# USA really too different from English-speaking world to have similar policies? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 27, 2009, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193 "2009-01-27T06:04:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/341 "2009-02-03T20:47:45Z")
> [@Flipshod](#): > > I raised multiple points, and you picked out a very minor one, to the exclusion of the rest, to raise the “straw man” argument. :shrug: In terms of responding to me, you responded to an argument I did not make. > [@](#): > > If it’s not the murder rate of the underclass, what is it that makes them so expensive to switch from our current scheme to UHC? As I said before, I don’t know what the cost will be. I would need to think about it. > [@](#): > > Why does this underclass make the US so different from all of the other countries that are already providing UHC? Ours is a lot bigger. > [@](#): > > Is it birthrate? What? Irresponsible, improvident, and self-destructive behaviour. > [@](#): > > I think the purely economical decision is whether the addition of the uninsured will be offset by their contributions, in the context of the rationalization of the myriad of programs we already have, and the movement of the "underclass from Medicaid to UHC. > > Do you have an opinion about that Again, I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. > [@](#): > > , or am I stuck in a straw man rut, or just another idiot who doesn’t “get” you? I’m not sure what the problem is, but it doesn’t really matter. I don’t debate with people who are consistently incoherent or who misrepresent my position. If you continue to make points which I cannot understand or respond to points I did not make, I will stop engaging with you. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/342 "2009-02-03T20:52:54Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I’m not sure what the problem is, but it doesn’t really matter. I don’t debate with people who are consistently incoherent or who misrepresent my position. If you continue to make points which I cannot understand or respond to points I did not make, I will stop engaging with you. Your “position”, such as it is, is based on a “correlation” which you made up out of whole cloth and have continuously defended by waving off fact-based argument. I don’t think it’s really anyone else’s fault if you cannot understand their points. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/343 "2009-02-03T21:08:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Your “position”, such as it is, is based on a “correlation” which you made up out of whole cloth Exactly what “correlation” is that? > [@](#): > > I don’t think it’s really anyone else’s fault if you cannot understand their points. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. If I regularly cannot understand what somebody is trying to say, I will not engage with them. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/344 "2009-02-03T21:43:16Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > That would be fraud that they could catch, and prove. Yes, it is all of the allegations. It even includes cases involving administrative errors (i.e., a discrepancy not caused by the person on welfare). > [@curlcoat](#): > > Which certainly does not mean that the others were not true, just that they only go forward with the ones they are fairly sure they can prove. And yet, that number still dwindles quickly (as you saw). So, of the ones they were “fairly sure they could prove”, it turned out that they still couldn’t. What a crazy thing, that evidence. [QUOTE=curlcoat;10776366] So, out of all the folk on welfare in California, most of which are apparently living in LA county, over 10,000 _in one year_ could be _proven_ to have commited welfare fraud. [/quote] The state of California. The statistics for LA County are listed alongside the statistics I cited (the cite which, I’m guessing, you didn’t even bother reading). You are free to look at the LA county statistics, though, since they are in the same document. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Over 400,000 others they were suspicious of but couldn’t prove (of course, some were probably innocent). And this is of the ones that were reported. “Some” were probably innocent? From the looks of it, “most” were innocent. There’s a reason why our courts require a set standard of evidence to convict someone of a crime. It’s to filter out these false allegations. [QUOTE=curlcoat;10776366] Proving once again that you can make statistics to say whatever you want them to. [/QUOTE] Right. I should have known better than to try and bring facts to the table in a Pit thread. Instead, I should have simply refuted your post with a “nuh-uh”. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/345 "2009-02-03T21:55:41Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Exactly what “correlation” is that? Homicide Rate (which I note has recently switched to “Murder Rate”) ~=~ Size of Underclass ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/346 "2009-02-03T22:03:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Homicide Rate (which I note has recently switched to “Murder Rate”) ~=~ Size of Underclass 😕 So you are denying that members of the underclass have a higher homicide (or murder) rate than others? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/347 "2009-02-03T22:09:01Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 😕 > > So you are denying that members of the underclass have a higher homicide (or murder) rate than others? No. That’s generally true. However, only a complete idiot would attempt to use that as _evidence of the size of the underclass_ except as part of a broad range of factors. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/348 "2009-02-03T22:17:52Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No. That’s generally true. However, only a complete idiot would attempt to use that as _evidence of the size of the underclass_ except as part of a broad range of factors. I’m not sure what your point is . . . what other factors are you referring to? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/349 "2009-02-03T22:45:30Z")
> [@Flipshod](#): > > After an almost exhausting read[…]: > > 1. […]Markets distribute scarce resources by pricing some people out of the market. Meanwhile, physicians have an ethical duty to treat anyone who needs immediate care (which is a moral good IMHO). Thus, there’s a theoretical problem right up front; if you can’t turn people away based on an inability to pay, the ultimate basis of a market system is gone. > > 2. As a result of the above (and other social and ethical concerns), our system of health care IS ALREADY socialized. Not only do we have Medicare, Medicaid, hospital write-offs, etc, but our insurance system itself is a means of socializing the risks of health care costs, simply administered by private companies. […] > > 5)What we have now seems to work less well than what other countries have. With UHC, we will continue to lead on the cutting edge technologies, not because we have private insurance, but because we have well funded public (and private) universities. The difference will only be in delivery to the masses and the divorcing of health care from employers–making our companies more price competitive and our labor more flexible. I love this post. a) It’s strange that THIS Pit thread has become the UHC debate thread in some ways. 1. I totally agree with point 1, & you said it better than I have done. 2. Thank you for that. I get so sick of people giving the part that doesn’t work credit for the part that does work. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/350 "2009-02-04T00:21:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > On the other hand, theoretical access to The Cancer Treatment Of Tomorrow isn’t much good if your health insurer doesn’t feel like paying for it. So, there are swings and roundabouts. How many cancer patients at a couple of million each should the taxpayers pony up for before you decide this might be a bad idea? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/351 "2009-02-04T00:27:20Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > What has distance got to do with it? Not a thing. But size, population, past history, current events might have quite a bit to do with it. > [@](#): > > But I can see why you want to ignore that every other western, industralizied, civilised nation that’s for that reason comparable to the US, has a UHC of some kind, and manages somehow. I am not interested in living someplace that “manages somehow”. Nor do I want to live in a socialist country. > [@](#): > > Tell me: do you believe that inefficient, corrupt, tax-wasting bureaucracy and govt. programs exist only in the US - that somehow, Europeans et al. (wouldn’t want to forget the Canucks or the Aussies!) are immune to this problem and everything is efficent there? (The US is so unique, even their corruption/waste problems are bigger than everybody else’s? There’s an old Cold War joke “Our dwarfs are the biggest dwarfs” kind like that?) Hmm, I don’t live any of those places so guess what - I can’t speak for them! What a unique concept. > [@](#): > > Or what other reason do you have for ignoring that UHC works elsewhere? Sorry, tired of repeating myself - go read the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/352 "2009-02-04T00:28:38Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > How many cancer patients at a couple of million each should the taxpayers pony up for before you decide this might be a bad idea? As previously noted, standardization and nationalization dramatically reduces costs. In any case, I would never think it a bad idea to treat cancer patients. Why would you? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/353 "2009-02-04T01:22:51Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Please point out where the OP or other pro-UHC posters in this thread have said this? Because all I’ve been reading is a general discussion of UHC not a specific plan. Since there are easily a dozen variations on how to implement UHC in the US, saying that everybody would be forced to participate is a straw man. For the most part there hasn’t really been any mention at all as to whether or not there would be opt out or not, but there have been posts that say that an opt out system wouldn’t work in the original thread in GD that spawned this one. > [@](#): > > Cite please that Canadians have no choice? Do you know any facts about UHC in other countries at all, or do you not care because you disregard them anyway? I said \*\*more \*\* choices. It is really hard to take you seriously when you either cannot be bothered to read what I write, or you are just ignoring it and believing what you want to. > [@](#): > > Except for all those dopers who posted in various threads or other Americans who told about how difficult it is for them under their restrictive plan to visit a doctor. But as long as you have no trouble, other’s people’s problems don’t exist, is that right? Since I have no idea what you are talking about - those dopers in those threads? - I can’t comment. > [@](#): > > Unless private insurance companies won’t take them, or they can’t afford it. Which is obviously the reason why a lot of Americans don’t have a private insurance. Have you never heard people saying that they joined the Army to get Health Coverage for their family? I have already responded to this, many times. > [@](#): > > Again, you’re either reading a different thread or lying, because there is no leading plan with any details. It is actually probably in the GD thread. > [@](#): > > That must be your own special definition of taxes. Are sales taxes then not real taxes? After all, you don’t have to buy these things. Alcohol and cigarette taxes ditto - you can choose not to smoke. Are you an idiot? Sales taxes applies to everything and no, I don’t have a choice as to whether or not I pay it. > [@](#): > > The difference - as I explained already - is that this money doesn’t go into the big pot marked taxes, where the government then distributes it to education and defense and all the other budgets, it goes directly into the insurance pots. And this is different to the person that pays it how? We have things here that go into particular “pots” and we call them taxes. You can dress it up all you want, if you have no choice as to whether or not you have to pay it, it’s a tax. I think you are just trying to muddy the waters here so you don’t have to admit that you _have_ to pay for this. > [@](#): > > As for what happens if the money is used up - try reading my post. I said welfare kicks in. What happens in the US? You land on the street, don’t you? Welfare is what I am already paying for over here. > [@](#): > > Yes, that’s how insurances in general work. Or does your Health insurance only cover your surgery after you’ve paid in enough for the last 20 years, but not in the first 5 years, no matter if you need it? Some people pay their whole life and never need it, some people need it after paying for 20 years, some need it after paying for 6 months. The big pot balances it out. Again, you are trying to muddy waters. My question was with regards to your unemployment benefits. > [@](#): > > I’m tired of your lying and distortions. _My_ distortions? Oh, that’s rich. > [@](#): > > You didn’t show any figures that a) the abusers of the system (as opposed to people simply unlucky) are bigger in the US than in Europe Did I say that a) such figures even exist, or b) they are pertinent to the subject? > [@](#): > > (which would be a feat, since it would contradict dozens of sociology and psychology research) OK, then, you post the cites. Prove to me that it is at all possible to provide figures of all the people that abuse the system - not just those that get caught. > [@](#): > > or b) that paying welfare for the poor and the unemployed is the reason the middle class is shrinking. I didn’t say that either. Perhaps your English isn’t all that good? > [@](#): > > (The opposite is the case - less government programs means also less assistance for the Middle class, which the previous generation profited from. You can see some real figures [here](http://www.zompist.com/welfare.html). That site doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “less government programs means also less assistance for the Middle class”. Also, did you read the small print in point #1 there?? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/354 "2009-02-04T01:29:35Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > I refute your premise. My proof is that I gazed into my crystal ball yesterday evening, and the forces are advantegeous to implementing a UHC in this year. If you do it right now, you will have a surplus by 2015. I promise. My proof is my belief, just like your assertion. My assertion is based on past history of the country in question here. Yours is based on a crystal ball. > [@](#): > > But seriously, that finally convinced me that you are either > un-intelligent, that is, too dumb (either unable or unwilling) > or dis-honest, that is, trolling > > for an intelligent discussion. Otherwise you’d realize that your premise as stated above is circular and un-refutable (which, according to Popper, makes it also unverifiable, of course), because it’s dumb shit. Nobody knows what will happen in the future. > > And while I’m the last to defend the US government and the first to accuse it, this is mind-boggling stupid. Because a program costs money, or because it’s ineffecient, doesn’t make it a total failure. . OK, right here I’ve just had enough of you. You call me a troll and all of that, yet you say something as “mind-boggling stupid” as “because a program, blah blah etc”. It isn’t _ **a** _ program, it is a national program set to cover millions of people and adminstered by a body that has proven in the past it cannot manage as well as private companies can, and it will be paid for by tax dollars. If it fails at all, if it is at all less efficient than what we already have, it won’t be _you_ that will be paying to clean up the mess. Such as we already are with Social Security and Medicare in this country. So, unless you have something new _and_ intelligent to say, that’s it for you. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/355 "2009-02-04T01:32:30Z")
> [@Flipshod](#): > > 1. As a result of the above (and other social and ethical concerns), our system of health care IS ALREADY socialized. Not only do we have Medicare, Medicaid, hospital write-offs, etc, but our insurance system itself is a means of socializing the risks of health care costs, simply administered by private companies. This is why **curlcoat** comes across as such an asshole–proudly saying she gets more in benefits than she pays in premiums–i.e. driving the rest of our premiums up–while bitching and moaning about having to pay higher taxes to cover others (and that’s putting aside the fact that she has apparently convinced an insurance company that she is incapable of working and paying taxes, her capacity for ongoing, voluminous typing notwithstanding–abuse?). Uh, asshole? Did you read my response to that previously? I’d also like to know what this means —\> “the fact that she has apparently convinced an insurance company that she is incapable of working and paying taxes”. And, you are aware that the disabled can usually type? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/356 "2009-02-04T01:34:13Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > As the instigator of this thread, I’m flummoxed that there appears to be a “leading plan.” I meant the GD thread - the two have become almost the same thing, minus the Pit type insults over there. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/357 "2009-02-04T02:05:20Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > And yet, that number still dwindles quickly (as you saw). So, of the ones they were “fairly sure they could prove”, it turned out that they still couldn’t. What a crazy thing, that evidence. Uh, no. The first number is the amount of cases that they thought had some abuse involved. After _that_ they figure out if there is any evidence, then after _that_ they figure out if they have enough evidence in order to prove it in a court of law. > [@](#): > > The state of California. The statistics for LA County are listed alongside the statistics I cited (the cite which, I’m guessing, you didn’t even bother reading). You are free to look at the LA county statistics, though, since they are in the same document. I’m beginning to think you don’t read your own posts. You said “some details on welfare fraud in the state of California (mostly LA county) in the year 2002” - I take it now that you didn’t mean that? The document you cited didn’t say anything about percentage of LA county to the state at all. > [@](#): > > “Some” were probably innocent? From the looks of it, “most” were innocent. There’s a reason why our courts require a set standard of evidence to convict someone of a crime. It’s to filter out these false allegations. It also filters out those that are guilty but that there isn’t enough evidence to convict in court, particularly in the case of the state or county - they are only going to spend the money to go to court if they are fairly sure they are going to win. Here is an example. A friend of mine’s daughter had a baby at 15. She (the daughter) told the state that she was living by herself when she was actually living at home with her parents, and her mother was mostly the one who took care of the baby. The daughter got benefits until her mother caught her, which IIRC was almost a year later, and she only did that by accident. Since the parents were poor they couldn’t afford to pay the state back, so nothing was said, they just told the state the daughter had “moved back home”. Now, if I or someone else had known of this prior to the mother finding out, and reported it to the state, all they could do would be to go visit the parents’ home to see if the daughter was there, right? And if she was, how would they know if she was living there or just visiting? I’m not up on the welfare laws - can they just show up on the doorstep unannounced and force their way in to check to see if she lives there? I rather doubt it. So, a report has been made that this girl is getting benefits even tho she is being supported by her parents, but there is no evidence they can use to do anything about it. I imagine if they contacted her, it would scare her into saying “she’d moved home” but that’s about it. > [@](#): > > Right. I should have known better than to try and bring facts to the table in a Pit thread. Instead, I should have simply refuted your post with a “nuh-uh”. I see. Your interpretation of statistics must be the correct one, eh? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/358 "2009-02-04T02:24:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As previously noted, standardization and nationalization dramatically reduces costs. To the patient, not necessarily to the government. I really cannot believe that the cost of treating cancer patients would go down that much. > [@](#): > > In any case, I would never think it a bad idea to treat cancer patients. Why would you? My point was how many cancer patients will we be able to afford before the whole country just implodes on itself. We are already going deeper and deeper into debt as it is, and now you want us to go even further in to treat everyone to all of the medicine available in this country? ---
**Author:** ![welby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@welby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/welby)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/359 "2009-02-04T17:07:25Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Aside from those posters who are name-calling, several arguments have been made that it would cost less at the start. Cool. Then if I go with your example of ~%6 of salary contributed to the health care fund I’d pay roughy $290.00 more a month than I do now for my insurance. I’d say it’s more expensive for me. If the employer contributes 1/2 of the 12%, it’s going to be more expensive for them too. My insurance covers my family of four and includes dental and vision, for those keeping score. > [@constanze](#): > > I don’t know where you get those figures from, Try Google. (It’s easy!) > [@constanze](#): > > and I don’t know how many insurance companies with how many employees you already currently have in the US. But a lot of small companies would merge and grow or go out of market. So a lot of small businessmen would go out of business - aren’t these the guys UHC is supposed to help?\* > [@constanze](#): > > Also, what about the current bureaucracy with the private insurances? Don’t tell me it’s easy for you to get money out of them or a procedure approved, because too many dopers have posted stories in the past about how much trouble they have. I never said it was easy, and have had problems myself. I also have a recourse to use should I have too many problems - either a complaint to the insurance commision or a lawsuit. I don’t know that UHC will obviate those courses, but that would depend on how the program is run. > [@constanze](#): > > First, \*\* WHO SAID IT WOULD BE A GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY WHO DOES UHC?\*\* Apparently you didn’t read my post or anything about how UHC works in other countries. It’s regulated and controlled by the govt. but run by companies. I did read your post in fact, and also stated that I hadn’t read up on the issue and was trying to get a little education via the Doper network, hence my questions. Is the plan proposed for US consumption identical to that of Germany? I honestly don’t know. I don’t think you do either, but that’s okay, because I was asking questions to gain information. You’re just spouting off at the mouth in a futile attempt to sound like you know what you’re talking about. > [@constanze](#): > > secondly (since this is the pit), go the fuck out of an existing country and take that stupid argument with you. (no offense). Because the existing govt. bureaucracy has problems, you want to keep the private sector unregulated? This has worked so well with finance companies after all, no regulation no control no govt. because govt. is bad. This is stupid on so many levels I don’t know where to begin. In fact, I’m gonna go take a deep breath and try to stop laughing. There. All done, let’s try and do this with a straight face: The love it or leave it argument is great! Golly I learned my lesson there! Or maybe not. You’re a fucking idiot to try and pull that shit in response to an honest question, posed in a reasonable manner. Do you really beleive you’ve just contributed to the cause with that one? Honestly? I think that you’re probably just too fucking stupid to go beyond parroting what you think is “right” because thinking hurts so much. So here’s a response in kind: If you don’t like having a private health care system “go the fuck out of an existing country” blah blah blah. I win, right? And here’s the actual response: The “existing government bureaucracy” isn’t going to go away with UHC, and I think that the inefficiency of the government is a valid concern. Even if you don’t agree, here in the real world we don’t let you have the argument both ways. On the one hand, you imply that one of the major problems with the US health care system is that it’s privatized and bureaucratic and that can’t be fixed unless the government steps in. On the other hand you claim that the bureaucracy of government will step in and fix the problem. How replacing one poorly managed bureaucracy with another is going to help doesn’t seem to appear in your posts. Care to elaborate? > [@constanze](#): > > I got an interesting fact for you: \*\* Nothing in this world is perfect\*\* Learn to deal with it, or go fuck yourself. Just because something is 10% ineffiecent doesn’t mean it should be abolished. Just because something can’t be guaranteed to work 100% perfectly is no reason to not introduce it. It’s not? Really? Well there goes the whole debate! Costanze wins! Shit, I wish someone had told me the world wasn’t perfect before today, it would have made my life a lot simpler. I never said that UHC should be abolished, I simply question its ability to be run efficiently. Plus, it would have to exist before it could be abolished, but that’s a minor point. You multiquoted my post, but did you bother to read it? > [@constanze](#): > > Now, if you knew that somebody incompetent (like Head of a Horse Assoc., or swindler, liar and thief) is designated to head this branch, then that would be valid concern. If you knew that republicans, with their contempt for public money and bad spending habits, had control of this branch’s money, then that would be valid concern. > Only Bush W is finally gone, so no immediate danger from there. Which almost brings the stupid to a close. If you honestly believe that GW and his cronies are the only liars, theives, and incompetents in government you need to put down the keyboard and report to the nearest place you can find to deprogram yourself. If your insurance won’t cover the deprogramming, you can simply repeatedly slam your head into the nearest wall with similar results. Either way I think we can expect a rise in IQ afterwards. I’d also point out that the pubbies are only out of office for the time being. They could _gasp_ actually regain control one day. Then those same liars and horse theives WILL have control of that branch’s money. Did you really think you’d get away with that argument? If so, how fucking stupid can you get? Honestly, I’ve got some really good land in Florida for sale cheap, wanna buy it? > [@constanze](#): > > No argument, because that argument is too dumb to respond to. If you don’t believe in any government doing anything good, then leave the organized country to go live in anarchy where you belong, and don’t bother normal people. Where did I say that any government is incapable of doing any good? I simply questioned the logistics of emplacing UHC in America and expressed a concern that it would be mired in bureaucracy and inefficiency. I’m not sure how that translates into your statement, but given the quality of your post I don’t find it surprising. It’s one thing to argue the point, it’s another thing to make up my argument and then wash it down in buckets of stupid. \*Yep. Strawman. I know, but still thought it was funny given the vehemence of your response. I’d be willing to bet your pulse jumped a few beats when you read that line. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193/360 "2009-02-04T21:25:59Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Uh, no. The first number is the amount of cases that they thought had some abuse involved. After _that_ they figure out if there is any evidence, then after _that_ they figure out if they have enough evidence in order to prove it in a court of law. Well, the first number is the amount of cases that _someone_ thought involved some kind of abuse. Other than that, you’re correct. I don’t believe this is different from what I said earlier, though. > [@curlcoat](#): > > I’m beginning to think you don’t read your own posts. You said “some details on welfare fraud in the state of California (mostly LA county) in the year 2002” - I take it now that you didn’t mean that? My cite focused mainly on LA County, but it contained some statistics for the entire state of California (numbers which were relevant to my point). Therefore, the meat of the cite was “mostly LA County”. > [@curlcoat](#): > > The document you cited didn’t say anything about percentage of LA county to the state at all. I don’t know what document you were reading, because it most certainly does. From the cite: > [@](#): > > The table shows, that for the most part, the County’s performance is consistent with Statewide averages, with approximately 30% of investigations resulting in fraud findings. This is slightly lower than the statewide average of 34%. Also, right above the quoted text, there’s a handy-dandy table there that shows some additional statistics between LA County and the state of California. > [@curlcoat](#): > > It also filters out those that are guilty but that there isn’t enough evidence to convict in court, particularly in the case of the state or county - they are only going to spend the money to go to court if they are fairly sure they are going to win. Exactly. And of the ones that they were “fairly sure” they could win, they still weren’t able to win 100% of them. It is certainly possible that they were missing something in some of those cases. But it is also possible that those other cases _didn’t actually involve any kind of abuse_. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Here is an example. _\_ I’m not not under the impression that there isn’t _any_ abuse inherent in the system. I just don’t think it’s nearly as widespread as you appear to believe. > [@curlcoat](#): > > I see. Your interpretation of statistics must be the correct one, eh? In this particular case? Yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-really-too-different-from-english-speaking-world-to-have-similar-policies/483193.md?page=19)