Hilarious. This is the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
Once again.
Well, let’s see. Lemme break out my iPod touch and see what happens when I enter 33 divided by 100, and we get…heh, heh, heh…I see what you mean. So, uh, nevermind. Can I get some tabasco and a little beer to go with that crow? :o
It’s all the liberal’s fault, for screwing up the schools.
No, it’s my fault for posting in a hurry and not taking the time to think about what I was doing. Mea-frickin’-culpa’s on me and me alone. Nope, can’t blame this one on the liberals, no siree. Goodness knows there’s plenty of things one can, but this ain’t one of 'em.
Well, let’s see.
Starving Artist, you are a lying and would-be deceptive asshole.
Yup, looks like I can say it.
I don’t understand why you want to be called a lying and would-be deceptive asshole, but then you are Starving Artist, which pretty much explains it all.
Honestly, I just assume you are a babbling idiot, so I don’t waste time considering whether or not your meaningless calculations are correct.
Given the amount of crow you eat, i would have thought you have a healthy supply of condiments.
Make this your signature.
You realize that you’re a fucking retard, right? That article is an argument in favor of single-payer government health care. She was dropped from Medicaid because her income was too high. (Granted, for a stupid way of calculating income.) If everyone had health insurance provided by the government, regardless of income level, she’d never have been dropped. Or even if right this second if Medicaid requirements weren’t so stringent (because of tightass conservatives who only want government help when it benefits them and their friends personally), she wouldn’t have been dropped. Also, who got on the case to make sure she got the surgery? Oh, shit, a bunch of fucking government employees.
Fucking. Retard. You. Seriously.
And there’s the main issue, of course. Even if he manages to get the basic math right, it’s generally in support of such outrageous assumptions, wild-ass guesses, or dishonest misrepresentations that the accuracy (or otherwise) of the calculations are completely beside the point.
Personally, what I love is how Starving_Artist will go though endless contortions to avoid admitting he’s ever been wrong about anything at all, then on those occasions where he simply can’t lie about, handwave away, obfuscate or ignore the facts, he says he worked it out for himself and his error wasn’t important anyway, and by the way liberals are the root of all evil, don’t you know.
That really never gets old. Keep painting yourself into an infinite number of corners, dude, it’s top-class entertainment.
So you people just aren’t gonna let me get out of here, right?
Dropped, denied, it’s all the same result. Once single-payer goes into effect, government cost/benefit analysis and rationaing will eventually require that people be denied life-saving treatment. Anyone with a smidgeon of intellectual honesty knows that. The government can’t provide everything for everyone all the time. Of course, neither can private enterprise. But at least with the private option people can go to other companies or pay for care themselves. Once Big Daddy takes over, it’s him or nothing.
Are you nuts? WFOR in Miami and Rush Limbaugh made sure she got the treatment she needed.
swoons Oh, no! No! How will I ever recover? :rolleyes:
And now I’m outta here. Later.
Okay, chum(p), How is the greater point wrong? My claim was that a country’s health care is pretty damn good when only 45,000 people out of 300,000,000 die for lack of it, and that most countries throughout history and the world would have loved to have had such an effective system. I also predicted that under single-payer, many more people than that will die due to having been denied treatment for falling outside arbitrary and inflexible government limits. Of course, we’ll just have to wait and see since there are no figures currently available for systems that don’t exist yet, but mark my words: it’ll happen, and when it does liberals won’t give a shit and they’ll handwave it away just like consequences of everything else they’ve screwed up.
That seems unreasonable. Disagreement doesn’t imply an uncaring nature. Really, what would indicate an uncaring nature would be simply disinterest, or ignoring - you’d open up this thread and 24 hours later have one or two posts. The significant amount of posts in this thread (and, in general, on those topics you mention and on “how fucked up things get”) would tend to imply significant interest and care to me. That posters disagree with you on ways to solve those problems you mention - or on the causes of those problems - certainly doesn’t mean they don’t give a shit about them. There’s certainly protest, it’s just not the same kind of protest as you. And I wouldn’t accuse you of ignoring whatever issues elucidator or Hentor might bring up, simply because you disagree with them; you just have different ideas as to what would be the best response.
On what are you basing your claims that “this crowd” don’t care about those things?
Two things:
a) the passed health care bill isn’t single-payer or anything like it (more’s the pity for Americans, but still) and will still function based on private insurance companies.
b) There are no “death panels” in countries with UHC. That’s the point of UHC.
As has already been explained, the recent health care bill will NOT institute single-payer health care in the United States.
You, no doubt, will wave this away as nitpicking that doesn’t invalidate your main point, but it is, in fact, an important distinction, and this sort of stupidity and/or dishonesty is central to your debating style.
As i said in my previous post, “outrageous assumptions, wild-ass guesses, or dishonest misrepresentations.” Sums up your analysis and your predictions perfectly.
Here’s a heads-up for you, chum(p): Just because you say “mark my words” does not mean that people will accept your bullshit as anything resembling a valid argument.
Note that the 45,000 figure is not for people that die from a lack of (or poor) healthcare, but people who die because of a lack of health Insurance
Well, in a country with UHC (Canada), you can’t really say that anyone dies from a lack of having health insurance, since EVERYONE is covered to an identical degree. So that would be 0 compared with your 45,000
-People do not lose health insurance when they lose their jobs.
-Nobody loses health insurance if they pass some magical income level.
-There is no rescission - insurance companies are not cutting people off after they become sick.
-We don’t have anyone deciding on a patient-by-patient basis what kind of medical care they receive - everyone in the population receives the same level and standard of care.
And interestingly, the results of this UHC is better health outcomes: longer life expectancy, lower child mortality, etc.
Of course, some put this down to American Exceptionalism; Americans are exceptionally unfit, or fat, or prone to disease or whatever, and this is inherent to the population and cannot be fixed.
Starving Artist, I know that you’re busy rocking out to a gay dude who would have been the scourge of modern society had he grown up in America rather than the Hellhole that is the socialistic UK but if you can tear yourself away from all that…I have a homework assignment for you.
I know. It’s extra work and involves research and that’s just going to tax your limited time/brain cells but, I’m geniunely curious about the answer so see if you can help me out.
Here’s your assignment.
Find me one. ONE! Single solitary example of a country with UHC whose government denied a life saving treatment for one of its citizens because the cost of that treatment was too high.
Here’s an extra credit assignment: Find me one (again ONE!) country with UHC that has NO private health insurance providers.
I truly don’t know the answer to the first question and I eagerly await your response. The answer to the second question I’ll spoil for you
The country with UHC that has NO private health insurance providers is…
none of them. Seriously, what did you think? Every first world country has private health insurance providers. Why would you think it would be any different?
When it comes to American Exceptionalism, what is exceptional when compared to most first world nations is the conservative bent itself, with America’s middle being to the right, and America’s right being off the scale. It’s no surprise then that a result of conservative ideology against UHC is that the USA stands out for its poorer health at greater expense.
In summary: the thread title and OP were flat-out lies. Hard to believe it took this many pages to finally get to that point.