FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yes, and he vacationed in the riveria during that time. I'm not comfortable with other people picking up the tab for someones riveria vacation. Call me a callous backward Mississippian for that irrational belief.
Film Review: SICKO!
- Thread starter Fear&Loathing
- Start date
Yes, and he vacationed in the riveria during that time. I'm not comfortable with other people picking up the tab for someones riveria vacation. Call me a callous backward Mississippian for that irrational belief.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
If you're healthy enough to vacation in the riveria, you're probably healthy enough to get your ass back to work.
1) They didn't pay for his vacation. They paid his normal work salary, and he used it to pay for some R and R at the riviera.
2) If you haven't ever had cancer and chemotherapy, then your not in a position to say how much rest and recuperation a person might need before going back to work. Having known several people who had cancer and chemo, I think its entirely humane to give them three months off to rest up, relax, and recuperate, before getting back to the grind of work.
When you undergo chemo, let me know how you will feel going immediately back to work, right after the treatment is over.
2) If you haven't ever had cancer and chemotherapy, then your not in a position to say how much rest and recuperation a person might need before going back to work. Having known several people who had cancer and chemo, I think its entirely humane to give them three months off to rest up, relax, and recuperate, before getting back to the grind of work.
When you undergo chemo, let me know how you will feel going immediately back to work, right after the treatment is over.
Well, he posted those as well. It seems that even that isn't good enough. Hence my suggestion of blogspots and propaganda flicks as the only source this person would listen to.
Not the same. Single payer systems work much better with smaller populations.
However, it doesn't work as "fine" as you suggest or as Moore's flick suggests.
Not the same. Single payer systems work much better with smaller populations.
Why?
What's the cut-off, for population size, for when single payer "doesn't work", and why would that be?
France: 60 million people
Germany 80 million people.
Is there some magical cut off in population size where it doesn't work, and why would that be?
I said "much better in lower population" not "can't work" strawman-maker.
The larger the necessary bureaucracy the less efficient the system, the larger the population the larger the necessary bureaucracy to run the single-payer system.
I prefer regional or state-by-state systems lowering the amount of bureaucracy one will have to fight.
There seems to be some disconnect between the fact that systems of government are often no better than companies when it comes to bureaucratic hassle.
I have no problem working a more logical system where, for instance, machinery is not duplicated raising the cost. Nor do I object to subsidizing those who cannot pay, as we already do this at a far more expensive rate with insurance premiums without the logical cost-savings that can be won through a more logical system.
There is no need for every hospital to have expensive MRI systems that can work as well in a more centralized system based on population rather than just "we need one because they have one"...
The larger the necessary bureaucracy the less efficient the system, the larger the population the larger the necessary bureaucracy to run the single-payer system.
I prefer regional or state-by-state systems lowering the amount of bureaucracy one will have to fight.
There seems to be some disconnect between the fact that systems of government are often no better than companies when it comes to bureaucratic hassle.
I have no problem working a more logical system where, for instance, machinery is not duplicated raising the cost. Nor do I object to subsidizing those who cannot pay, as we already do this at a far more expensive rate with insurance premiums without the logical cost-savings that can be won through a more logical system.
There is no need for every hospital to have expensive MRI systems that can work as well in a more centralized system based on population rather than just "we need one because they have one"...
Single payer healthcare for 200 million people certainly costs more than for 80 million people.
As far as it being more inefficient, I see no evidence for that. Is there some magical cutoff, where is becomes inefficient? 100 million people? 150 million people? What is the evidence for this magical cutoff?
We already have universal healthcare for, what, 80 million people maybe?-- For old people, and children (mostly): medicare, CHP and medicaid. Those programs are far more efficient than the patchwork of private for-profit healthcare insurance programs. That's just a fact. The adminstrative overhead for medicare is in the 1 or 2% range, compared to the 20-30% range of adminstrative costs for for-profit HMOs
As far as it being more inefficient, I see no evidence for that. Is there some magical cutoff, where is becomes inefficient? 100 million people? 150 million people? What is the evidence for this magical cutoff?
We already have universal healthcare for, what, 80 million people maybe?-- For old people, and children (mostly): medicare, CHP and medicaid. Those programs are far more efficient than the patchwork of private for-profit healthcare insurance programs. That's just a fact. The adminstrative overhead for medicare is in the 1 or 2% range, compared to the 20-30% range of adminstrative costs for for-profit HMOs
It seems that you are arguing just to argue. Unless you believe a large central bureaucracy will run more efficiently than a smaller bureaucracy?... Really?
Also, the inordinate amount of trust we put into that central bureaucracy is simply unprecedented.
We have already seen what happens when programs begin to fail.... nothing.
SS is a mess and nobody has the balls to fix it. I don't want this to become the same. Regional systems could be fixed without rendering the entire system an untouchable debacle that never will be fixed.
Also, the inordinate amount of trust we put into that central bureaucracy is simply unprecedented.
We have already seen what happens when programs begin to fail.... nothing.
SS is a mess and nobody has the balls to fix it. I don't want this to become the same. Regional systems could be fixed without rendering the entire system an untouchable debacle that never will be fixed.
Unless you believe a large central bureaucracy will run more efficiently than a smaller bureaucracy?... Really?
Depends how you measure it. Is a bureacracy of ten people easier to manage? Yes. Is their any measurable difference in a buracracy that serves 80 million or 200 million people? That is your speculation. I've seen no evidence to support it. Again, it depends how you measure it.
Would the total amount of potential fraud and waste for a bureacracy that serves 200 million, higher than one that serves 80 million? Common sense would suggest that it probably could be.
On a per capita basis, is fraud and waste in a bureacracy serving 200 million versus one serving 80 million neccessarily higher? I see no evidence. It depends on the policies, the legislative oversight, and the mangers hired to implement it.
SS is a mess and nobody has the balls to fix it.
SS has some long term structural problems that would be relatively easy to fix. Overall, as a program, it has been one of the most efficient and successful programs in the Unites States for 70 years. Name one american corporation that hasn't had structural and fiscal problems over the course of the last 70 years. You can't do it. In fact, many large corporations in the last 70 years have ceased to exist, because of structural and fiscal problems.
So on a relative, comparitive basis, SS has been hugely successfuly, well-adminstered, when you compare it to private entities in the free market.
I mean, just one anecdote: for 70 years, SS has adminstered, and mailed out tens of millions of checks - day in an day out, to hundreds of millions of americans over that time frame. With barely ever a mistake. People can generally take if for granted that their SS check will arrive on time, and every week. That's efficiency dude.e
One more time. The problems of SS are evident, yet it still isn't being fixed. The centralization makes all the polis fear fixing it as they may "lose the vote" of the fogeys.
If it is not centralized, if there is a problem with our healthcare we will have a higher chance of fixing a region than attempting to fix the whole thing that no politician will touch.
And still you argue just to argue.
How do I measure large bureaucracies against state bureaucracies? I can look at many examples. Let's start with the IRS as compared to a state tax agency, and we can work from there.
And your "SS is the most efficient and greatestestest progam ever!" is ridiculous as just a few years ago we were talking about how quickly it will all fall apart yet STILL couldn't fix it. Thus we have no real fix, the same problems exist, it goes nowhere.
I will say it one more time so that you may understand.
I DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE TO EVER HAVE THAT SAME PROBLEM, IF IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED I DON'T WANT IT TO BE ONE HUGE SYSTEM THAT NO POLITICIAN WILL TOUCH, LIKE SS, SO THAT WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE SPECTACULAR FAILURE BEFORE ANYBODY WILL FIX IT REGARDLESS OF HOW "EASY" THE FIX MIGHT BE.
I hope the caps might make it through your thick skull.
Your, "bestest program ever!" stance for SS argues against a centralized healthcare, if that's the best we can do, and we can't fix it when the problems are easily seen, then I certainly don't want my healthcare run that way.
I DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE TO EVER HAVE THAT SAME PROBLEM, IF IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED I DON'T WANT IT TO BE ONE HUGE SYSTEM THAT NO POLITICIAN WILL TOUCH, LIKE SS, SO THAT WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE SPECTACULAR FAILURE BEFORE ANYBODY WILL FIX IT REGARDLESS OF HOW "EASY" THE FIX MIGHT BE.
I DON'T WANT IT TO BE ONE HUGE SYSTEM THAT NO POLITICIAN WILL TOUCH
Your fear is both irrational, and not based on fact.
SS has been "fixed" many times throughout its history. There periodically always needs to be adjustments to its structual and fiscal nature. Just like with any institution: business, corporate, or public.
Your claim that politicians will be afraid to fix it, is neither supported by history or facts. It appears to be based on some deep-seated emotional response you bear. Ronald Reagan adjusted SS in 1983. There were structural adjustments made before that.
Just because its not being "fixed" now, doesn't mean it never will be fixed. The long term structural problems SS has, are decades in the future. At some point, they will be addressed. Right now it's not a critical emergency, and politicians hardly ever fix anything that isn't in imminent need of fixing.
I DON'T WANT IT TO BE ONE HUGE SYSTEM THAT NO POLITICIAN WILL TOUCH
Your fear is both irrational, and not based on fact.
SS has been "fixed" many times throughout its history. There periodically always needs to be adjustments to its structual and fiscal nature. Just like with any institution: business, corporate, or public.
Your claim that politicians will be afraid to fix it, is neither supported by history or facts. It appears to be based on some deep-seated emotional response you bear. Ronald Reagan adjusted SS in 1983. There were structural adjustments made before that.
Just because its not being "fixed" now, doesn't mean it never will be fixed. The long term structural problems SS has, are decades in the future. At some point, they will be addressed. Right now it's not a critical emergency, and politicians hardly ever fix anything that isn't in imminent need of fixing.
Rubbish, the fact is that when problems exist in the programs they are not getting fixed. I think that regionalizing the program will resolve that issue.
Just saying they aren't based on fact when we can simply look and see if programs that are "this important" are ever "fixed". The fact is, they are not.
And simply ignoring the problem until it comes to a head is not a plan, nor does it give me great satisfaction or encourage me to trust the Feds with something this important without separating it out, making it smaller chunks, and making it so that fixes can be applied to regions as needed without it creating the same fear in politicos.
You can ignore the problems that I see inherent in a centralized bureaucracy, and evidence of its inefficiencies. I will not, nor will I support such a system with something this important.
You can see no benefit whatsoever to regionalizing such a program, it must be implemented from a Centralized Federal Bureaucracy with no state input? You can see nothing that could be of benefit to regionalizing the program so that fixes can be applied when needed to the smaller regional program without creating irrational fear among politicos?
I think you are just being obstinate because you think I disagree or that I don't think it would benefit us to have such a healthcare system. Nothing could be further from the truth, and your irrational insistence that Federal Government is efficient and cost effective is proven wrong by your own (paraphrasing) "bestest ever program".
Damo,
Let me just say this: You're holding SS to a standard that you would never hold a private corporation.
Does SS have some long term structural problems potentially 40 years down the road? Yes.
Do many major american corporations face structural and fiscal challenges 40 years down the road? Yes.
But, you expect public officials to immediately "fix" problems that may not emerge for decades. I think most american corporations tend to focus on near term problems and near term efficiencies. I don't see much difference here, between private and public sector.
When Ronald Reagan made structural changes to SS in 1983, that guaranteed its stability and viability for the next 50 years, that was a good thing. SS periodically has to undergo reform. If the CEO of a corporation made changes that guaranteed the company's viability for the next 50 years, that dude or gal would get a 100 million dollar bonus, and be on the cover of Fortune Magazine for the next year.
Please don't hold public entities to a standard, that you would never hold private entities. Long term problems exist in every entity - public or private. With respect to SS, those problems historically have always been addressed one way or another. Perhaps not in as timely a fashion as you prefer, but they do get addressed.
Let me just say this: You're holding SS to a standard that you would never hold a private corporation.
Does SS have some long term structural problems potentially 40 years down the road? Yes.
Do many major american corporations face structural and fiscal challenges 40 years down the road? Yes.
But, you expect public officials to immediately "fix" problems that may not emerge for decades. I think most american corporations tend to focus on near term problems and near term efficiencies. I don't see much difference here, between private and public sector.
When Ronald Reagan made structural changes to SS in 1983, that guaranteed its stability and viability for the next 50 years, that was a good thing. SS periodically has to undergo reform. If the CEO of a corporation made changes that guaranteed the company's viability for the next 50 years, that dude or gal would get a 100 million dollar bonus, and be on the cover of Fortune Magazine for the next year.
Please don't hold public entities to a standard, that you would never hold private entities. Long term problems exist in every entity - public or private. With respect to SS, those problems historically have always been addressed one way or another. Perhaps not in as timely a fashion as you prefer, but they do get addressed.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I'm sorry, I believed we were having an argument. I must've been wrong. Fallacy of "the expert", Black.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The only mission the WHO has is to have every place in the world be a socialist empire, just like you Black. They're beaurocrats, not health experts, and I can find millions of health experts opposed to them just as you can find millions of socialist highschool dropouts who join into the socialist think tanks.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I hate whenever people say "LOL" and didn't Laugh Out Loud.
WHO is a highly respected international organization, with world class expertise in health and medical issues. That's a fact