Adjust the calibration of your irony detection apparatus. It should show my post as at least 800 millisnarks.
My apparatus was a little low on fuel (caffeine), when I posted that.
If I may be so bold, the answer is yes.
It’s strange; Starving Artist doesn’t seem to be coming back. It’s almost as if he really doesn’t have anything intelligent to add on palliative care for the terminally ill, and just wanted to use a serious issue to take a cheap, stupid shot.
But it couldn’t be that, could it? Surely not.
Nah, it couldn’t. Take a look at my posting history the last four or five days and you’ll see I’ve hardly been posting at all (for me, that is :D).
Been busy, have life.
Cheers.
Ah yes, I imagine you’re off climbing mountains and making love to your sweetheart, before the ol’ Socialised Death Squads come to take you away.
Still, kind of you to fit in these tawdry hit-and-run jobs, we do appreciate it. You’re all heart; at least until we snag it for an immigrant transplant candidate.
You misunderstand. Most of us who are opposed are opposed not because (among other reasons) of concern over death squads eager to kill us, but because of concern that nameless, faceless government beaurocrats, facing the inevitable financial shortfall that characterizes all government social programs, will deem us unworthy of saving. Death by govenment-mandated attrition, you might say. Not the same as outright killing perhaps, but heartlessly (or hell, even heartfully for that matter) allowing people to die because the actuarial tables deem them not worth saving still leaves them just as dead.
Time after time around here people like me post instances of cut-backs and shortfalls and ridiculously long waits in countries like Canada and the U.K., and time and time around here they lie there like lead balloons while people like you make fun of the concerns we have about those very things. You might as well cover your ears and go: “LALALALALALA! My mind is made up! I want government health care inflicted on everyone no matter what because I can’t take care of myself. If people have to die or suffer shitty healthcare who wouldn’t otherwise, I’m still better off so take your arguments and stuff 'em!”
And now there are mountains and sweethearts to climb…or something like that.
Anyway, I’m out.
What about the nameless faceless corporate bureaucrats who, facing the inevitable pressures of the market that characterize all free enterprise, deem us unworthy of saving?
Perhaps because I’ve already addressed them in countless other threads? Again, insurance companies are bound by their contracts. Yes, they try to find ways to make sure things that fall outside the purview of those contracts are not paid. When you go shopping do you expect certain groceries to be given to you gratis just because you need them? Same with insurance companies. You get the coverage you’re contracted for.
And do some insurance companies conduct themselves unscrupulously? Yes. So do airlines, law offices, Wall Street companies, etc. When that happens, laws and regulations get passed to keep them from doing that. Why not the same for insurance companies? I’ve asked time and time again why government take-over is the only solution to insurance company malfeasance, and time and time again I’ve gotten no answer.
The reason? Insurance company malfeasance is merely a stalking horse for people who simply want health care that everyone else pays for, and insurance company malfeasance is merely a tool to use to try to effect that. Take it away and you’ll merely bounce to another excuse. Rinse and repeat as needed.
I wanted to add more to my last post but the editing time ran out…
The article you linked to said nothing that is unique to government programs. Every system struggles with the question of end of life care. Do you really believe that private insurance companies would handle it any better? They also have to deal with limited resources, plus they have to make a profit.
No one here is saying LALALALA, etc. How dare you to accuse people of that kind of thinking simply because they disagree with you. Someone could just as easily accuse you of valuing profits over lives. I’m not going to accuse you of that because I don’t think you do. Would you please at least give us the same benefit of the doubt? Everyone is aware of the seriousness of the issues.
Why? What led you to believe anything of the sort will occur. Personally I would agree with such a decision in your case because you support torture, but my personal opinion is not a factor here. What leads you to believe the things you say?
Claiming your government would do this is nonsense. The first reason is because they aren’t planning to do it (i.e., you’re lying), the second is that to do so would be political suicide.
They aren’t ignored, they’re just dismissed as anecdotes or disingenuous manipulation of statistics or one-sided arguments that ignore the same problems taking place in your fine system of private insurers fucking over your clients for the money rather than because of different demographics and available resources.
It seems silly to complain that people are basing their opinions on facts instead of your silly fearmongering stories.
What a shame. Kindly let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Hard. Several times. I’ll help. No charge.
However, there is no penalty for breaching those contracts.
Looks like our posts crossed each other in the mail.
What happens when NO ONE will give me a contract for the coverage I need? Will I be left on the sidewalk to die? If so I’ll be sure to do it on your front doorstep.
Groceries and health care are completely different things subject to completely different market forces. You’re comparing apples and appendectomies.
Malfeasance isn’t the only issue. Cost is also an issue. Private corporations automatically have the added expenses of advertising, profits, huge CEO salaries, and the cost of lobbying to prevent regulation of their malfeasance. And I’m not saying that government take-over is the only solution. I prefer having a public option to introduce some real choice and competition.
No. Not care that everyone else pays for. Care for everyone, that everyone (no “else”) pays for. I don’t mind paying for coverage one way or another. I just want to know that I can’t lose that coverage because I suddenly need to use it, and I’d prefer that what I pay doesn’t go towards advertising and lobbying for things that go against my interests.
In any case, what’s being proposed in this country is not an elimination of private insurance. What’s being proposed is to introduce real competition and real choice into the market by providing another choice for those who want it. That way market forces will help to control the malfeasance.
Regardless of all that, as far as I can see, your article doesn’t prove what you think it proves.
Well, if this were your concern, perhaps you ought to have linked to an actual example of such, as opposed to what is clearly (had you read even your own link) a disagreement about the most humane way to go about palliative care for the terminally ill.
Put bluntly: if you trouble yourself to have the first fucking clue about our system (or for that matter, anything), perhaps people won’t “misunderstand” you quite so much.
So, we got these people who claim to have been mistreated by thier insurance providers. Quite a lot of them, actually. We are advised by the World’s Foremost Authority that these are simply contractual obligations vigorously enforced. We are not offered any way to end this unfortunate situation, simply advised that we are wrong. Well, that certainly settles that. We may have thought that the misery and suffering of our fellow citizens is an issue of some importance, but we were wrong.
We are furhter advised that there is an inevitable force of history at play here. Kind of like the Marxist belief in a historical imperative, but this one is right because its from the opposite viewpoint, To the effect that any government healthcare program must be disastrous because it is a government program. Again, a bald statement of fact, bolstered by nothing more substantial that the awesome intelligence of the W.F.A.
We then get testimony from people who are actual, real-life victims of socialism, who are so brainwashed and misled that they actually believe that their “system” works as well or better than our own health-care lottery and casino, the Wheel of Misfortune. We might wel consider a change in policy, that Yurpeens and their ilk not be permitted to spread their pernicious lies here. Starving Artist has spoken, the matter needs no further investigation.
Might it not be best to establish a new rule, that once the WFA has spoken, a matter is closed, no further discussion being needful? It would certainly save a lot of time, and reduce our hamster burn-out rate. Yurpeen victims of socialized brainwashing can be advised to take their lies elsewhere, thank you very much!
Lets get started! Mods, I respectfully request that this thread be closed,as we have the definitive facts from He Who Is Almost Cecil, and no further discussion is warranted. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Hey, don’t you go around requesting that my threads be closed! :mad:
Wait, by “old folks” you mean Jews, right? Or the Scots. Or the god-fearing. Or poor Mexicans. Wait, what’s the demographic here?
And yet your allies defend such actuarial tables when in the hands of private insurers with less money & (one assumes) no power to draw on the general fund of the federal government.
Or, you know, we understand the difference between anecdote & statistics.
Michelle Bernard, the president of the IWF is actually black. I rather enjoyed listening to her on MSNBC during the election coverage. She didn’t come off as even slightly nutty.
I’m sorry to see this sort of demagoguery from her, though I’ll confess that I know nothing about the IWF at all.