Excuse Me, Right-Wing Radio Pundits...

I also meant to add that with regard to the notion that democracies are doomed to fail because sooner or later their populace discovers that they can vote themselves goodies from the public coffers, there is ample evidence in this country’s history to bear that out. Just a hundred years ago there was no federal income tax, and yet look where we are now. Even lower-middle-class workers have to cough up fifty percent or more of the money they earn to feed the public coffers. (This of course takes into account state and federal taxes, Medicare and Social Security.) And depite this, the cry for greater government spending and greater government control over our lives is greater than ever.

Far too many people in this country have come to want the government to function as their parent, taking care of them and protecting them and providing for their every need, and there is not the slightest hint that any of that is about to abate. Human beings have a virtually limitless ability to want, and they will want more and more as long as government can provide it.

Eventually however, the government’s economy gets dragged down to the point it can no longer meet its obligations, and the citizenry, lazy and entitled, no longer posesses the ability to increase production, and that is when the democracies in question and their economies go kaput.

But of course, people of liberal philosophy being the way they are, the last thing in the world they will admit is that their ideas and policies are what went wrong, and so anything and everything but the real reason will get blamed…thus muddying the waters even further when it comes to assessing which of history’s democracies fell due to excessive government social spending.

From your same cite.

This is now example 259 of a right winger citing something that in reality does not support the idea that other countries are scrapping their system or supporting an American one.

And it has to be mentioned that Starving Artist is being a coward for not replying to what the Canadian Doctors for Medicare said.

And if the very Canadians that give the health care there are not convincing, then lets see what a Republican citizen in Iowa has to say about the changes that are needed in the US health care system:

I’d forgotten yet again how dishonest a poster you are. I did not claim that she wanted an American-style health system, only that the one she has is not working…which it isn’t, and which her comments support!

Who cares what they said? I’m sure that if you asked the American Doctors for Medicare (assuming you could find any), they would claim that Medicare is wonderful here too.

Again, so what?

I haven’t been praising the current U.S. health care system. What I’ve been doing is pointing out that governmental systems are typically underfunded, beaurocratic, plagued with long waits, and worse for a greater number of people – all of which they are.

Then it is disonest to say it was helpful to your side. Their system is not perfect but is preferred to the one we have.

Once again, it shows that your points are misleading, and you remain a coward for not dealing with what they say.

And I have seen that you only concentrate on a small group of people having problems. There are people even in this thread mentioning examples that waiting is not an issue for many in Canada and other countries. There are locations and situations where that is a problem, but overall it is not as bad as we see also in the USA.

So, these people who keep coming and telling you that they live in these countries, and find the health care systems pretty darn good…are they lying?

Which is meaningless unless you are comparing them against the US. If the US is worse in all these categories, then Canada, even with its problems, is preferable.

I’d wager there is a greater number of people in this country who find our system pretty darn good, and they aren’t lying either.

Our system, like our economy, serves some extremely well, many others very well, and a sizable number of the remainder adequately. I would wager that this covers 70 to 80% of the population. There is a minority that is not served well or at all, but that is not, IMO, a condemnation of the entire system and it isn’t reason to overhaul the entire system and allow it to fall into the hands of the government. There are many alternatives that could be debated about how to handle the needs of people who have no coverage, and how to deal with the problems the current system presents, but since they don’t create dependence on the government, the government has no interest in pursuing them, and since they don’t create dependence on the government, people of leftist politics have no interest in pursuing them.

So here we are: one side thinks that nothing will work but government takeover of health care, and the other knows that government health care is the worst possible alternative if you’re talking about the greatest care for the greatest number of people, and that alternatives apart from a government solution exist to meet the needs of the minority without coverage but they aren’t being explored due to the left’s incessant need to put the government in charge of everything.

Well, number one, we are far from worse in any of those categories, let alone all. And second, the argument hasn’t been framed as “Canada – it’s better than what we have now.” No, it’s “Canada – their system is wonderful and ours sucks! If only we had their system everything would be sweetness and light!

Which, as we see from Dr. Doig’s comments and the cutbacks being mulled in Vancouver, is far from true.

Misrepresentation, not all think that way, even having the public option is not a takeover.

Fantasy is nice in fiction but not in reality. Even moderate Republicans know that the current system can not be maintained.

And still Dr. Doig is really talking about reforming their system, not to use the irrational one we have.

You mean, only about 20 to 30 percent of our population is underserved or ill-served by our system? Is that all? Well, shit, I was thinking we had, like, a problem that needed to be fixed, I didn’t know it was only about a fifth to a third of our people.

Ready for a real amazing coincidence! Roughly speaking, the same percentage who are underserved by the health system are the same percentage who are at a disadvantage in the economic system! Wow! What if they’re the same people! I mean, really, what are the odds of a coincidence like that.

But I am reassured. A mere twenty to thirty percent. We can rest easy with a record like that.

Nope. Thats pretty much what we’re saying, theirs works better than ours. Now, of course, if you actually have a cite of someone saying what you claim, about “sweetness and light”, now would be a good time to bring it.

Are you referring to the cite in this thread that DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIMED IT DID? The cite that several people pointed out DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIMED? The cite that I specifically challenged you to explain why you thought it said something other than what everyone else thought it said? That cite?

The reason? The reason is that your cites are asinine.

Now, just a second there! As Starv has already explicitly stated, we who support Satanist medicine invariably describe it as perfection itself, spotless and immaculate in every respect. The article clearly states that there is a problem, and efforts are being made to fix said problem.

Well, there you have it. It is not perfect, as we claimed. Therefore, he wins. Really, Bayard, no offense intended, but you’re gonna have to get a lot smarter if you’re going to take on **Starv **in an argument.

It seems that **Starving Artist **is missing 25 million more:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/05/news/economy/healthcare_underinsured/index.htm

Regarding the “good” waiting times in the USA (In several areas they are still bad), there is a recent disturbing reason that has to qualify those good times: **insured **people that go to the ERs:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/transcript1.html

Yeah, I recall that one, too. It said nothing like what you thought it did and was shot down in flames, whereupon you refused to actually discuss it, claiming you were too busy (while simultaneously making the same goddamn whinge that no-one will discuss your cites). Then you ran away.

You think people aren’t taking your cites seriously? Get back to that thread and discuss the Liverpool Care Pathway, or shut the fuck up about it. The latter would be preferable, as you clearly don’t have a clue about the realities of palliative care for terminal patients.

  1. The linked said what I said it did and it was not shot down in flames…unless you call simple denial shooting things down in flames.

  2. I never “run” away. I got busy and have pretty much stayed that way. A check of my postings since that time will show that I’ve been away from the board quite a bit.

  3. Sometimes, after having been away from a thread for a couple of days or more, I find my passion for arguing it has waned. When that happens I often go elsewhere.

  4. I don’t “whinge” that no one talks about my cites. I observe that, when bowing to the constant demands I get to cite this or that and posting some, they get roundly ignored when they don’t agree with my opponents’ positions. This simply bears out my oft-stated contention that cites don’t mean jack-shit around here, so why bother.

  5. I will post when and about what I want.

  6. Cheers. :slight_smile:

So you won’t discuss the cite that you are now whinging no-one paid any attention to? You seem to have found plenty of time to repeat this whinge across several threads, but none to discuss the LCP. How very odd. You seem awfully swift to respond to accusations of disappearing, too. What an odd busy-ness this is, that leaves you so much time for meta-debate, and none for actual debate. Well, here I am: I want to talk about your article on the Liverpool Care Pathway, what you think it says, and why you think it’s indicative of what socialised medicine will do. But you won’t.

So shut the fuck up about people not responding to your cites.

Hmm, you seem to have missed item #5 above.

No, I noticed it. It just seemed remarkably hypocritical, given your incessant whining about other people not posting on your chosen topics. If you’re not going to respond to posts about your own bloody cites, why the fuck should other people bother with them? You can’t have your cake and eat it.

You are the only one in this thread who thinks that. Now, either you’re the smartest guy in the room, in which case we’d all appreciate it if you’d fight our ignorance; or you’re a boob.