Rationing and long lines

Southern Man said:
"Neocons are former lefties who moved to the center." In other words, Jews. *shrug*

And you are right; The Southern Man is far, far, far from being a "neocon".
Click to expand...

Your statement that the neocons are jews ignores the entire movement in the 70s and 80s and smacks of racism.
 
Dixie said:
It is just a miracle that people as retarded as you can actually type! You have been pumped so full of koolaid and bullshit, you are in danger of exploding! Nothing anyone has to say to you is of any use, as your response will be to open your mouth and allow some of that koolaid and bullshit to spew out uncontrollably.

Government taking over the system is NOT going to FIX the system, stupid! Can you not comprehend this? Nothing the government can do, will FIX all the assorted problems making health care unaffordable and inconvenient. In fact, expect the problems to get WORSE under the purview of government, because unlike private enterprise, government doesn't give a shit if you are satisfied with the service or not.

What is even more bizarre, is how you introduce the financial crisis here, as an example of how the government stepped in to save the day!! Does it even register in your otherwise vacant brain, that government was the CAUSE of the financial problems to begin with? That Freddie and Fannie were churning along just fine and dandy, until Barney Frank and Chris Dodd decided it would be so nice if we could put people in homes they could never afford! It was the exact same liberal pinheads pulling at our heart strings, with the exact same emotive liberal bullshit, which led to easing restrictions on lenders, and in fact, demanding those lenders make loans to unqualified people, because.... it was the nice thing to do!

The challenge is still standing, not a one of you pinhead liberal idiots has even attempted to take me on! Military excluded, give me ONE example where Government has provided a BETTER (demonstratively) alternative than the private sector?
Click to expand...

Military excluded, you say. Sure, exclude the best example of government efficiency, notwithstanding the $500 toilet seat or whatever that mini scandal was at one time.

In fact, expect the problems to get WORSE under the purview of government, because unlike private enterprise, government doesn't give a shit if you are satisfied with the service or not.
Click to expand...

Now I know you're nuts. Have you ever heard of voting? When was the last time you voted for your HMO CEO? Or the CEO of your insurance company you may be a member of through work?

Have you not seen programs where employees of insurance companies have been offered bonuses by refusing to authorize client's needed medical procedures? When things are government run salaries are public or, at least, accessible to certain review boards. The employee will not get a bonus by refusing any individual a medical procedure because there is no incentive. In other words the doctor decides. If a certain medical procedure is covered that means anyone requiring it can have it done. The government does not decide.

Let me rephrase that so maybe something will penetrate that skull of yours. Your medical insurance may cover a specific operation/procedure but that does not guarantee you will receive it even if necessary. While the company will cover the operation/procedure it is they who decide if it is necessary.

Government run health insurance is different. If an operation/procedure is covered and your doctor recommends it then the government pays. The government does not decide whether or not you require it. Are you able to comprehend the difference?

Perhaps you should shut off your computer, sit in the corner and do some thinking.

Once the profit motive is removed the system becomes fair because the only deciding factor is if you require the procedure. Only your doctor decides. Not some person sitting half way across the country behind a desk.

Do you understand?
 
apple0154 said:
Military excluded, you say. Sure, exclude the best example of government efficiency, notwithstanding the $500 toilet seat or whatever that mini scandal was at one time.



Now I know you're nuts. Have you ever heard of voting? When was the last time you voted for your HMO CEO? Or the CEO of your insurance company you may be a member of through work?

Have you not seen programs where employees of insurance companies have been offered bonuses by refusing to authorize client's needed medical procedures? When things are government run salaries are public or, at least, accessible to certain review boards. The employee will not get a bonus by refusing any individual a medical procedure because there is no incentive. In other words the doctor decides. If a certain medical procedure is covered that means anyone requiring it can have it done. The government does not decide.

Let me rephrase that so maybe something will penetrate that skull of yours. Your medical insurance may cover a specific operation/procedure but that does not guarantee you will receive it even if necessary. While the company will cover the operation/procedure it is they who decide if it is necessary.

Government run health insurance is different. If an operation/procedure is covered and your doctor recommends it then the government pays. The government does not decide whether or not you require it. Are you able to comprehend the difference?

Perhaps you should shut off your computer, sit in the corner and do some thinking.

Once the profit motive is removed the system becomes fair because the only deciding factor is if you require the procedure. Only your doctor decides. Not some person sitting half way across the country behind a desk.

Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Ever dealt with a VA hospital? Thats quality medicine at its best. If its free and like the VA it isn't worth what you pay for it.
 
WinterBorn said:
Ever dealt with a VA hospital? Thats quality medicine at its best. If its free and like the VA it isn't worth what you pay for it.
Click to expand...

But that's just it. Even though the VA is government run it's small in the sense of the overall population.

Let's face it. People just love to proclaim how they value the vets but how many are thinking about vet's medical treatment on their way to work? How often does that concern enter their thoughts? How often does the medical concern of your neighbor enter your thoughts?

Now consider if your neighbor had the same medical policy as you? I'm sure you would be more interested in a co-workers medical treatment because you and him/her have the same policy holder.

That's the advantage behind universal/government insurance. No disrespect meant but there are probably tens of thousands of "Winter Borns" in the general population. All those other "Winter Borns" have the same concerns and medical needs you have and they are all fighting for the same thing.

Universal/government medical tends to cover more illnesses because there are so many speaking out. You may contract an illness that is rare among your co-workers but not among the general population, however, your medical plan may not cover it because no one asked for that illness to be included.

I find it the height of absurdity that people can choose different medical coverage. Who the hell knows what illness may strike! It's sold like home insurance. One can evaluate reasonably well what disaster may strike their home but how does one evaluate what illness they may contract? Unless one is prepared to pay exorbitant prices for medical insurance it's a crap shoot, at best.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Either you're lying or you have a very short memory. Here's a quote from you....if you're not referring to the federal gov't, then who? "....In short, the problems lie in the fact that we have innumerable regulations and other factors keeping a bunch of D.C. fat asses employed on the public ticket, keeping ambulance chasing lawyers in their BMWs;"
Click to expand...
You really need to call your local ABE and get a course in basic reading comprehension. Either that or you are a habitual liar, intent on deliberate misinterpretation of a single sentence without regard to what that sentence is referring to.

The above quote was taken out of a paragraph whose entire intent was the conclusion of explaining WHY government regulations are causing problems. Since the focus of the paragraph was on government regulatory problems, then of course the concluding statement is going to focus on government regulatory problems. Does the statement indicate that government regulations are the ONLY problem? Does the paragraph the quote was taken from state government regulation to be the only problem?

Truly, you are fucking pathetic. You are plainly too shit-assed stupid to actually read and understand a full paragraph, let alone a multi-paragraph piece without getting hopelessly confused. This is backed by your pulling a quote from Thomas Jeffferson in another thread, and trying to imply meaning the quote clearly did not contain.

Either stupid, ar a fucking pathetic puny minded liar - you know what was meant, but try to fool others into thinking it meanss what you want to be able to refute.

In either case, you are clearly unable to actually debate a topic with anything resembling clear intelligence. Try again when you can read. Or grow up. Or both.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Wake up jackass! If the majority of the money is being spent making researchers millionaires, then HOW MUCH MONEY IS LEFT OVER FOR ALL THE MATERIALS AND SUCH THAT YOU JUST PREVIOUSLY LISTED? As you pointed out, those electron microscopes don't come cheap....they didn't 30 years ago and they don't now. Check out some of the budgets for AIDS research...what percentage goes to actual research material, and what goes to salaries. I've got no problem with people being adequately compensated....but there is such a thing as EXCESSIVE GREED. The surgeon that saved my brother's life bitched to me about this.....he was quite comfortable with his salary (no piker by any means)....yet he'll tell you that the real money is in research grants, where the bills are seriously padded. But do some research on what Dr. Peter Deussberg has to say on the subject...that's an eye opener!
Click to expand...
Wake up, LIAR. In the first place, you are fucking LYING that the majority of research funds are spend making some people rich.

In the second place, if some researcher got rich off of inventing an aids treatment that significantly prolongs or stabilizes the life and life quality of aids sufferers, or better testing methods to discover infections earlier, then they earned every fucking dime they gained.

And if they did NOT invent anything that significantly affects the aids problem, then I can guarantee you they are NOT any of the ones who became millionaires off of aids research.

Additionally, you are either totally ignorant of the way most government grants work, or you are, again, a fucking liar. The majority of federal research grants do NOT pay for salaries. In fact most FORBID any grant monies going to salaries, or at best severely limit how much can go to salaries, under the valid assumption that a facility receiving the grant will already be staffed - or it would not be a qualified facility to receive the grant in the first place. IOW, they do not give grants to facilities or organizations who say "We'd like to study aids, but need to hire qualified researchers first."

You keep telling people how they need to do some research? You really need to do your own, first. And DO get that course in reading comprehension.
 
WinterBorn said:
What? Where did you hear that little gem?

And just so taichilib will understand, you need to read or research the definition of a word before you start tossing it around. Neocons are former lefties who moved to the center. In the 70s it was the militant anti-soviet folks who were fine with spending more on social programs than most classic conservatives and libertarians were comfortable with.

Sothernman certainly does not fit the bill as a neocon.
Click to expand...

Actually, the textbook definition of a neocon or neo conservative or new conservative is the following:

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Southie, with his usual limited mental scope, indirectely links the short term "neocon" with Jews due to an American Jew journalist who in writing an article in support of Israel in the Palestinian issue....this is believed to be the origin of the word for the general public. His "link" is to an OPINION which points to the many pro-Israel folk in Washington DC like Perle and Wolfowitz as being the be all, end all control of American foreign policy (zionist conspiracy anyone?).

However, neither the authors or the American public have used the word as something strictly attributed to Jews, as the Merriam-Webster dictionary shows. Case in point, the vast majority of recognized neocon pundits...Hannnity, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Crowley, Malkin, Bennett, etc. are not Jewish. And while it is certainly a documented fact that you have a strong lobby in Washington for Israel, it does NOT run the gov't en total, much less the country.

Southie definitely fits the bill of a neocon based on his blatherings......more to the point a willfully ignorant neocon parrot. Which is why I no longer need to engage him on this particular thread, as he is trying to create a situation that will hide his inability to logically and factually support his assertions. As you can see, he failed miserably...and I see no point in encouraging his insipid stubborness.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Wake up, LIAR. In the first place, you are fucking LYING that the majority of research funds are spend making some people rich.

In the second place, if some researcher got rich off of inventing an aids treatment that significantly prolongs or stabilizes the life and life quality of aids sufferers, or better testing methods to discover infections earlier, then they earned every fucking dime they gained.

And if they did NOT invent anything that significantly affects the aids problem, then I can guarantee you they are NOT any of the ones who became millionaires off of aids research.

Additionally, you are either totally ignorant of the way most government grants work, or you are, again, a fucking liar. The majority of federal research grants do NOT pay for salaries. In fact most FORBID any grant monies going to salaries, or at best severely limit how much can go to salaries, under the valid assumption that a facility receiving the grant will already be staffed - or it would not be a qualified facility to receive the grant in the first place. IOW, they do not give grants to facilities or organizations who say "We'd like to study aids, but need to hire qualified researchers first."

You keep telling people how they need to do some research? You really need to do your own, first. And DO get that course in reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Good to see you socking it to him. He really is an ignorant asshole and you will learn it's best to put him on ignore.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Good to see you socking it to him. He really is an ignorant asshole and you will learn it's best to put him on ignore.
Click to expand...

Notice folk, that Blabba here (her old nickname from the AOL posts) loves to indulge her bitter resentment of those who humilated her in the past by following them around and throwing stones from behind other posters. She never engages me directly in a debate, and is constantly decrying other posters for being rude and obnoxious to her compadres...yet here she is using vile names against someone she herself neither has the courage or intelligence to engage in an honest debate.

All one has to do is to see who and what she supports to know what a phony she truly is....so much to pity her.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Either you're lying or you have a very short memory. Here's a quote from you....if you're not referring to the federal gov't, then who? "....In short, the problems lie in the fact that we have innumerable regulations and other factors keeping a bunch of D.C. fat asses employed on the public ticket, keeping ambulance chasing lawyers in their BMWs;"
Click to expand...

Good Luck said:
You really need to call your local ABE and get a course in basic reading comprehension. Either that or you are a habitual liar, intent on deliberate misinterpretation of a single sentence without regard to what that sentence is referring to. A lot of stalling, a lot of name calling, a lot of hot air instead of just getting to the point....can he logically and factually refute my post or not? Let's watch.

The above quote was taken out of a paragraph whose entire intent was the conclusion of explaining WHY government regulations are causing problems. Since the focus of the paragraph was on government regulatory problems, then of course the concluding statement is going to focus on government regulatory problems. Does the statement indicate that government regulations are the ONLY problem? Does the paragraph the quote was taken from state government regulation to be the only problem?

Sorry chuckles, but you can't BS your way out of this one. You waste an enormous amount of time and space repeating the painfully obvious, yet it does NOTHING to detract from the quote I used. YOU orginally claimed that YOU weren't pointing the finger at gov't at all....yet here you point the finger DIRECTLY AT WASHINGTON, DC....throwing in the bit about lawyers is an afterthought, because they wouldn't exist if (according to you) the "fat asses employed on the public ticket" did't create the environment for them to. Following your train of thought, you can't suddenly separate the two because I can logically demonstrate how your contention just isn't 100% true.

Truly, you are fucking pathetic. You are plainly too shit-assed stupid to actually read and understand a full paragraph, let alone a multi-paragraph piece without getting hopelessly confused. This is backed by your pulling a quote from Thomas Jeffferson in another thread, and trying to imply meaning the quote clearly did not contain.

Again, wasting a lot of time and space spitting venom in frustration, signifying nothing. Adding on a baseless claim that you can prove beyond your dubious word is just another example of your pathetic ability to debate an issue honestly and logically. You bury yourself with each response.

Either stupid, ar a fucking pathetic puny minded liar - you know what was meant, but try to fool others into thinking it meanss what you want to be able to refute.

In either case, you are clearly unable to actually debate a topic with anything resembling clear intelligence. Try again when you can read. Or grow up. Or both.
Click to expand...

Throwing a tantrum won't excuse your inability to logically or factually support your claims or refute my responses in the previous post. Clearly to the objective reader, you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot, easily defeated and prone to anger when done so. Keep it up, genius....I just love making fools of jokers like you.
 
Good Luck said:
Wake up, LIAR. In the first place, you are fucking LYING that the majority of research funds are spend making some people rich. Really? You got proof on that, blowhard? Because I can back up what I say. Here genius, learn something from this primer: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...east-30-Million-Dollars-to-Push-Vaccines.aspx


In the second place, if some researcher got rich off of inventing an aids treatment that significantly prolongs or stabilizes the life and life quality of aids sufferers, or better testing methods to discover infections earlier, then they earned every fucking dime they gained.

You're repeating yourself, mastermind....I've already addressed that issue in the previous post...deal with it.

And if they did NOT invent anything that significantly affects the aids problem, then I can guarantee you they are NOT any of the ones who became millionaires off of aids research.

Really? Where's your proof beyond your useless supposition and conjecture? I'm tired of doing your homework....I give proof when and where needed. If you can't prove what you say, then stop wasting my time with your BS opinion.

Additionally, you are either totally ignorant of the way most government grants work, or you are, again, a fucking liar. The majority of federal research grants do NOT pay for salaries. In fact most FORBID any grant monies going to salaries, or at best severely limit how much can go to salaries, under the valid assumption that a facility receiving the grant will already be staffed - or it would not be a qualified facility to receive the grant in the first place. IOW, they do not give grants to facilities or organizations who say "We'd like to study aids, but need to hire qualified researchers first."

You keep telling people how they need to do some research? You really need to do your own, first. And DO get that course in reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

I love it when morons like you bray your opinion based on generalizations. Here, FYI http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Industry=Medical_Research/Salary

It's called an allotment, you willfully ignorant neocon parrot! Federal budgets, as well as private enterprise budgets, allot X amount of money for various projects. The budget INCLUDES various items...salary is one of them. So if a huge chunk of the budget is alloted for salaries, then everything else gets a smaller piece of the pie. It's just like your weekly salary.....you get a check and then you apply it to your budget...how much money alloted for groceries, how much for utility bills, how much for personal entertainment. These are basics for anyone who actually draws an salary and keeps a check book.....but evidently you need a refresher course in life 101.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
But that's just it. Even though the VA is government run it's small in the sense of the overall population.

Let's face it. People just love to proclaim how they value the vets but how many are thinking about vet's medical treatment on their way to work? How often does that concern enter their thoughts? How often does the medical concern of your neighbor enter your thoughts?

Now consider if your neighbor had the same medical policy as you? I'm sure you would be more interested in a co-workers medical treatment because you and him/her have the same policy holder.

That's the advantage behind universal/government insurance. No disrespect meant but there are probably tens of thousands of "Winter Borns" in the general population. All those other "Winter Borns" have the same concerns and medical needs you have and they are all fighting for the same thing.

Universal/government medical tends to cover more illnesses because there are so many speaking out. You may contract an illness that is rare among your co-workers but not among the general population, however, your medical plan may not cover it because no one asked for that illness to be included.

I find it the height of absurdity that people can choose different medical coverage. Who the hell knows what illness may strike! It's sold like home insurance. One can evaluate reasonably well what disaster may strike their home but how does one evaluate what illness they may contract? Unless one is prepared to pay exorbitant prices for medical insurance it's a crap shoot, at best.
Click to expand...

Why do cancer patients in Canada have to wait 8 weeks on the average for radiation treatment?
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Why do cancer patients in Canada have to wait 8 weeks on the average for radiation treatment?
Click to expand...

I haven't researched that but i would guess besides better screening for cancer and the high incidence of cancer there is not enough available spaces.

A common error some people make when comparing a universal medical system to a pay system is they forget to factor in the increased demand on a universal system brought on by the fact it is available to everyone. Stated another way a pay system does not have the same volume so, naturally, less people means a shorter wait period.

UPDATE: I thought what better time to find the answer so here's what I found.

"Excessive waiting is attributable to increased incidence and prevalence of cancer, insufficient facilities (operating rooms, radiotherapy equipment), human resource shortages, inefficient health care delivery systems, increased screening, new clinical care indications, or combinations of these factors. Many programs have been unprepared for the impact of changes in therapy (lumpectomy substituting for mastectomy in the treatment of breast cancer, increasing demands for radiotherapy) or the impact of screening programs, let alone the increase in patient numbers as Canada’s population ages. In addition, there are well-documented shortages of many cancer care providers across Canada. The Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies has identified significant numbers of vacant positions in radiation and medical oncology, medical physics and radiation therapy."
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/prccc-relccc/chap_5-eng.php
 
Radiation treatments in the USA are pretty prompt because they are big money makers for the industry?
At whose cost though?
 
apple0154 said:
I haven't researched that but i would guess besides better screening for cancer and the high incidence of cancer there is not enough available spaces.

A common error some people make when comparing a universal medical system to a pay system is they forget to factor in the increased demand on a universal system brought on by the fact it is available to everyone. Stated another way a pay system does not have the same volume so, naturally, less people means a shorter wait period.

UPDATE: I thought what better time to find the answer so here's what I found.

"Excessive waiting is attributable to increased incidence and prevalence of cancer, insufficient facilities (operating rooms, radiotherapy equipment), human resource shortages, inefficient health care delivery systems, increased screening, new clinical care indications, or combinations of these factors. Many programs have been unprepared for the impact of changes in therapy (lumpectomy substituting for mastectomy in the treatment of breast cancer, increasing demands for radiotherapy) or the impact of screening programs, let alone the increase in patient numbers as Canada’s population ages. In addition, there are well-documented shortages of many cancer care providers across Canada. The Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies has identified significant numbers of vacant positions in radiation and medical oncology, medical physics and radiation therapy."
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/prccc-relccc/chap_5-eng.php
Click to expand...

The same thing happens in the UK with the shortages. That's unacceptable.

Thanks for the info, doll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top