That’s how we do it in Canada, which has resulted in the ugly ones dying off. That’s why Canadians are all so amazingly beautiful.
Fuck me, I almost missed this little gem.
Ignoring your idiotic revelation that health care in the US is better than during the times of ancient Egypt,
wait, no, let’s not ignore it. You are saying that people a hundred years ago would love to have the health care system the US currently enjoys. Why is that?
Okay, now that you have an answer, apply that forward. The US should want the health care that EVERY other industrialized nation currently enjoys. Our health care is to the US, what the US health care is to “most countries throughout history.”
Secondly, you’re prediction that a single-payer system would make more people die has ALREADY been proven wrong. Do you realize how many other countries currently have single-payer systems? Do you realize that ALL of those countries have higher life expectancies. Fuck, even Cuba has better metrics when it comes to health care. Cuba!
There are no “arbitrary and inflexible government limits.” That’s YOUR fucked up system, not ours. No one in Canada has their coverage “dropped.”
You don’t have to “wait and see.” All you have to do is look around you (or read someone else’s post, or listen to something other than Limbaugh).
There is no mystery to UHC, it’s been tried and tested for decades now. Millions of people are living happy and healthy lives. You’re like a fucking caveman banging a rock against a stick claiming fire is scary. The rest of the world has moved on.
Works in countries where people eat bratwurst, works in countries where people eat fish, works in countries where people are highly educated, works in countries where they are not. Works in countries that are primarily Catholic, primarily Buddhist, primarily Protestant. Across wildly different demographics, the same systems provides similar results.
Ergo, the system itself is the only constant. That, and the fact that it works.
Which is to say, , there is no reasonable explanation except that there is something inherently superior and efficient in UHC.
I’m so glad to live in a country with UHC, and I’m proud to provide it.
I’m glad I work in a place where the 4 day old child of illegal immigrants with serious life threatening disease can be treated in ICU with the appropriate medication, can have the investigations and surgery he needs, can stay in hospital as long as he needs. Despite his serious brain damage and frankly terrible prognosis he is treated with dignity, respect and everything that can be done to keep him well and alive is being done,without a thought of the cost.
Death panels my arse.
Quoted for [del]truth[/del] irony.
This has gone on for 9 pages. I move that we stop feeding Starving Artist. Do I hear a second?
Second and an Amen Brother.
What are you? Sarah Palin? Giving up after 9 pages?
Maybe that’s the problem, if we give up Starving Artist is going to feel like he won.
I say we keep this thread active for as long as it takes to drive home the basic facts about UHC–namely that people don’t get dropped, and that there aren’t death panels.
Starving Artist still thinks that a government conspiracy set out to prevent this woman from getting life saving treatment.
I think we all have a responsibility as members of this message board to remind him that it was the private hospital that denied her the treatment.
And that is was the bullshit rules set out by Republicans that meant this woman was considered “too rich” to be eligible for Medicaid.
So to recap, the private hospital denied her the treatment.
Republican policies required that she be dropped from Medicaid.
Well, he’s going to think that anyway. If you offered him an affidavit signed by God Almighty and countersigned by the Archangel Gabriel, he would still think he won. All you got is facts. He has life experiences and common dense.
It is probably what the Fox Gnus story said. You do not change the words of the gospel.
I never said that they’d get dropped under UHC. This is the second time that I recall where I’ve had to deny this false interpretation. What I’ve said is that they’ll get denied based on arbitrary decisions made by government functionaries, which they will.
But of course it’s easier to make the case that they won’t be dropped rather than denied, which is no doubt why you try to frame the issue that way.
Sure, there are, in a very realistic manner of speaking. It matters little to the recipient of such government largesse whether the denial of life-saving treatment is handed out by a group sitting on a dias or an individual functionary sitting in a cubicle. The public’s fear and what it is in fear of are still the same thing. Palin just condensed these concern’s into a sound-bite friendly term that as you can see has been very, very effective in getting the message across.
No, he doesn’t. And he hasn’t since shortly before post #97. More dishonesty from you, and more evidence to me that you have little recourse but to resort to it in order to defend your position.
And I have a responsibilty as a thinking person to point out (for at least the second time also) that the the *reason * her treatment was denied by the hospital was because the government pulled her Medicaid insurance and refused to reinstate it even if she were to cancel the increased benefits which triggered it.
While I’m far from convinced that Republicans themselves govern all the way down to setting specific income limits for the recipients of government largesse, assuming instead that functionaries of that largesse are the ones who make those decisions based on the budget they’ve been given, it is revealing that you seem to think people on Medicaid should get a blank check for whatever they need no matter how much they make. I mean after all, the purpose of Medicaid is to provide assistance to low income recipients. It hardly makes sense to create a program to help the destitute and then apply it to everyone.
Based on the government’s having taken away her Medicaid coverage, which would have allowed the hospital to proceed.
So this is your dodge now - the Republicans did it? Kindly show which Republicans - and I’m sure you can name names - set the limits that this woman could receive without losing coverage. And then assuming they did, kindly show that no Democrats were involved in setting said limits. And then assuming you can, kindly show that Republicans forced the Medicaid functionary to tell Diana Smith that it was “too late” to reinstate her coverage when it clearly wasn’t, given enough publicity.
You now, emacknight, there is so much dishonesty and so many clumsy attempts at verbal sleight-of-hand at work in your posts that the rebuttals practically write themselves.
Starving Artist, do you know the real difference between government-run and privately-run organizations?
Nobody go telling him! I want to see what he says. I’d spoiler it, but I don’t want him to cheat!
Holy fucking shit he’s still saying it. Do you guys see why we can’t let this thread die?!
What you are describing does not happen under UHC, that is the point of UHC, UHC is designed to make sure that people are NOT denied, and that there are NOT arbitrary decisions made by government functionaries. There are not government functionaries making arbitrary decisions, that is not UHC. That is YOUR shitty system, not ours. UHC has a system where doctors make medical decisions, not private or government functionaries.
This was also not an arbitrary decision. This woman was not denied a procedure by Medicaid. She was dropped from Medicaid because she no longer qualified. The rule was stupid, not arbitrary. It wasn’t a government functionaries dropping or denying her because of cost. She was dropped/denied because she no longer qualified.
If you are unhappy with that, blame the fucking Republicans for a shitty fucking situation, and raise the income cut off to qualify for Medicaid.
If you stop working for your employer you will be dropped from your coverage. It’s not arbitrary, it’s the shitty fucking way that American health care is run.
Likewise, if I move from Onatario, the province will drop/deny my coverage. Being a resident is required for me to get coverage. It is not arbitrary. If I got a letter saying, “hey, come move to the US” that I agreed to, Ontario would no longer cover me.
No, actually, both are just as easy to dispel. I have now dispelled both, I trust that you won’t bring it up again.
The message she is getting across is a lie, intended to scare idiots into following her, and yes, it has been effective, not because her message is true, but because there are a lot of idiots.
What you are describing does not happen in UHC. What Sarah Palin told you was not true.
God damn you are a giant fucking moron of epic proportions.
Here is your exact statement from post #392:
You are completely wrong about that statement, as I have said over and over again. First you are wrong about the post #97. Then you are wrong about single-payer systems.
The system you are describing works just fine in dozens of other countries, costs less, and produces better results. Rationing is not based on a cost/benefit analysis. That is not UHC, that is your shitty system, not mine.
You are also wrong about “paying for yourself.” This woman was not allowed to pay for herself, the hospital refused to let her pay for herself. The hospital, not the government.
No, you fucking moron. Read the fucking article that YOU posted. She was denied, by the hospital, because the hospital felt the procedure was too risky. Did you read the article?
The hospital refused to do the procedure because the hospital was worried about liability.
If you went in their tomorrow, with $100,000 in cash, they would also refuse you. The government had nothing to do with it.
The only way the hospital would agree to the procedure is if Medicare assumed the liability.
The fucking bullshit private hospital made the cost benefit analysis and denied this woman life saving treatment.
IT WAS THE FUCKING PRIVATE HOSPITAL. It was the government that had to step in and assume liability.
The government didn’t drop/deny her because of a budget. How the fuck do you still not realize that. The HOSPITAL denied her treatment because of the HOSPITAL’S budget and their fear of liability. The government in this case is the good guy. Without the government she wouldn’t be allowed to pay for a treatment on her own.
This whole fucking this is about liability, not government run health care.
Well, no, it shouldn’t be that revealing. I think everyone should have universal medical coverage, regardless of income level.
If the purpose of Medicaid should be to help anyone who needs it. It hardly makes sense to create a program that doesn’t’ help people.
No, you still have it backwards. She was going to pay for it on her own, but was THE HOSPITAL WOULDN’T LET HER.
Look up who was in power from 2001 to 2009. Also look at who was the governor of Florida.
Who the fuck set the limits for Medicaid so low that this woman was dropped/denied? That’s who you should be mad at.
When was the last time a Democrat was governor of Florida? 1999. So for 11 years Republicans had the opportunity to prevent this from happening. Not liberals, Republicans.
What ever the fuck that means. “They write themselves” because you keep spewing the same bullshit. ctrl-a, ctrl-c, ctrl-v
Diana Smith was dropped from Medicaid because her income exceeded the cutoff. It wasn’t arbitrary, or malicious. That cutoff was decided by a politician elected by the people of Florida. It just so happens that Republicans have been in power since 1999. If there is a problem with Medicaid that’s who you blame.
It was the hospital that made the cost benefit analysis that denied her treatment.
You are the one behind dishonest by suggesting that someone in the government denied her treatment to save money.
The hospital denied her treatment (and admitted to it) to avoid risk.
Hell, this is a guy who thinks that “You were so busy pointing out that I was wrong about death panels that you failed to notice that I was equally full of shit when I said the government tricked her” is a great personal triumph.*
This is a guy who thinks “Did I ever tell you about the time I found my dad’s porn stash and got so hot and bothered I had to try and molest another eight-year-old” demonstrates the evils of sex education.
A guy who thinks “No one in the fifties got perturbed when teens and adults got it on” is evidence for how much more moral the older decade was.
In short, he’s going to think he won whether it reflects reality or not.
*No surprise, but SA was wrong about being the one to discover that particular hole in the argument. The first “You honestly think the government did this to trick her? WTF?” response is post #19, a full 78 posts prior to SA’s much boasted about mea culpa of post #97. With other posters, one might think he had lied in hopes that noone would go back and check. However, given the reading comprehension skills SA demonstrated in his analysis of the news article in his OP, I’m willing to believe that he honestly is that dumb.
You’re getting a tad worked up there, knight, and of course your post is once again full of distortions and errors and floating goalposts. And as amusing as this may be, the fact that I have a life outside this board keeps me from being able to spend all day here endlessly refuting everything you post. I’ve said about as much as I’m going to be able to say in this thread already and it’s getting to the point where I’m having to just keep reiterating the same things over and over again. I’ve pretty much said everything I have to say with regard to this thread and I’m content at this point to let the things I’ve said stand on their own and to let people make of them what they will.
OK. So you’re bringing this up, bypassing the assignment I asked of you.
If you forgot, here it is again:
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.
One. Just one. A single example. If you continue to claim that countries with UHC will deny its citizens care based upon “arbitrary decisions” like the cost of care, you must have ONE example to back that claim up, right?
Right?
I have posted time and again around here some of the drawbacks that people in UHC countries (well, a couple of them anyway - Canada and the U.K.) have to contend with. This ranges from private procedures being outlawed if government covers the same ailment or condition, lengthy wait times in which people are left to suffer months on end and risk death because their heart or other condition wasn’t deemed urgent enough for immediate care (which in some of these cases can still befined as weeks). I’ve posted comments by Canadian health care officials to the effect that their system isn’t working and that drastic changes have to be made, and I’ve posted articles showing that in some towns and provinces in Canada studies are under way to eliminate certain procedures and to cut back on others because of a lack of necessary funding, facilities and equipment. And of course stories of politicians and well-heeled citizens in these countries coming to the U.S. for treatment abound.
And each and every time I’ve posted this information, the data is met by UHC proponents here with handwaving and excuses and proclamations to the effect that even with the problems they have NO ONE (save their leaders and wealthy, that is) wants OUR health care system.
So no, I’m afraid I’m going to have to decline your kind offer as I have other things to do, and because no matter what evidence or proof or anything else I might come up with, it would all go for naught. Again.
You have never posted data. You have posted anecdotes and opinions and urban legends, and plain old falsehoods.
You don’t know what the term “data” means.
'Course he does. It’s the plural of all those other things you mentioned.
Right?