a strong nationalistic fervor and many wanted to be free of foreign influence. Among the different factions, you had the communists from the North being the strongest and with much public support. You may have had the South which wanted another way, but despite support from the French and then the might of the US military, it just wasn't enough. As often happens in civil wars, there are retributions for the losers. Even the Red Chinese tried to mess with Vietnam, after the American defeat, but that proved to be costly for China.
Vietnam mirrors the struggle in China which, after centuries of humiliation, chaos and Western colonialism, the communist forces came to symbolize the true nationalist movement in the country, a movement to drive out the Japanese and make sure Westerners don't return to exploit and divide the country again. That's mostly why they won against the forces of Chang kai Chek, even with direct support from the US.
Officially, it was to stop ethnic cleansing, but unofficially, crushing the Sebs was all about imposing the status quo, of maintaining stability in a region known to be a powder keg. They could afford to waste time and let Croatia and Bosnia being bled, but Kosovo was different and they couldn't allow it to be exterminated, let it become independent or have it swallowed by Albania, in fear it would awaken old rivalries with many neighbouring countries, including two NATO members by the name of Greece and Turkey, already at odds with each other.
It's like how the US insists to keep Iraq whole when the Shiites would probably like to be closer to their cousins in Iran and the Kurds would like nothing better than to have their own Kurdistan, much to the displeasure of Syria, Iran and, most importantly, staunch US ally Turkey. Keeping Iraq whole was a concern when the first Bush didn't finish the job in 1991 and it is still a concern now.
Ultimately, The Vietnam war was one of independence. After being colonized by the French and occupied by the Japanese, Vietnam may not have been a cohesive whole after WW2, but there was a strong nationalistic fervor and many wanted to be free of foreign influence. Among the different factions, you had the communists from the North being the strongest and with much public support. You may have had the South which wanted another way, but despite support from the French and then the might of the US military, it just wasn't enough. As often happens in civil wars, there are retributions for the losers. Even the Red Chinese tried to mess with Vietnam, after the American defeat, but that proved to be costly for China.
Vietnam mirrors the struggle in China which, after centuries of humiliation, chaos and Western colonialism, the communist forces came to symbolize the true nationalist movement in the country, a movement to drive out the Japanese and make sure Westerners don't return to exploit and divide the country again. That's mostly why they won against the forces of Chang kai Chek, even with direct support from the US.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
The Serbs weren't "crushed." They were bombed until they agreed to return to peace talks. Ensuring stability in the Balkans wasn't an "ulterior" motive, that was the main reason for doing it--to stop years of war and ethnic cleansing. I'm looking for something within the negative connotation of "ulterior."
A war needs to be sold to the public. If you're attacked by another country, it's pretty easy to do the selling, but most people don't respond well to geopolitical reasonings. I didn't hear any official emphasizing that the Balkans needed to remains stable, it was all about how the Kosovars were killed/driven off in large numbers, playing with the human drama to the max to get that public support
Of course, had the same thing happened to some backward country with no strategic value, there would have been no bombing at all. The war against Serbia had an ulterior motive because the main publicized reasoning for the war was, at best, merely a convenient cover.
Of course, had the same thing happened to some backward country with no strategic value, there would have been no bombing at all. The war against Serbia had an ulterior motive because the main publicized reasoning for the war was, at best, merely a convenient cover.
First, allow me to state that if you're going to call me out for "hating on" something, you had better be sure that you've taken the time to read what I've written (no, I don't care how long it is-- don't comment, then
Originally Posted by Azih:
Bah Loki you keep on hating on socialised healthcare but you never really articulate the reason why.
Despite the fact that in my post, I first stated the following:
Originally Posted by Loki:
Personally, I don't think that any of the three commonly proffered systems (socialized medicine, "managed care" such as in the US, or "free market" medicine) are "the best possible system" for various reasons, so don't take this post as a bash on socialized systems and an implicit endorsement of the US' policy, because it's not.
Now, in light of this fact, it can reasonably be assumed that either A) you can't read, or B) you feel that any sort of ideological disagreement with socialized systems, however well-founded, is bullshit, since you feel socialized medicine to be the "best of all possible worlds". The only other option, "C", is that this was one of the lines you skipped over as you were "skimming" my post (since apparently it's not important enough to read fully, yet despite this you saw nothing improper about taking me to task on it-- something to think about for the future ), and you therefore didn't realize that I wasn't "hating on" socialized medicine.
Since I know very well that you can read, we're left with "B" and "C". If "B", then you're basically an totalitarian ideologue who can brook no dissent when it comes to this issue;
All of this would have been unnecessary if you had noted my opening sentence of
Where I did acknowledge that I had made a mistake and you had articulated your reason why. In this case two seconds of care would have prevented a few dozen minutes of typing and mistaken impressions.
Well hey you can retract this statement now.
*cough* *ahem*
Azih said:
But I already did. Yesterday! You bickered! Upto this point everything you've said was already taken care of by two single line sentences in my post! Gragh!
And dammit I don't know what perception you have of my use of the verb 'hating' but I used it to mean 'see problems with'. So whatever the heck you *think* I meant, change it.
Only quibble I have with this is that the Canadian government doesn't 'renge' on obligations it just clearly specifies what procedures are covered and what aren't. This varies from province to province. Edit: I thinkt his has to do with your arguing against insurance driven healthcare while addressing government driven healthcare for some odd reason.
Of course prior to that you had the ethical dilemma of poor people dying without any health care at all (see Dickensian England). Pros and Cons.
As long as you don't consider 'no money no care' unethical.
In the real American world sure those are valid examples, I don't see why you generalise the actions of American HMOs to the rest of the world. Hell American HMOs frighten the heck out of non Americans (in the other developed nations). My experiences are markedly different (what with being in a different county with a different system entirely) and since my mother is a senior citizen and goes to the doctor regularly I have plenty of them.
An issue here in a lot of your points is that not only do you highlight the issues of socialised medicine (as you should) but you also generalise and apply the failings of American HMOs to them. The problems faced are to a large extenet *distinct* so don't take your 'this is how the real world works' and apply it to socialised healthcare. It's myopic, short sighted, and inaccurate. Edit: It pops up again and again it seems like. This confusion might stem from the fact that I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY you rail against HMO's when speaking about socialised healthcare. FOCUS.
First off, why are you linking to extreme right wing (fee.org, fcpp.org) commentaries and treating them like gospel? I have major issues with most everything that is said in the articles you linked but respoinding to them is frankly out of the scope of me responding to you. I could link you to a dozen studies and commentaries (from medical practioners no less) that are supportive of Canadian style health care just as easily, but it's all frankly distracting.
Oh I see, that's why you put up those links well that's prefectly reasonab.... OH WAIT! NO IT'S NOT. You know Loki the most frustrating thing about you isn't your length as much as it is that most of your length is made up of refuting statements that I NEVER MADE and hell NEVER THOUGHT and CERTAINLY NEVER WROTE DOWN. You just leap to half formed conclusions and prance about waving your hands in book length rants that end up NOT MEANING ANYTHING. Of course at least this time your misconceptions aren't the ENTIRE BASIS OF YOUR post as it has been in the past but this is still pretty damn bad.
*ahem*. I NEVER SAID IT WAS FREAKING PERFECT DAMN IT ALL TO HELL. To quote from the very post that this veritable deluge of words is supposed to be *RESPONDING TO*
Azih said:
Azih said:
Azih said:
Azih said:
Azih said:
Azih said:
Azih said:
Azih said:
Azih said:
and also
Azih said:
By the way
Azih said:
In addendum
Azih said:
*deep breath* Ok.. I'm calmer now.
No you gave reasons for your crticism of the Canadian socialist system and I didn't agree with them and gave reasons why. This is what we call a *discussion*. You read crap into my short posts that boggle my mind.
(DISCLAIMER: MUCH LIKE MY USE OF THE VERB HATING ON TO MEAN FIND PROBLEMS WITH, MY USE OF THE WORD 'CRAP' IS MERELY AS A SYNONYM FOR THE WORD 'STUFF'. THANK YOU).
Not in mine. That's a lot of money and it goes a very long way in Canada.
I think pretty much exclusively about the Canadian system. I don't care about the French one.
How about the idea that your cousin is vastly overpaid.
Your country has enough GDP to pay your physicians an extremely extremely generous salary in a public system. You'd just have to y'know decide to use your wealth to do so.
I never derided you. I disagreed with you and gave you reasons why. Your misconceptions about what I said (<Azih> Universal HealthCare is PERFECT!) led to your feeling deried which led to this rant. Now parts of your post are worthy of comment but the rest of it where you take me to task for THINGS I DIDN'T DO, aren't.
Part of my disagreement with you lies in your contention of financial untenebility of the Canadian system. Now note here that whenever you deride healthcare I think about its implementation in Canada. I have no knowledge of any other system. Frankly I don't think it's financially untenable nor do I believe there is anything ethically wrong with it. THAT is the basis of any discussion we can have.
I never thought anything different. You just thought I thought I did. Which was a misconception on your part.
Once again why oh why do you bring up examples of the problems with insurance companies as third party payer when you're talking against goverment as third party payer? There are problems in both systems but the problems are COMPLETELY DISTINCT. You can't bring up a problem with one when dicussing the other. It's useless detirus in your arguments. There's no commentary on government provided healthcare in that paragraph. It shouldn't be there.
How about public education?
Crazy thing is that you guys are rich enough to have minimal issues with crap like that. If only you chose to spend your wealth in that direction.
This is completely and absolutely false. Priority treatment is judged by need and this is determined by a physician.
Apparently nothing I can say could convince you otherwise either. But crazy thing is that I could spout literally dozens of numbers to support my side as well and you're well aware of that. What's the point of this paragraph then? I dunno.
You put out an arguemnt you'll get a challenge. To see it as being assailed is over sensitivity on your part.
'implicity'? It's all in your head.
I have no idea how compassionate and/or humanitarian you are Loki. I try not to make judgements of this sort as they're all besides the actual point, which is the arguments you put forth.
As I've said before, you're getting hurt over the verb for no good reason. Hating = nothing stronger than 'finding problems with'.
You don't know my thought processes. Please stop guessing. All you know is the arguments I put forth. That should be what you respond to.
Don't make me quote myself a dozen times again.
If all I need to do to achieve that is disagree with you then we're never going to have a discussion. Why did you get the idea that I didn't consider your ideas well-considered (after I went to the trouble of responding to your statements vis a vis the ethical and financial untenebility of Canadian healthcare, which is the only thing that I'm really interested in)
Well what the hell do you think this is?
Azih said:
THAT WAS MY LAST POST. Is my reasoning not adequte or am I not being freaking civil? WHAT
- Status