Reply With Quote
So, bipartisan cons utional amendment to federally criminalize lobbying in the healthcare industry? Let's do it.
The money is already there. We spend more in tax dollars per capita than countries with socialized healthcare. Where's the money going? To pharmaceutical companies, insurers, medical equipment manufacturers, and hospitals. Didn't you not too long ago complain at the absurd costs your mom's doctor charges for surgery? That's where the money is going. The healthcare industry has an open tap, and like defense contractors, can raise margins to whatever, making ten thousand percent markup on drugs and such. Solution? Government enacted price controls and/or nationalizing of the healthcare industry. And I'm all for people still being able to seek a privately owned solutions, just like you can buy a gun to protect yourself even though the police and military are the "public" option.
So, bipartisan cons utional amendment to federally criminalize lobbying in the healthcare industry? Let's do it.
Why would anyone want to start that war? The world is linked by trade more than any other time in human history. In doesn't make sense for a Russia/China to wage a conventional war. What's the purpose? Conquest?. We couldn't even conquer Afghanistan with the most powerful military in human history. China/Russia isn't conquering the US. Nuke us to oblivion? Superpowers will not use nukes because using nukes means the end of humanity. If China and Russia were to somehow hit NY and LA with nukes, we are going Sampson option.
If China/Russia/NK were to aim for NYC and LA and instead hit, say, north Connecticut and Porterville, California... do we still nuke Moscow and Beijing even if we're 100% sure of 100% accuracy? Or do we take the losses and concede to avoid further damage.Why would anyone want to start that war? The world is linked by trade more than any other time in human history. In doesn't make sense for a Russia/China to wage a conventional war. What's the purpose? Conquest?
Also, if the Ummah ever gets a hold of a serious amount of nukes..... watch the out, because they WANT the "end of humanity" to happen. They value martyrship and sacrifice through suicide to slay anyone who they consider their enemies.
Nukes are game over. That's kind of the meta game with them that assures no country will ever use them against each other. Now, we can of course fear that a madman leader might use them just to "see the world burn," but it's highly unlikely a madman assumes control in a superpower country. Madmen dictators typically enjoy their luxurious lifestyles and act accordingly. Their world burns too if they use nukes.
I think I would like to see some kind of hybrid public/private health care system where the minor emergency / general prac ioner/ family doctor / preventive medicine / prenatal etc. was replaced by nationwide free health clinics. They could be staffed drs, nurses. PA's etc that got a free education in exchange for staffing the clinics for a time period (like 10 years) at a decent living wage. They could work on their "specialist" education during this time and go into private practice after that where additional care was insurance based. Obviously at the same time we would need to deal with pharmaceutical pricing to somehow get our prices in line with th e rest of the world using the clout of the clinic base of 300 million plus as pricing leverage.
+1000What's re ed is that China and Russia pose an exponentially bigger cyber threat than they do with sheer military might. The one area of the military I would be fine with pouring tens of billions of dollars into is cyber protection but we're ing archaic on that stuff. We still have missile systems run by computers that use floppy discs
Our missile systems are badly in need of retro-fitting, like all of our infrastructure. The country as a whole in on a slow downward spiral in that regard. A long term consequence of the annual under-investment in infrastructure of all kinds. Tea parties have their consequences after all.
agreed. Not going to find Republican politicians willing to vote for such a thing though. Good luck with that.
By an amount less than we spend in health care premiums currently by all accounts. Which costs more to a family of four, 1800 in health insurance premiums or 1600 in health taxes?
I don't think the blame falls exclusively on red team but agree that there would be little support there.
Also agreed. The money interests in the status quo would contribute a lot to Democrats to stop such a thing as well. Which is why the progressives offer the only real alternative to getting the health care system fixed, IMO. Corporate Democrats need to be given the heave ho.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-23-2019 at 03:57 PM. Reason: clarity
So let's touch on the moral position of single payer. How much health care is too much health care? Does the guy living under the bridge doing drugs/alcohol/cigarettes etc to excess deserve to get the "free" half million dollar live transplant at 60 years old?
so long as we're talking hypotheticals, would you rather he rob you under the overpass?
But what if the strawman stole your hypothetical?
Nice dodge, but every social repression has its comeuppance. I guess you're hoping your wealth will make you immune to the cost.But what if the strawman stole your hypothetical?
Good luck.
I would definitely be pissed if he robbed my liver.
That's your job.
So lack of personal responsibility becomes public responsibility? It was a serious question.
You realize, at some point there would have to be the dreaded "death panel" don't you?. You agree with Fox News that death panels are bad?
Such candidates would be low on the priority list for the factors you named. The limit would be on the heart itself, more than the money, mostly making this question, as posed, moot. (edit: per medical ethics guidelines, look them up, don't take my word for it, it is a fascinating topic-RG)
IT does highlight though the fact that we do not really treat addiction as the medical condition it is, and that neglect of people is costly in a lot of ways.
Look up "harm reduction" if you want something that will hopefully open your eyes a bit.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-23-2019 at 05:41 PM. Reason: added some shit.
CC strawmanning so hard I can feel the updraft
We already have death panels, essentially, but do so at the health insurer level where profit motive conflicts with the care of human beings. These things do not tend to mix well.
But yes, someone has to make some calls as to what limits care. This is done in other countries, so this doesn't really have to be done out of whole cloth.
It is a good one.
Who gets to define a "lack of personal responsibility"?
The evidence we have is that poverty causes bad decision making, not the other way around.
(edit)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydKcaIE6O1k
I agree they already exist. I wasn't advocating against them. I got the impression winehole was. Since the choice he offered was give the guy a liver or he would go on a robbery spree.
^^^ addled
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions