Socialized medicine does not work...

[jasonnfree]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are? Like many things, we need a balance between socialism and capitalism.

A 'balance between socialism and capitalism' is the cause of all the problems we have right now.

Just think about it. Which areas of the economy right now are having tons of problems? The virtually unregulated office supply market? The unegulating computer market? The unregulated building supply market? Electrical market? Food market?

No, none of these areas of our economy, and many others, are having any problems whatsoever. A purely capitalistic system, that provides the most good, to the most people.

So what areas are having problems? The highly regulated housing market, with a centralized government entity, Fannie and Freddie, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated health care market, with a centralized government agency, Medicare, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated banking market, with a centralized government agencies, FDIC and the Federal Reserve, controlling the vast majority of the market.

If having a balance in capitalism verse socialism, was the key, then why is it that all the unregulated capitalists system have no problem providing services and products for the people, but all the 'balanced' socialized systems do?

Socialism never works. Never. Not one time. And trying to have some sort of a hybrid system, means that people game the system, until it breaks.

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are?

Yes. That is very common, but also it means more than that.

For example, here in Ohio, we have had several doctors get sent to prison because they handed out tons of prescriptions for oxycodone, to people who asked for it.

Doctors would move into economically depressed areas, where people wanted to medicate their pain away. Doctors knew this, so they go there, open up a shop, charge people $250 per person, and hand out a prescription for $1,000 worth of pills.

So how can they afford this? Medicaid. Medicaid covers the majority of the cost. They then take the pills and sell them for $10,000, which covers the cost of the next doctor visit, and the co-pay for medicaid, and of course some money and pills left over to get high off of.

In a free-market capitalist system, where the patient was paying the bill themselves, this would never work.

But of course the left-wing would hunt down some person, make up a story that they were on the verge of dying, and the evil Republicans were doing it to them.

In reality, their system has caused the opioid mass deaths across the country right now... AND is bankrupting the country.

There are other situations too. For example, more and more people are choosing to live a promiscuous lifestyle, and highest rates of new HIV infections is happening in this group. We have to pay for that, if we have socialized care.

Let me give you a better real life example. I had a relative in the family who was told if he didn't quit drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused. He's dead today. But not before spending hundreds of thousands in treatment. In that case, he had private insurance, and paid for it himself. In a socialized system, we would have to pay the price for all such examples of irresponsibility.

I had a co-worker year ago, who was an open, admitted, alcoholic. She drink, by her own admission, until she passed out every other day. She ended up in the hospital routinely. The last time she ended up with her heart stopping, and had to have surgery. Again, she's telling me this, and everyone there said this is what happened.

The doctor told her she had to stop drinking, or she was going to die. When I left the company, she was still a drunk.

Under a socialized system, we pay for that, instead of her.

Then you have problems like they had in France. In France, doctor visits used to be free. But they found situations where people would go to the doctor.... simply because they were lonely.

Another problem was that because pills were free, they could take so many pills, that they would end up getting sick from the pills, and take more pills to rememdy the illness brought on by the pills they were already taking.

Of course in a free-market capitalist system, where they were paying for their own pills, this wouldn't happen. But is a socialized system, like that of France, the public pays for it, which is why they are in an economic crisis right now.

There are hundreds of examples where in a socialized system, people adapt to the incentives they are given, and break the system.

Venezuela is having that happen right now. Electricity is highly regulated and subsidized in Venezuela. This was done so the poorest people can have electricity. At the same time, Venezuela has extensive capital controls preventing monetary flight from the country, because of high taxes and tariffs and regulations.

Well they now have found that people are renting industrial areas (which has fewer power outages), and filling them with old computers to do bitcoin mining. They then take the bitcoins to get money outside Venezuela, to buy food, and property out of the country, so they can leave Venezuela. And the only reason this works, is because electricity is so cheap, that bitcoin mining is profitable.

No matter what system you put in place, people are going to find a way around that system.

The last couple or three generations of oldsters would have been up the creek without a paddle had there not been 'socialist' social security for them, to name one social program. How about medicare/medicaid for the poor and elderly? Our school system is somewhat socialist, since some families couldn't afford the cost of an education for their kids in a 'free market' economy. So far, the 'free market' being the solution is just theory. Look at turn of the century America that Jacob Riis wrote about and showed pictures about in his books about poverty in America. Government intervention finally changed those squalid conditions, not the capitalists who were making billions. A balance between the two systems is necessary or either one will get out of hand.

 

[JQPublic1]

When I got sick, I went to the hospital. I didn't have money for it, so I got a bill. I paid the bill. I was the better part of three years paying off that bill. But I paid it. I didn't whine and cry like a left-wing baby, that it was YOUR job to pay MY bill.

With the exception of this quote, your rant has no real relevancy to the op.

MY RESPONSE:

The anecdote of your personal experience seems contrived at best. I was under the assumption that, as a working adult you always had health insurance. Now, according to your words above, you had to pay for a hospital stay out of your pocket. Please elaborate... Did you have insurance or not?

You already proved yourself unqualified to discuss this topic. I no longer care what you think on this issue.

Yeah, run you lying cur RUNNNNNN! But you can't hide.....

 

[Andylusion]

When I got sick, I went to the hospital. I didn't have money for it, so I got a bill. I paid the bill. I was the better part of three years paying off that bill. But I paid it. I didn't whine and cry like a left-wing baby, that it was YOUR job to pay MY bill.

With the exception of this quote, your rant has no real relevancy to the op.

MY RESPONSE:

The anecdote of your personal experience seems contrived at best. I was under the assumption that, as a working adult you always had health insurance. Now, according to your words above, you had to pay for a hospital stay out of your pocket. Please elaborate... Did you have insurance or not?

You already proved yourself unqualified to discuss this topic. I no longer care what you think on this issue.

Yeah, run you lying cur RUNNNNNN! But you can't hide.....

I'm not hiding.. I'm just mocking you. You have proven yourself incompetent since the start of this thread. We're all laughing at you. You are the only one here that hasn't caught on to us mocking you yet.

 

[JQPublic1]

When I got sick, I went to the hospital. I didn't have money for it, so I got a bill. I paid the bill. I was the better part of three years paying off that bill. But I paid it. I didn't whine and cry like a left-wing baby, that it was YOUR job to pay MY bill.

With the exception of this quote, your rant has no real relevancy to the op.

MY RESPONSE:

The anecdote of your personal experience seems contrived at best. I was under the assumption that, as a working adult you always had health insurance. Now, according to your words above, you had to pay for a hospital stay out of your pocket. Please elaborate... Did you have insurance or not?

You already proved yourself unqualified to discuss this topic. I no longer care what you think on this issue.

Yeah, run you lying cur RUNNNNNN! But you can't hide.....

I'm not hiding.. I'm just mocking you. You have proven yourself incompetent since the start of this thread. We're all laughing at you. You are the only one here that hasn't caught on to us mocking you yet.

You don't have the brains to mock me. I handed you your ass and now you are just trying to salvage some of your dignity with nonsense. But nonsense is your forte!
You have entertained us with your endless stupidity and endless tirades... please do not stop... you are a superb study of comical fare... I do declare!

 

[Andylusion]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are? Like many things, we need a balance between socialism and capitalism.

A 'balance between socialism and capitalism' is the cause of all the problems we have right now.

Just think about it. Which areas of the economy right now are having tons of problems? The virtually unregulated office supply market? The unegulating computer market? The unregulated building supply market? Electrical market? Food market?

No, none of these areas of our economy, and many others, are having any problems whatsoever. A purely capitalistic system, that provides the most good, to the most people.

So what areas are having problems? The highly regulated housing market, with a centralized government entity, Fannie and Freddie, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated health care market, with a centralized government agency, Medicare, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated banking market, with a centralized government agencies, FDIC and the Federal Reserve, controlling the vast majority of the market.

If having a balance in capitalism verse socialism, was the key, then why is it that all the unregulated capitalists system have no problem providing services and products for the people, but all the 'balanced' socialized systems do?

Socialism never works. Never. Not one time. And trying to have some sort of a hybrid system, means that people game the system, until it breaks.

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are?

Yes. That is very common, but also it means more than that.

For example, here in Ohio, we have had several doctors get sent to prison because they handed out tons of prescriptions for oxycodone, to people who asked for it.

Doctors would move into economically depressed areas, where people wanted to medicate their pain away. Doctors knew this, so they go there, open up a shop, charge people $250 per person, and hand out a prescription for $1,000 worth of pills.

So how can they afford this? Medicaid. Medicaid covers the majority of the cost. They then take the pills and sell them for $10,000, which covers the cost of the next doctor visit, and the co-pay for medicaid, and of course some money and pills left over to get high off of.

In a free-market capitalist system, where the patient was paying the bill themselves, this would never work.

But of course the left-wing would hunt down some person, make up a story that they were on the verge of dying, and the evil Republicans were doing it to them.

In reality, their system has caused the opioid mass deaths across the country right now... AND is bankrupting the country.

There are other situations too. For example, more and more people are choosing to live a promiscuous lifestyle, and highest rates of new HIV infections is happening in this group. We have to pay for that, if we have socialized care.

Let me give you a better real life example. I had a relative in the family who was told if he didn't quit drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused. He's dead today. But not before spending hundreds of thousands in treatment. In that case, he had private insurance, and paid for it himself. In a socialized system, we would have to pay the price for all such examples of irresponsibility.

I had a co-worker year ago, who was an open, admitted, alcoholic. She drink, by her own admission, until she passed out every other day. She ended up in the hospital routinely. The last time she ended up with her heart stopping, and had to have surgery. Again, she's telling me this, and everyone there said this is what happened.

The doctor told her she had to stop drinking, or she was going to die. When I left the company, she was still a drunk.

Under a socialized system, we pay for that, instead of her.

Then you have problems like they had in France. In France, doctor visits used to be free. But they found situations where people would go to the doctor.... simply because they were lonely.

Another problem was that because pills were free, they could take so many pills, that they would end up getting sick from the pills, and take more pills to rememdy the illness brought on by the pills they were already taking.

Of course in a free-market capitalist system, where they were paying for their own pills, this wouldn't happen. But is a socialized system, like that of France, the public pays for it, which is why they are in an economic crisis right now.

There are hundreds of examples where in a socialized system, people adapt to the incentives they are given, and break the system.

Venezuela is having that happen right now. Electricity is highly regulated and subsidized in Venezuela. This was done so the poorest people can have electricity. At the same time, Venezuela has extensive capital controls preventing monetary flight from the country, because of high taxes and tariffs and regulations.

Well they now have found that people are renting industrial areas (which has fewer power outages), and filling them with old computers to do bitcoin mining. They then take the bitcoins to get money outside Venezuela, to buy food, and property out of the country, so they can leave Venezuela. And the only reason this works, is because electricity is so cheap, that bitcoin mining is profitable.

No matter what system you put in place, people are going to find a way around that system.

The last couple or three generations of oldsters would have been up the creek without a paddle had there not been 'socialist' social security for them, to name one social program. How about medicare/medicaid for the poor and elderly? Our school system is somewhat socialist, since some families couldn't afford the cost of an education for their kids in a 'free market' economy. So far, the 'free market' being the solution is just theory. Look at turn of the century America that Jacob Riis wrote about and showed pictures about in his books about poverty in America. Government intervention finally changed those squalid conditions, not the capitalists who were making billions. A balance between the two systems is necessary or either one will get out of hand.

Not true. Simply not true. By any measure the elderly are worse off today, than ever before.

We used to have a sense of family, that people are supposed to take care of their family. Today, people are more lonely, and empty, than ever before in the past, because the younger generation believes that they shouldn't have to take care of mom and dad. Sadly, now the baby boomers who started this anti-family government should take care of them attitude, now are facing the same isolation they gave out. And this generation today, will have the same problem when they get old. No one will care about you. No one will visit you. No one will notice when your gone.

Now I'm saying "you", but I mean this in a general sense. And I've seen this for years. I worked at hospice and retirement homes, giving out drugs. People there look absolutely hopeless and miserable. Sitting in a dirty smelly chair, staring at a TV set, waiting for some nurse to give them their tasteless microwave food.

I've been to a number of these places. They are all the same, until you get way outside the city limits, or in a private institution not funded by the government.

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

People who live off the government, are never in good condition, and often would be a ton better off, if they didn't. We had a guy they wanted to make full time, with a pay raise, but he refused because "I'll lose my social security!". In his own words. Never mind that he would have made more money in wages, than he collected in social security. But he paid into social security, and by golly he wasn't going to forfeit it! (by the way, you do know that if you work, you lose your benefits, even though by working you are paying taxes for the benefits you are not getting... right?)

And here's the kicker. Go back and look up the history of social security.... there was no demand for it, before they created it. The first person to collect social security, had her own home, bought and paid for. She wasn't in a cutter somewhere. Go look it up, if you doubt me.

 

[Andylusion]

When I got sick, I went to the hospital. I didn't have money for it, so I got a bill. I paid the bill. I was the better part of three years paying off that bill. But I paid it. I didn't whine and cry like a left-wing baby, that it was YOUR job to pay MY bill.

With the exception of this quote, your rant has no real relevancy to the op.

MY RESPONSE:

The anecdote of your personal experience seems contrived at best. I was under the assumption that, as a working adult you always had health insurance. Now, according to your words above, you had to pay for a hospital stay out of your pocket. Please elaborate... Did you have insurance or not?

You already proved yourself unqualified to discuss this topic. I no longer care what you think on this issue.

Yeah, run you lying cur RUNNNNNN! But you can't hide.....

I'm not hiding.. I'm just mocking you. You have proven yourself incompetent since the start of this thread. We're all laughing at you. You are the only one here that hasn't caught on to us mocking you yet.

You don't have the brains to mock me. I handed you your ass and now you are just trying to salvage some of your dignity with nonsense. But nonsense is your forte!
You have entertained us with your endless stupidity and endless tirades... please do not stop... you are a superb study of comical fare... I do declare!

I'm sorry.... I'm spending my time talking to the adults on this thread, which excludes you. So thanks for coming by, but I'm busy, little boy.

 

[jasonnfree]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are? Like many things, we need a balance between socialism and capitalism.

A 'balance between socialism and capitalism' is the cause of all the problems we have right now.

Just think about it. Which areas of the economy right now are having tons of problems? The virtually unregulated office supply market? The unegulating computer market? The unregulated building supply market? Electrical market? Food market?

No, none of these areas of our economy, and many others, are having any problems whatsoever. A purely capitalistic system, that provides the most good, to the most people.

So what areas are having problems? The highly regulated housing market, with a centralized government entity, Fannie and Freddie, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated health care market, with a centralized government agency, Medicare, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated banking market, with a centralized government agencies, FDIC and the Federal Reserve, controlling the vast majority of the market.

If having a balance in capitalism verse socialism, was the key, then why is it that all the unregulated capitalists system have no problem providing services and products for the people, but all the 'balanced' socialized systems do?

Socialism never works. Never. Not one time. And trying to have some sort of a hybrid system, means that people game the system, until it breaks.

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are?

Yes. That is very common, but also it means more than that.

For example, here in Ohio, we have had several doctors get sent to prison because they handed out tons of prescriptions for oxycodone, to people who asked for it.

Doctors would move into economically depressed areas, where people wanted to medicate their pain away. Doctors knew this, so they go there, open up a shop, charge people $250 per person, and hand out a prescription for $1,000 worth of pills.

So how can they afford this? Medicaid. Medicaid covers the majority of the cost. They then take the pills and sell them for $10,000, which covers the cost of the next doctor visit, and the co-pay for medicaid, and of course some money and pills left over to get high off of.

In a free-market capitalist system, where the patient was paying the bill themselves, this would never work.

But of course the left-wing would hunt down some person, make up a story that they were on the verge of dying, and the evil Republicans were doing it to them.

In reality, their system has caused the opioid mass deaths across the country right now... AND is bankrupting the country.

There are other situations too. For example, more and more people are choosing to live a promiscuous lifestyle, and highest rates of new HIV infections is happening in this group. We have to pay for that, if we have socialized care.

Let me give you a better real life example. I had a relative in the family who was told if he didn't quit drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused. He's dead today. But not before spending hundreds of thousands in treatment. In that case, he had private insurance, and paid for it himself. In a socialized system, we would have to pay the price for all such examples of irresponsibility.

I had a co-worker year ago, who was an open, admitted, alcoholic. She drink, by her own admission, until she passed out every other day. She ended up in the hospital routinely. The last time she ended up with her heart stopping, and had to have surgery. Again, she's telling me this, and everyone there said this is what happened.

The doctor told her she had to stop drinking, or she was going to die. When I left the company, she was still a drunk.

Under a socialized system, we pay for that, instead of her.

Then you have problems like they had in France. In France, doctor visits used to be free. But they found situations where people would go to the doctor.... simply because they were lonely.

Another problem was that because pills were free, they could take so many pills, that they would end up getting sick from the pills, and take more pills to rememdy the illness brought on by the pills they were already taking.

Of course in a free-market capitalist system, where they were paying for their own pills, this wouldn't happen. But is a socialized system, like that of France, the public pays for it, which is why they are in an economic crisis right now.

There are hundreds of examples where in a socialized system, people adapt to the incentives they are given, and break the system.

Venezuela is having that happen right now. Electricity is highly regulated and subsidized in Venezuela. This was done so the poorest people can have electricity. At the same time, Venezuela has extensive capital controls preventing monetary flight from the country, because of high taxes and tariffs and regulations.

Well they now have found that people are renting industrial areas (which has fewer power outages), and filling them with old computers to do bitcoin mining. They then take the bitcoins to get money outside Venezuela, to buy food, and property out of the country, so they can leave Venezuela. And the only reason this works, is because electricity is so cheap, that bitcoin mining is profitable.

No matter what system you put in place, people are going to find a way around that system.

The last couple or three generations of oldsters would have been up the creek without a paddle had there not been 'socialist' social security for them, to name one social program. How about medicare/medicaid for the poor and elderly? Our school system is somewhat socialist, since some families couldn't afford the cost of an education for their kids in a 'free market' economy. So far, the 'free market' being the solution is just theory. Look at turn of the century America that Jacob Riis wrote about and showed pictures about in his books about poverty in America. Government intervention finally changed those squalid conditions, not the capitalists who were making billions. A balance between the two systems is necessary or either one will get out of hand.

Not true. Simply not true. By any measure the elderly are worse off today, than ever before.

We used to have a sense of family, that people are supposed to take care of their family. Today, people are more lonely, and empty, than ever before in the past, because the younger generation believes that they shouldn't have to take care of mom and dad. Sadly, now the baby boomers who started this anti-family government should take care of them attitude, now are facing the same isolation they gave out. And this generation today, will have the same problem when they get old. No one will care about you. No one will visit you. No one will notice when your gone.

Now I'm saying "you", but I mean this in a general sense. And I've seen this for years. I worked at hospice and retirement homes, giving out drugs. People there look absolutely hopeless and miserable. Sitting in a dirty smelly chair, staring at a TV set, waiting for some nurse to give them their tasteless microwave food.

I've been to a number of these places. They are all the same, until you get way outside the city limits, or in a private institution not funded by the government.

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

People who live off the government, are never in good condition, and often would be a ton better off, if they didn't. We had a guy they wanted to make full time, with a pay raise, but he refused because "I'll lose my social security!". In his own words. Never mind that he would have made more money in wages, than he collected in social security. But he paid into social security, and by golly he wasn't going to forfeit it! (by the way, you do know that if you work, you lose your benefits, even though by working you are paying taxes for the benefits you are not getting... right?)

And here's the kicker. Go back and look up the history of social security.... there was no demand for it, before they created it. The first person to collect social security, had her own home, bought and paid for. She wasn't in a cutter somewhere. Go look it up, if you doubt me.

Where would these individuals you treated, be without social security though, is my question. Who would pay the salaries for the staff? At one time, most Americans lived on farms and could take in the older ones. This is no longer the case. And people actually are living with family more and more it seems, with the high cost of living and lack of jobs. But this is usually in the city or suburbs now, where people can't rely on the farm to feed them. Actually, the farm that quit feeding people is what brought in the progressives, social security, relief etc. Now the fact that there are not the jobs there used to be like in the 50's or 60's isn't because people got lazy and decided to quit work because the government would aid them somewhat, but because there just aren't the available jobs anymore. Although yes, there are a few freeloaders, most people would rather have a regular job, has been my experience. I still contend that I wouldn't want to live in an unbridled free market capitalistic system, or socialist system, but somewhere in between. Again, my opinion based on my thoughts and experience, and I allow that, yes, I could be wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are? Like many things, we need a balance between socialism and capitalism.

A 'balance between socialism and capitalism' is the cause of all the problems we have right now.

Just think about it. Which areas of the economy right now are having tons of problems? The virtually unregulated office supply market? The unegulating computer market? The unregulated building supply market? Electrical market? Food market?

No, none of these areas of our economy, and many others, are having any problems whatsoever. A purely capitalistic system, that provides the most good, to the most people.

So what areas are having problems? The highly regulated housing market, with a centralized government entity, Fannie and Freddie, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated health care market, with a centralized government agency, Medicare, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated banking market, with a centralized government agencies, FDIC and the Federal Reserve, controlling the vast majority of the market.

If having a balance in capitalism verse socialism, was the key, then why is it that all the unregulated capitalists system have no problem providing services and products for the people, but all the 'balanced' socialized systems do?

Socialism never works. Never. Not one time. And trying to have some sort of a hybrid system, means that people game the system, until it breaks.

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are?

Yes. That is very common, but also it means more than that.

For example, here in Ohio, we have had several doctors get sent to prison because they handed out tons of prescriptions for oxycodone, to people who asked for it.

Doctors would move into economically depressed areas, where people wanted to medicate their pain away. Doctors knew this, so they go there, open up a shop, charge people $250 per person, and hand out a prescription for $1,000 worth of pills.

So how can they afford this? Medicaid. Medicaid covers the majority of the cost. They then take the pills and sell them for $10,000, which covers the cost of the next doctor visit, and the co-pay for medicaid, and of course some money and pills left over to get high off of.

In a free-market capitalist system, where the patient was paying the bill themselves, this would never work.

But of course the left-wing would hunt down some person, make up a story that they were on the verge of dying, and the evil Republicans were doing it to them.

In reality, their system has caused the opioid mass deaths across the country right now... AND is bankrupting the country.

There are other situations too. For example, more and more people are choosing to live a promiscuous lifestyle, and highest rates of new HIV infections is happening in this group. We have to pay for that, if we have socialized care.

Let me give you a better real life example. I had a relative in the family who was told if he didn't quit drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused. He's dead today. But not before spending hundreds of thousands in treatment. In that case, he had private insurance, and paid for it himself. In a socialized system, we would have to pay the price for all such examples of irresponsibility.

I had a co-worker year ago, who was an open, admitted, alcoholic. She drink, by her own admission, until she passed out every other day. She ended up in the hospital routinely. The last time she ended up with her heart stopping, and had to have surgery. Again, she's telling me this, and everyone there said this is what happened.

The doctor told her she had to stop drinking, or she was going to die. When I left the company, she was still a drunk.

Under a socialized system, we pay for that, instead of her.

Then you have problems like they had in France. In France, doctor visits used to be free. But they found situations where people would go to the doctor.... simply because they were lonely.

Another problem was that because pills were free, they could take so many pills, that they would end up getting sick from the pills, and take more pills to rememdy the illness brought on by the pills they were already taking.

Of course in a free-market capitalist system, where they were paying for their own pills, this wouldn't happen. But is a socialized system, like that of France, the public pays for it, which is why they are in an economic crisis right now.

There are hundreds of examples where in a socialized system, people adapt to the incentives they are given, and break the system.

Venezuela is having that happen right now. Electricity is highly regulated and subsidized in Venezuela. This was done so the poorest people can have electricity. At the same time, Venezuela has extensive capital controls preventing monetary flight from the country, because of high taxes and tariffs and regulations.

Well they now have found that people are renting industrial areas (which has fewer power outages), and filling them with old computers to do bitcoin mining. They then take the bitcoins to get money outside Venezuela, to buy food, and property out of the country, so they can leave Venezuela. And the only reason this works, is because electricity is so cheap, that bitcoin mining is profitable.

No matter what system you put in place, people are going to find a way around that system.

The last couple or three generations of oldsters would have been up the creek without a paddle had there not been 'socialist' social security for them, to name one social program. How about medicare/medicaid for the poor and elderly? Our school system is somewhat socialist, since some families couldn't afford the cost of an education for their kids in a 'free market' economy. So far, the 'free market' being the solution is just theory. Look at turn of the century America that Jacob Riis wrote about and showed pictures about in his books about poverty in America. Government intervention finally changed those squalid conditions, not the capitalists who were making billions. A balance between the two systems is necessary or either one will get out of hand.

Not true. Simply not true. By any measure the elderly are worse off today, than ever before.

We used to have a sense of family, that people are supposed to take care of their family. Today, people are more lonely, and empty, than ever before in the past, because the younger generation believes that they shouldn't have to take care of mom and dad. Sadly, now the baby boomers who started this anti-family government should take care of them attitude, now are facing the same isolation they gave out. And this generation today, will have the same problem when they get old. No one will care about you. No one will visit you. No one will notice when your gone.

Now I'm saying "you", but I mean this in a general sense. And I've seen this for years. I worked at hospice and retirement homes, giving out drugs. People there look absolutely hopeless and miserable. Sitting in a dirty smelly chair, staring at a TV set, waiting for some nurse to give them their tasteless microwave food.

I've been to a number of these places. They are all the same, until you get way outside the city limits, or in a private institution not funded by the government.

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

People who live off the government, are never in good condition, and often would be a ton better off, if they didn't. We had a guy they wanted to make full time, with a pay raise, but he refused because "I'll lose my social security!". In his own words. Never mind that he would have made more money in wages, than he collected in social security. But he paid into social security, and by golly he wasn't going to forfeit it! (by the way, you do know that if you work, you lose your benefits, even though by working you are paying taxes for the benefits you are not getting... right?)

And here's the kicker. Go back and look up the history of social security.... there was no demand for it, before they created it. The first person to collect social security, had her own home, bought and paid for. She wasn't in a cutter somewhere. Go look it up, if you doubt me.

Where would these individuals you treated, be without social security though, is my question. Who would pay the salaries for the staff? At one time, most Americans lived on farms and could take in the older ones. This is no longer the case. And people actually are living with family more and more it seems, with the high cost of living and lack of jobs. But this is usually in the city or suburbs now, where people can't rely on the farm to feed them. Actually, the farm that quit feeding people is what brought in the progressives, social security, relief etc. Now the fact that there are not the jobs there used to be like in the 50's or 60's isn't because people got lazy and decided to quit work because the government would aid them somewhat, but because there just aren't the available jobs anymore. Although yes, there are a few freeloaders, most people would rather have a regular job, has been my experience. I still contend that I wouldn't want to live in an unbridled free market capitalistic system, or socialist system, but somewhere in between. Again, my opinion based on my thoughts and experience, and I allow that, yes, I could be wrong.

Well, before there was Medicare and Medicaid, did people see doctors? Yes. Go to hospitals? Yes. Have health care? Yes. Before there was social security, were people able to live and survive just fine? Yes.

That said, I disagree with the claim that there are not jobs like in the 50s and 60s. There are. Most certainly there are.

The difference today is, no one wants to do them.

I don't know where you guys this this wacky idea from. You act like the 1950s jobs were this utopian view of the world. 50s and 60s jobs sucked. A good portion of them were in mining, and lumber yards, and steel mills. You ever seen a steel mill job for US Steel? They suck.

And in the 1950s, you didn't get two weeks paid vacation, and all your holidays off. Some you only got holidays and that as it. You worked year-round. There certainly was no sick pay. You worked more hours, typically 48. And the average wage in 1952 manufacturing, was $7.50 a week. That's only $68.73 in current dollars. Wendy's pays more than manufacturing jobs in the 50s and 60s..... and they have air conditioning, and paid breaks, and a free meal. None of which did you get in the 50s and 60s.

There are plenty of long-term low-end manufacturing jobs, or entry level jobs, that will get a much better standard of living than anything they had in the 50s and 60s.

What has changed isn't the availability of jobs that pay as well if not much better, with more benefits and far better working conditions than the 1950s and 1960s.

What has changed... is our demands for what we want. The people in the previous generation were far more accepting of what they had, and what they could afford, and what standard of living was good. My grandmothers home was smaller by far, than my Condo that I live in today.

The problem isn't a lack of 50s and 60s jobs. There are plenty of 50s and 60s jobs. The problem is the greed and envious public we have, that wants to live a $60,000 life style, on a 1950s and 1960s type of job. Well those jobs didn't pay that much then, and they still don't today.

 

[Andylusion]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are? Like many things, we need a balance between socialism and capitalism.

A 'balance between socialism and capitalism' is the cause of all the problems we have right now.

Just think about it. Which areas of the economy right now are having tons of problems? The virtually unregulated office supply market? The unegulating computer market? The unregulated building supply market? Electrical market? Food market?

No, none of these areas of our economy, and many others, are having any problems whatsoever. A purely capitalistic system, that provides the most good, to the most people.

So what areas are having problems? The highly regulated housing market, with a centralized government entity, Fannie and Freddie, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated health care market, with a centralized government agency, Medicare, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated banking market, with a centralized government agencies, FDIC and the Federal Reserve, controlling the vast majority of the market.

If having a balance in capitalism verse socialism, was the key, then why is it that all the unregulated capitalists system have no problem providing services and products for the people, but all the 'balanced' socialized systems do?

Socialism never works. Never. Not one time. And trying to have some sort of a hybrid system, means that people game the system, until it breaks.

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are?

Yes. That is very common, but also it means more than that.

For example, here in Ohio, we have had several doctors get sent to prison because they handed out tons of prescriptions for oxycodone, to people who asked for it.

Doctors would move into economically depressed areas, where people wanted to medicate their pain away. Doctors knew this, so they go there, open up a shop, charge people $250 per person, and hand out a prescription for $1,000 worth of pills.

So how can they afford this? Medicaid. Medicaid covers the majority of the cost. They then take the pills and sell them for $10,000, which covers the cost of the next doctor visit, and the co-pay for medicaid, and of course some money and pills left over to get high off of.

In a free-market capitalist system, where the patient was paying the bill themselves, this would never work.

But of course the left-wing would hunt down some person, make up a story that they were on the verge of dying, and the evil Republicans were doing it to them.

In reality, their system has caused the opioid mass deaths across the country right now... AND is bankrupting the country.

There are other situations too. For example, more and more people are choosing to live a promiscuous lifestyle, and highest rates of new HIV infections is happening in this group. We have to pay for that, if we have socialized care.

Let me give you a better real life example. I had a relative in the family who was told if he didn't quit drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused. He's dead today. But not before spending hundreds of thousands in treatment. In that case, he had private insurance, and paid for it himself. In a socialized system, we would have to pay the price for all such examples of irresponsibility.

I had a co-worker year ago, who was an open, admitted, alcoholic. She drink, by her own admission, until she passed out every other day. She ended up in the hospital routinely. The last time she ended up with her heart stopping, and had to have surgery. Again, she's telling me this, and everyone there said this is what happened.

The doctor told her she had to stop drinking, or she was going to die. When I left the company, she was still a drunk.

Under a socialized system, we pay for that, instead of her.

Then you have problems like they had in France. In France, doctor visits used to be free. But they found situations where people would go to the doctor.... simply because they were lonely.

Another problem was that because pills were free, they could take so many pills, that they would end up getting sick from the pills, and take more pills to rememdy the illness brought on by the pills they were already taking.

Of course in a free-market capitalist system, where they were paying for their own pills, this wouldn't happen. But is a socialized system, like that of France, the public pays for it, which is why they are in an economic crisis right now.

There are hundreds of examples where in a socialized system, people adapt to the incentives they are given, and break the system.

Venezuela is having that happen right now. Electricity is highly regulated and subsidized in Venezuela. This was done so the poorest people can have electricity. At the same time, Venezuela has extensive capital controls preventing monetary flight from the country, because of high taxes and tariffs and regulations.

Well they now have found that people are renting industrial areas (which has fewer power outages), and filling them with old computers to do bitcoin mining. They then take the bitcoins to get money outside Venezuela, to buy food, and property out of the country, so they can leave Venezuela. And the only reason this works, is because electricity is so cheap, that bitcoin mining is profitable.

No matter what system you put in place, people are going to find a way around that system.

The last couple or three generations of oldsters would have been up the creek without a paddle had there not been 'socialist' social security for them, to name one social program. How about medicare/medicaid for the poor and elderly? Our school system is somewhat socialist, since some families couldn't afford the cost of an education for their kids in a 'free market' economy. So far, the 'free market' being the solution is just theory. Look at turn of the century America that Jacob Riis wrote about and showed pictures about in his books about poverty in America. Government intervention finally changed those squalid conditions, not the capitalists who were making billions. A balance between the two systems is necessary or either one will get out of hand.

Not true. Simply not true. By any measure the elderly are worse off today, than ever before.

We used to have a sense of family, that people are supposed to take care of their family. Today, people are more lonely, and empty, than ever before in the past, because the younger generation believes that they shouldn't have to take care of mom and dad. Sadly, now the baby boomers who started this anti-family government should take care of them attitude, now are facing the same isolation they gave out. And this generation today, will have the same problem when they get old. No one will care about you. No one will visit you. No one will notice when your gone.

Now I'm saying "you", but I mean this in a general sense. And I've seen this for years. I worked at hospice and retirement homes, giving out drugs. People there look absolutely hopeless and miserable. Sitting in a dirty smelly chair, staring at a TV set, waiting for some nurse to give them their tasteless microwave food.

I've been to a number of these places. They are all the same, until you get way outside the city limits, or in a private institution not funded by the government.

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

People who live off the government, are never in good condition, and often would be a ton better off, if they didn't. We had a guy they wanted to make full time, with a pay raise, but he refused because "I'll lose my social security!". In his own words. Never mind that he would have made more money in wages, than he collected in social security. But he paid into social security, and by golly he wasn't going to forfeit it! (by the way, you do know that if you work, you lose your benefits, even though by working you are paying taxes for the benefits you are not getting... right?)

And here's the kicker. Go back and look up the history of social security.... there was no demand for it, before they created it. The first person to collect social security, had her own home, bought and paid for. She wasn't in a cutter somewhere. Go look it up, if you doubt me.

Where would these individuals you treated, be without social security though, is my question. Who would pay the salaries for the staff? At one time, most Americans lived on farms and could take in the older ones. This is no longer the case. And people actually are living with family more and more it seems, with the high cost of living and lack of jobs. But this is usually in the city or suburbs now, where people can't rely on the farm to feed them. Actually, the farm that quit feeding people is what brought in the progressives, social security, relief etc. Now the fact that there are not the jobs there used to be like in the 50's or 60's isn't because people got lazy and decided to quit work because the government would aid them somewhat, but because there just aren't the available jobs anymore. Although yes, there are a few freeloaders, most people would rather have a regular job, has been my experience. I still contend that I wouldn't want to live in an unbridled free market capitalistic system, or socialist system, but somewhere in between. Again, my opinion based on my thoughts and experience, and I allow that, yes, I could be wrong.

Just out of morbid curiosity, what do you consider an unbridled free market capitalistic system?

I'm only asking because every time I hear someone say something like that, they immediately point to a socialized system.

 

[JQPublic1]

With the exception of this quote, your rant has no real relevancy to the op.

MY RESPONSE:

The anecdote of your personal experience seems contrived at best. I was under the assumption that, as a working adult you always had health insurance. Now, according to your words above, you had to pay for a hospital stay out of your pocket. Please elaborate... Did you have insurance or not?

You already proved yourself unqualified to discuss this topic. I no longer care what you think on this issue.

Yeah, run you lying cur RUNNNNNN! But you can't hide.....

I'm not hiding.. I'm just mocking you. You have proven yourself incompetent since the start of this thread. We're all laughing at you. You are the only one here that hasn't caught on to us mocking you yet.

You don't have the brains to mock me. I handed you your ass and now you are just trying to salvage some of your dignity with nonsense. But nonsense is your forte!
You have entertained us with your endless stupidity and endless tirades... please do not stop... you are a superb study of comical fare... I do declare!

I'm sorry.... I'm spending my time talking to the adults on this thread, which excludes you. So thanks for coming by, but I'm busy, little boy.

I was about to go but after those remarks I'm obliged to highlight your ignorance again. Stay tuned.

 

[Juicin]

Uhhh health care is the one area Americans are not best at

We pay double for the same care canadians get. Same with the French, Brits, and Germans. We spend just under 20% of GDP on healthcare when the treatment we receive* is not substantively different than societies who spend half that.

The only time you'd want to be in America is for some experimental procedure only an obscene amount of money can buy or luck can get you into the program.

Healthcare is so fucking out of whack here people go to fucking Tijuana to get medical procedures. Pretty much says it all right there, Americans going to fucking mexico for healthcare

 

[JQPublic1]

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

Oh, JEESSHHHH! Don't you ever know what the heck you are talking about? An individual's Old Age social security payment depends on how much he /she earned over a lifetime and is calculated by a complex formula.

Not true. Simply not true. By any measure the elderly are worse off today, than ever before.

That is a pretty broad statement but with people living longer I am not sure that is a fair comparison to a era when the average lifespan was 65 and when the "elderly" were far fewer in number relative to the general population.

People who live off the government, are never in good condition, and often would be a ton better off, if they didn't.

I know your memory is bad but you must be kidding. Were you alive in 2008. Maybe you were in a coma, so I;'l bring you up to speed on how people with government pensions, medicare and social security were protected during those tumultuous economic times:
America Lost $10.2 Trillion In 2008

• U.S. homeowners lost a cumulative $3.3 trillion in home equity during 2008, according to a report fromZillow. (MortgageWire.)
  
• One in six homeowners is now underwater on their mortgage.
• The stock market erased $6.9 trillion in shareholder wealth in 2008.

Add together the loss of housing equity of $3.3 trillion and the stock market loss of $6.9 trillion, and you've got a historic loss of wealth of $10.2 trillion.

To put that number in perspective, it's almost one fifth of the GDP of the entire world. It's about the size of the US Debt at the end 2008, meaning we could have paid off the entire debt of our government with the money we lost last year.

Given that historical precedent, your shallow thinking has been exposed once again!

 

[Andylusion]

Uhhh health care is the one area Americans are not best at

We pay double for the same care canadians get. Same with the French, Brits, and Germans. We spend just under 20% of GDP on healthcare when the treatment we receive* is not substantively different than societies who spend half that.

The only time you'd want to be in America is for some experimental procedure only an obscene amount of money can buy or luck can get you into the program.

Healthcare is so fucking out of whack here people go to fucking Tijuana to get medical procedures. Pretty much says it all right there, Americans going to fucking mexico for healthcare

Now everything you have said is entirely correct. No one here even attempts to dispute that.

But the key is, you are talking about cost. The reasons US patients go elsewhere is all about cost.

Equally the reason people from all over the world come to the US for care, is because of quality.

So we have a system that has higher quality than the rest of the world, but has a high cost.

The rest of the world has a low quality system, that is cheap.

So there must be a system that has high-quality and low-cost.... and there is. It's called free-market capitalism. Non-government run, non-government paid, market based health care.

Proof? Well, all you need to do is look at your own example. You mentioned Mexico. Now Mexico has a government run public system, and they also have free-market capitalist systems.

Which do our people go to? The government run health care system? No. Those hospitals funded by the government, are nightmares.

Moline man's nightmare vacation to Mexico

This man was in an accident where a tour bus, was hit head on by a truck. They transported him to a government run hospital, which said he was going to die, stopped providing any treatment, put him in a room with 7 others, and left him to die.

You can read about the account if you like.

That's government health care.

Where do our people go, when they go to Mexico for health care? To private hospitals, and private clinic, that provide the highest level of quality service and health care, to their valued customers.

Remember, when you go to a government hospital, you are not a customer. They get paid whether you are healed or not, whether you are happy with the service or not. So they don't care.

The same is true nearly everywhere in the world. The vast majority of all medical tourism to Singapore, goes to the private hospitals, not the government ones, and the reasons are obvious....

The government run Singapore hospitals routinely stack between 6 to 10 people to a room, and air conditioning is that fan on the ceiling. Privacy is.... well you see it.

Private hospitals in Singapore..... tad bit different. But that's no government regulation, no subsidies, no government insurance, you show up you pay for it.

Now you will ask the question, so why is our health care so expensive?

There are numerous reasons, but all fundamentally the same. Government regulation and subsidies.

As I posted several times before, your health care costs more money, to offset the cost of care that government doesn't pay to Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Again, this is a well established fact. When you go to the hospital, a massive amount of your cost, which is passed on to you through insurance premiums, is additional cost you are paying, to offset the loss hospitals take on Medicare and Medicaid patients.

But even though that's the largest cost, it doesn't end there.

Another thing that drives up cost, is a lack of doctors. Supply and Demand. The government has intentionally prevented the opening of new medical schools, which reduces the supply of trained doctors.

Also, the government at the state level has put in place heavy regulations on hospitals, one of the worst being a requirement of a certificate of need.

Basically, if you want to open a hospital, you have to get a certificate of need, before you can open it. And who decides if you get a certificate of need? The existing hospitals. So here in Columbus, I laughed when it came out that a company wanted to open a new hospital on the west side in Hilliard, and was rejected from getting a certificate of need. Then just a few years later, Riverside Hospital, opened a Dublin branch, full size with ER. So when a competitor tried to open a hospital, there was no need for a hospital. But then magically a year later, there was a need to open a branch hospital in the same area.

Well of course keeping out competition keeps prices up. Which by the way, was the exact rational the government used to create the certificate of need system. If competition came into the health care market, then prices would fall, and hospitals could close... and that would be bad for the community.

So they got their regulations, and that drove up the prices.... and you are complaining about the prices now, when that's what the government intended to have happen.

And I could list many more things in addition to this. For example, did you ever wonder why hospitals charge so much for aspirin? Two reasons, in Singapore, they buy aspirin in bulk, and they have an intern give it to you. In America, hospitals are required to buy individually wrapped Aspirin, which is expensive, and they have to have a Registered Nurse give it to you, which is expensive. Regulations for the win.

Or how about regulations on Insurance. Did you know that your insurance is now required to cover marriage counseling in many states? That drives up the cost. Did you know you are required to have alcohol addiction services covered by insurance? That's expensive. My insurance is required to cover maternity care. I don't have a wife. And I don't drink alcohol. But my insurance must cover those things, and thus I have to pay premiums for that.

And then you complain about insurance premiums? Government regulations and control for the win.

See, that's the problem. Government. The primary number one problem in health care in the US today, is government socialism, control, and regulation.

Should I mention the high cost of medical equipment? Did you know that every single buyer and seller of medical equipment must have a government license? What do you think that does? Reduces supply of medical equipment. Supply down and demand up, price goes up. Government regulations and controls for the win.

Over and over.... throughout the entire system. The problem is government. That's why US citizen can find the same surgery in Mexico for a fraction of the cost. They go to a private hospital that is non-socialized, non-regulated.... and shockingly...... SHOCKING I SAY! The price is lower.

 

[Juicin]

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way

 

[Andylusion]

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

Oh, JEESSHHHH! Don't you ever know what the heck you are talking about? An individual's Old Age social security payment depends on how much he /she earned over a lifetime and is calculated by a complex formula.

The average Social Security check is $1,300. That's the average. That means 50% of the public, is getting less than that.

The rich might be getting more, but given they are rich, it doesn't matter.

To the lower 50% of wage earners in the country, Social Security is just them being doomed to poverty for the rest of their lives.

Most can earn more at Wendy's... which is why I see them at Wendy's, and Walmart, and Goodwill.

What is even more sad, is that if you had taken that same 15% that you flushed down the Social Security poverty drain, and placed it in any simple stock mutual fund, they would all be millionaires. Instead, they are all impoverished, eating dog food.

 

[Andylusion]

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way

A: I'll use Singapore as an example, when it is true and fits the discussion we're having, and it is, and does. What pisses you off doesn't matter to the rest of us. If you want to debate the facts I've presented by all means. But just yelling that you don't like it.... I don't care. Did I give you the impression I cared? Debate the topic, or move on. Either works for me. I'll talk to someone else. I'm already ignoring that other guy.

B: There is a reason I didn't put German and Canadian hospitals up there.... The German health care system is a lot like our own, in that that have private and public hospitals, and nearly everyone has private insurance, and it's expensive. While the quality of German health care isn't at our level, it is very good. But it is also very expensive. So... it's not all that different from ours, it isn't an example of anything but, pretty much what we already have.

Canadian hospital do look like ours, that's true. They have a different problem. When you socialize health care, you have to fit the health care to the amount of money the government has. In order to do this, you can reduce quality of the care, such as how Singapore has done, by stacking 10 people to a room, and giving them a fan.

There's another way. The other way is simply by rationing the care. You put people on a waiting list, and have them sit for 3 years to get surgery.

In that situation the hospital is going to look exactly like ours, with the same quality of care. It's just that people wait for years to get it.

I just bought a book by a Veterinarian in Canada, called "Lucky Dog".

Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life: Sarah Boston: 9781770893511: Amazon.com: Books

The basic story is, a Dog in Canada has much much better care than humans do. Because a life threatening cancer, can take literally months to diagnose, and then months to get treatment, all during which a dog can get diagnosed, and treated in a few days.

In this case, the Veterinarian actually ended up diagnosing herself, using medical equipment for a horse. Of course the average people in the country without such access... simply wait... and die.

But yes, the hospitals look the same.

Your first post largely talked about the cost of care. I agree the cost of care is high, and I listed my reasons for it. What I contradict is the idea that moving more towards the very causes of the problems, is a solution. Socialized health care is the reason our health care is so expensive. So the solution given by many, is that we should socialize it more. As if that is going to reduce cost. It isn't.

We already have health care systems refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, because it doesn't pay enough. The only reasons Hospitals still accept Medicare and Medicaid, is because private patients are over charged to make up that loss. Well what do you think is going to happen if everyone is on Medicare and Medicaid? The hospitals will either go broke and close (which has already happened in California, or they will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid (and we already have a few hospitals that have done this), or Medicare and Medicaid will drastically have to increase their payouts.... which means you will not be reducing costs. Taxes in this country will have to increase by no less than 15% on nearly everyone, if not more.

Costs will go up, not down if you socialize the system even more.

 

[Juicin]

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way

A: I'll use Singapore as an example, when it is true and fits the discussion we're having, and it is, and does. What pisses you off doesn't matter to the rest of us. If you want to debate the facts I've presented by all means. But just yelling that you don't like it.... I don't care. Did I give you the impression I cared? Debate the topic, or move on. Either works for me. I'll talk to someone else. I'm already ignoring that other guy.

B: There is a reason I didn't put German and Canadian hospitals up there.... The German health care system is a lot like our own, in that that have private and public hospitals, and nearly everyone has private insurance, and it's expensive. While the quality of German health care isn't at our level, it is very good. But it is also very expensive. So... it's not all that different from ours, it isn't an example of anything but, pretty much what we already have.

Canadian hospital do look like ours, that's true. They have a different problem. When you socialize health care, you have to fit the health care to the amount of money the government has. In order to do this, you can reduce quality of the care, such as how Singapore has done, by stacking 10 people to a room, and giving them a fan.

There's another way. The other way is simply by rationing the care. You put people on a waiting list, and have them sit for 3 years to get surgery.

In that situation the hospital is going to look exactly like ours, with the same quality of care. It's just that people wait for years to get it.

I just bought a book by a Veterinarian in Canada, called "Lucky Dog".

Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life: Sarah Boston: 9781770893511: Amazon.com: Books

The basic story is, a Dog in Canada has much much better care than humans do. Because a life threatening cancer, can take literally months to diagnose, and then months to get treatment, all during which a dog can get diagnosed, and treated in a few days.

In this case, the Veterinarian actually ended up diagnosing herself, using medical equipment for a horse. Of course the average people in the country without such access... simply wait... and die.

But yes, the hospitals look the same.

Your first post largely talked about the cost of care. I agree the cost of care is high, and I listed my reasons for it. What I contradict is the idea that moving more towards the very causes of the problems, is a solution. Socialized health care is the reason our health care is so expensive. So the solution given by many, is that we should socialize it more. As if that is going to reduce cost. It isn't.

We already have health care systems refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, because it doesn't pay enough. The only reasons Hospitals still accept Medicare and Medicaid, is because private patients are over charged to make up that loss. Well what do you think is going to happen if everyone is on Medicare and Medicaid? The hospitals will either go broke and close (which has already happened in California, or they will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid (and we already have a few hospitals that have done this), or Medicare and Medicaid will drastically have to increase their payouts.... which means you will not be reducing costs. Taxes in this country will have to increase by no less than 15% on nearly everyone, if not more.

Costs will go up, not down if you socialize the system even more.

Again no it's not

Every other developed nation does it for half what we do and gets the same results. Period

And still waiting for these terrible Canadian hospitals, lol. No pics?

You're fucking deluded. 99% of the market was single payer they wouldn't have a fucking choice. We'd just make them even if they all wanted to shut down.

We make truckers work why the fuck would you imagine doctors or nurses could just all strike and our state wouldn't' react?

Pull your head out of your ass, you reek of partisan bullshit. Fucking vile

edit - and singapore should be a model of public healthcare. It's not because their wealth gap is fucking insane there. Just like every CITY

you fuckwit

 

[JQPublic1]

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way

A: I'll use Singapore as an example, when it is true and fits the discussion we're having, and it is, and does. What pisses you off doesn't matter to the rest of us. If you want to debate the facts I've presented by all means. But just yelling that you don't like it.... I don't care. Did I give you the impression I cared? Debate the topic, or move on. Either works for me. I'll talk to someone else. I'm already ignoring that other guy.

B: There is a reason I didn't put German and Canadian hospitals up there.... The German health care system is a lot like our own, in that that have private and public hospitals, and nearly everyone has private insurance, and it's expensive. While the quality of German health care isn't at our level, it is very good. But it is also very expensive. So... it's not all that different from ours, it isn't an example of anything but, pretty much what we already have.

Canadian hospital do look like ours, that's true. They have a different problem. When you socialize health care, you have to fit the health care to the amount of money the government has. In order to do this, you can reduce quality of the care, such as how Singapore has done, by stacking 10 people to a room, and giving them a fan.

There's another way. The other way is simply by rationing the care. You put people on a waiting list, and have them sit for 3 years to get surgery.

In that situation the hospital is going to look exactly like ours, with the same quality of care. It's just that people wait for years to get it.

I just bought a book by a Veterinarian in Canada, called "Lucky Dog".

Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life: Sarah Boston: 9781770893511: Amazon.com: Books

The basic story is, a Dog in Canada has much much better care than humans do. Because a life threatening cancer, can take literally months to diagnose, and then months to get treatment, all during which a dog can get diagnosed, and treated in a few days.

In this case, the Veterinarian actually ended up diagnosing herself, using medical equipment for a horse. Of course the average people in the country without such access... simply wait... and die.

But yes, the hospitals look the same.

Your first post largely talked about the cost of care. I agree the cost of care is high, and I listed my reasons for it. What I contradict is the idea that moving more towards the very causes of the problems, is a solution. Socialized health care is the reason our health care is so expensive. So the solution given by many, is that we should socialize it more. As if that is going to reduce cost. It isn't.

We already have health care systems refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, because it doesn't pay enough. The only reasons Hospitals still accept Medicare and Medicaid, is because private patients are over charged to make up that loss. Well what do you think is going to happen if everyone is on Medicare and Medicaid? The hospitals will either go broke and close (which has already happened in California, or they will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid (and we already have a few hospitals that have done this), or Medicare and Medicaid will drastically have to increase their payouts.... which means you will not be reducing costs. Taxes in this country will have to increase by no less than 15% on nearly everyone, if not more.

Costs will go up, not down if you socialize the system even more.

Again no it's not

Every other developed nation does it for half what we do and gets the same results. Period

And still waiting for these terrible Canadian hospitals, lol. No pics?

You're fucking deluded. 99% of the market was single payer they wouldn't have a fucking choice. We'd just make them even if they all wanted to shut down.

We make truckers work why the fuck would you imagine doctors or nurses could just all strike and our state wouldn't' react?

Pull your head out of your ass, you reek of partisan bullshit. Fucking vile

edit - and singapore should be a model of public healthcare. It's not because their wealth gap is fucking insane there. Just like every CITY

you fuckwit

440,000 people die each year needlessly in the US healthcare system and Andy wants to ignore that. The fool has blinders and rose colored glasses on.

These are some of the things in "clean"
US hospitals pictures won't show!


Andy is good at cherrypicking the worst hospitals where socialized medicine reigns but he has been eerily silent on the worst US hospitals. Let's give him a reality check, shall we?
10 Cities Where You Don’t Want to Get Sick

Rural hospitals in critical condition

Our Unsanitary Hospitals

Poor Sanitation Found at Pharmacy Linked to Meningitis Outbreak
Video ad warns Prospect patients on catheterization overuse in ...

 

[JQPublic1]

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

Oh, JEESSHHHH! Don't you ever know what the heck you are talking about? An individual's Old Age social security payment depends on how much he /she earned over a lifetime and is calculated by a complex formula.

The average Social Security check is $1,300. That's the average. That means 50% of the public, is getting less than that.

The rich might be getting more, but given they are rich, it doesn't matter.

To the lower 50% of wage earners in the country, Social Security is just them being doomed to poverty for the rest of their lives.

Most can earn more at Wendy's... which is why I see them at Wendy's, and Walmart, and Goodwill.

What is even more sad, is that if you had taken that same 15% that you flushed down the Social Security poverty drain, and placed it in any simple stock mutual fund, they would all be millionaires. Instead, they are all impoverished, eating dog food.

As usual, your hindsight is 2020. You original statement made no distinctions at all. You suggested that everyone on SS received 1300 a month. And you have n0 idea that the lower 50% are doomed to poverty for the rest of their lives. Many of them are still working while drawing full social security benefits without penalty. That added income keeps them well above the poverty line and Medicare gives them access to healthcare without having to liquidate their assets. Add that Wendy's pay to that Social Security pay and it adds up!

 

[jasonnfree]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are? Like many things, we need a balance between socialism and capitalism.

A 'balance between socialism and capitalism' is the cause of all the problems we have right now.

Just think about it. Which areas of the economy right now are having tons of problems? The virtually unregulated office supply market? The unegulating computer market? The unregulated building supply market? Electrical market? Food market?

No, none of these areas of our economy, and many others, are having any problems whatsoever. A purely capitalistic system, that provides the most good, to the most people.

So what areas are having problems? The highly regulated housing market, with a centralized government entity, Fannie and Freddie, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated health care market, with a centralized government agency, Medicare, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated banking market, with a centralized government agencies, FDIC and the Federal Reserve, controlling the vast majority of the market.

If having a balance in capitalism verse socialism, was the key, then why is it that all the unregulated capitalists system have no problem providing services and products for the people, but all the 'balanced' socialized systems do?

Socialism never works. Never. Not one time. And trying to have some sort of a hybrid system, means that people game the system, until it breaks.

So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are?

Yes. That is very common, but also it means more than that.

For example, here in Ohio, we have had several doctors get sent to prison because they handed out tons of prescriptions for oxycodone, to people who asked for it.

Doctors would move into economically depressed areas, where people wanted to medicate their pain away. Doctors knew this, so they go there, open up a shop, charge people $250 per person, and hand out a prescription for $1,000 worth of pills.

So how can they afford this? Medicaid. Medicaid covers the majority of the cost. They then take the pills and sell them for $10,000, which covers the cost of the next doctor visit, and the co-pay for medicaid, and of course some money and pills left over to get high off of.

In a free-market capitalist system, where the patient was paying the bill themselves, this would never work.

But of course the left-wing would hunt down some person, make up a story that they were on the verge of dying, and the evil Republicans were doing it to them.

In reality, their system has caused the opioid mass deaths across the country right now... AND is bankrupting the country.

There are other situations too. For example, more and more people are choosing to live a promiscuous lifestyle, and highest rates of new HIV infections is happening in this group. We have to pay for that, if we have socialized care.

Let me give you a better real life example. I had a relative in the family who was told if he didn't quit drinking alcohol, he would die. He refused. He's dead today. But not before spending hundreds of thousands in treatment. In that case, he had private insurance, and paid for it himself. In a socialized system, we would have to pay the price for all such examples of irresponsibility.

I had a co-worker year ago, who was an open, admitted, alcoholic. She drink, by her own admission, until she passed out every other day. She ended up in the hospital routinely. The last time she ended up with her heart stopping, and had to have surgery. Again, she's telling me this, and everyone there said this is what happened.

The doctor told her she had to stop drinking, or she was going to die. When I left the company, she was still a drunk.

Under a socialized system, we pay for that, instead of her.

Then you have problems like they had in France. In France, doctor visits used to be free. But they found situations where people would go to the doctor.... simply because they were lonely.

Another problem was that because pills were free, they could take so many pills, that they would end up getting sick from the pills, and take more pills to rememdy the illness brought on by the pills they were already taking.

Of course in a free-market capitalist system, where they were paying for their own pills, this wouldn't happen. But is a socialized system, like that of France, the public pays for it, which is why they are in an economic crisis right now.

There are hundreds of examples where in a socialized system, people adapt to the incentives they are given, and break the system.

Venezuela is having that happen right now. Electricity is highly regulated and subsidized in Venezuela. This was done so the poorest people can have electricity. At the same time, Venezuela has extensive capital controls preventing monetary flight from the country, because of high taxes and tariffs and regulations.

Well they now have found that people are renting industrial areas (which has fewer power outages), and filling them with old computers to do bitcoin mining. They then take the bitcoins to get money outside Venezuela, to buy food, and property out of the country, so they can leave Venezuela. And the only reason this works, is because electricity is so cheap, that bitcoin mining is profitable.

No matter what system you put in place, people are going to find a way around that system.

The last couple or three generations of oldsters would have been up the creek without a paddle had there not been 'socialist' social security for them, to name one social program. How about medicare/medicaid for the poor and elderly? Our school system is somewhat socialist, since some families couldn't afford the cost of an education for their kids in a 'free market' economy. So far, the 'free market' being the solution is just theory. Look at turn of the century America that Jacob Riis wrote about and showed pictures about in his books about poverty in America. Government intervention finally changed those squalid conditions, not the capitalists who were making billions. A balance between the two systems is necessary or either one will get out of hand.

Not true. Simply not true. By any measure the elderly are worse off today, than ever before.

We used to have a sense of family, that people are supposed to take care of their family. Today, people are more lonely, and empty, than ever before in the past, because the younger generation believes that they shouldn't have to take care of mom and dad. Sadly, now the baby boomers who started this anti-family government should take care of them attitude, now are facing the same isolation they gave out. And this generation today, will have the same problem when they get old. No one will care about you. No one will visit you. No one will notice when your gone.

Now I'm saying "you", but I mean this in a general sense. And I've seen this for years. I worked at hospice and retirement homes, giving out drugs. People there look absolutely hopeless and miserable. Sitting in a dirty smelly chair, staring at a TV set, waiting for some nurse to give them their tasteless microwave food.

I've been to a number of these places. They are all the same, until you get way outside the city limits, or in a private institution not funded by the government.

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

People who live off the government, are never in good condition, and often would be a ton better off, if they didn't. We had a guy they wanted to make full time, with a pay raise, but he refused because "I'll lose my social security!". In his own words. Never mind that he would have made more money in wages, than he collected in social security. But he paid into social security, and by golly he wasn't going to forfeit it! (by the way, you do know that if you work, you lose your benefits, even though by working you are paying taxes for the benefits you are not getting... right?)

And here's the kicker. Go back and look up the history of social security.... there was no demand for it, before they created it. The first person to collect social security, had her own home, bought and paid for. She wasn't in a cutter somewhere. Go look it up, if you doubt me.

I would say that unbridled capitalism is what most on the extreme right would want. No government interference and let the market decide winners and losers. You say you work in health care. Honestly, if social security and medicare ended, how many older people would be getting health care? Not too many I think. And I say there aren't the jobs now that there were in the '50s. We've shifted more and more from industrial and heavy manufacturing jobs to more and more jobs in health services and high tech. and I'm not saying this is good either. Jobs went overseas for higher profits for companies. There were many more high paying manufacturing jobs available in '50s and '60s in Los Angeles and Cleveland, than there are now, (two cities I'm familiar with from the old days), and each manufacturing job created many jobs in the communities those jobs were based in. One reason for so many once vibrant areas now being ghost towns. Lots of jobs in the needle industries too. No more. Too much offshoring. I'm not sure what you mean by wages being $7.50 a week in '52. They were much higher. By the way, name a couple modern first world countries that don't combine both socialism and capitalism. I'll bet you can't. Japan, for example, is a very successful country, and they have national health care as well as a social security system similar to ours.