No, quality is central to the discussion....except you're not even remotely interested in a discussion. Most likely because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes
No
Okay. Now what? We're back to asking you why you want the government to control all of health care when the free clinics and indigent care hospitals -- already controlled by the government -- do it so badly.
Or, did I get you wrong and you actually believe the poor and indigent are receiving good quality health care at the government supported free clinics and hospitals?
Which is it? This "quality" defined rabbit hole you've chased us down has kind of distracted from the central question.
No, quality is central to the discussion....except you're not even remotely interested in a discussion. Most likely because you have no idea what you're talking about.
So, educate me. How does quality relate to the discussion?
"government to control all of health care when the free clinics and indigent care hospitals -- already controlled by the government -- do it so badly."
your out-of-your-ass anecdotes don't prove , nothing but directed reasoning, arriving at your foregone conclusion, unsubstantiated reasoning.
my anecdote: why do vets rate their health care with higher satisfaction than clients of for-profit insurers?
any "I know a vet who hates Tri-Care" doesn't prove , either.
You have zero interest in being educated in this area, otherwise you would do this yourself. But, since I can't help myself, Ill get you started:
1. Outcome.
2. Effectiveness
See if you can think of a few attributes on your own.
You're right, I'm not interested.
But, the outcome and effectiveness of government-run health care is inferior to that of private health care providers. You add the quality attributes and, odds are, private providers can do it better. Which leads to the obvious question of why you want government ing with it.
Your point?
Those are only 2 attributes. And, you are talking out of your ass to boot.
Forget it, Yoni. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of intellectual honesty.
You're pissed because I won't discuss this topic on your terms. Forget defining quality, I can't even get you to make a distinction between the quality of care provided by government vs. private health care providers.
You came close when you whined about how bad the clinic was where your ex worked but, when you saw what I was driving at, you tried to drive me down the "quality" hole.
So, which is it? If money were no object, would you drive your child, suffering from an idiopathic arrythmia to the free clinic or to the Mayo Clinic?
Good talk.
One time, I banned someone from SpursTalk and they sent me a hate-filled email how I had denied their civil rights, as well as their human rights.
So, I guess the answer to the original questions is... Yes.![]()
cedes to the reality principle. For purposes of this forum it would appear the matter is settled. Cheers to that.![]()
I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think it is. I think there's alternative sources for information/communication.
Thanks for letting me back on btw.
Facetious. I should have blued.![]()
(I just meant, Kori is the big wheel around here, so that settles it for this forum, so to speak.)
I was talking about once Obamacare kicks in. not now.
I am talking about insurance.
If you are poor and
when you get a stomach pain, if you have insurance you go to the doctor. If you don't have insurance you live with it.
If you have a knee or shoulder pain, you go get treated if you have insurance, if you don't have insurance you live with it.
that's what I'm talking about.
Isn't your argument that people (without health insurance) get good healthcare now because of the govt?
I didn't read this thread, just skipped to the last page.......wasn't this supposed to be about internet access?
Funny, huh? That boy stepped in a logic snare.![]()
I guess when you make it up as you go along this tends to happen. You end up undermining the premise of your original argument.![]()
Support for internet access as a human right appears to be more sentimental than closely reasoned so far. Maybe that's why the topic got derailed so easily.
If it's a human right, what happens if nobody decides to fund it?
Thank you.
I'm sure the key word for you in that sentence is "Obama".
Would you be concerned if that had read:
Renewed Push to Give (insert Republican here) an Internet "Kill Switch"?
I am unsure what to think, quite frankly. I think the ability to shut down the internet in case of an attack by a foreign government may indeed be warranted. Yes both China and Russia have the capability, and seeming intent to do so to foes.
Such power would have to be SEVERELY limited, with some strong legislative branch oversight/checks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)