Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 19, 2014 at 4:22 am)simplemoss Wrote: I would've preferred that Obama and the Democrats pushed for universal healthcare and lost, than waste all this time and money debating obamcare and won.
So you'd rather have nothing at all, than have a fairer and more tightly regulated health insurance industry?
If Obamacare has done anything at all, all it has done is re-distribute the health care that is available in the United States. It does nothing to provide enough health care so that everyone who needs it will get it when they need it.
When re-distribution blocks our ability to actually solve the real problem....its a negative rather than a positive.
If Obama and the democrats had simply passed a bill which built just one public hospital and trained up the doctors and nurses to staff it....we'd be much better off today.
(November 19, 2014 at 11:31 am)Heywood Wrote: Watching you guys rationalize why you lost the election is comical.
You lost cause you're doing a shitty job of governance.
No, I think DP made a very good point that the USA is no longer a democracy. I actually agree with him 100% on that.
In my country voting in elections is mandatory - just like it is mandatory that all jurors must contribute to the verdict (and just one disagreeing juror produces a hung jury).
In the USA the electoral system is designed to generate an outcome that is much less based on what the public actually wants. The reason being that those who are dissatisfied with their government often abstain from voting. They think to themselves "I don't like either option" which would be like a juror saying "I don't want to say guilty or not guilty"; on its own it doesn't make logical sense, but to the individual voter it makes perfect sense. "I don't want to be responsible for either outcome".
Voting is the most fundamental right there is in a democracy, it's the right from which all other rights are derived. The right to free speech, the right to freedom and liberty, and all other rights are meaningless without the right to vote.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50.-LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea.-LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
(November 19, 2014 at 9:57 pm)Heywood Wrote: If Obamacare has done anything at all, all it has done is re-distribute the health care that is available in the United States. It does nothing to provide enough health care so that everyone who needs it will get it when they need it.
I thought I already explained to you why this argument is invalid?
Okay, let's say I agree with you that healthcare resources are limited. This is true. Let's say here in Australia a politician decided that his or her policy was that we need 25% more nurses in our hospitals so that the nurse-to-patient ratio goes up. Well, we have a finite number of nurses, and every one of them who is able to work is employed. So where would we get more nurses from? It's just not possible. Right, we agree about that much.
Increased demand produces increased supply. So if there's a greater demand that goes beyond the capacity of the market, then healthcare supply will increase overtime. The other thing that will happen is that people with more necessary needs will be prioritised before those who have less crucial needs. In Australia this is called a "waiting list", and you go on the waiting list if your surgery needs are not directly life threatening. It might be very important to improve the quality of your life, but if you can live without the surgery then you'll wait. This is the primary reason why people do buy private health cover, so they don't have to wait if they have an injury or other medical problem that adversely affects their quality of life: they want it fixed now, not in 2-3 years.
So even if you're right that healthcare needs will exceed healthcare capacity, all it means is that the people who need the healthcare the most will be the first ones able to access it, and those with less essential needs can wait.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50.-LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea.-LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
(November 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm)Aractus Wrote: No, I think DP made a very good point that the USA is no longer a democracy. I actually agree with him 100% on that.
The USA is and has always been a constitutional republic. It has never been a democracy.
No you dipshit. It has never been a pure democracy. If you want that you can move to Iran or Saudi Arabia or China. Despite what you might think they have voting too. What they do not have that we do, is separation of powers. But they still have voting, they still have courts.
VOTING is part of our Constitutional Republic. What it has is separation of powers. That means every segment of the government is subject to oversight by the others, including the voters. No, we are not mob rule by vote, but we do have voting which IS a democratic principle.
The president does not have absolute power. No president in our history has ever had absolute power. The congress has review power over his appointments. Again, that has always been the case. The voters also do not have absolute power. It is why state after state has overturned bans on gay marriage despite voters wishes.
Not even the Supreme Court has absolute power. They can rule and for a generation or two those rulings can stay in place. But each president can nominate a potential Supreme court seat, and over time that court makeup can shift to the point a future Supreme Court will overturn a prior Supreme Court. That has happened too.
Now do not cop out to semantics by calling America a Constitutional Republic. It is still a nation with a Constitution that bans all monopolies of power, by the president, by congress, by the Supreme Court, and by the voters. No one aspect of our society is allowed to have a monopoly of power. That does not mean voting should not exist. Voting is still an important part of our Constitution. It is the civil means as to peaceful transfer of power.
I hear this word game all the time and really what the person is saying when they stupidly misrepresent what a Constitutional Republic is are saying is "It is ok when I get what I want, but tyranny when others use the same tools of government in the same manor".
Ultimately you play this word game to justify your own selfishness.
(November 19, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Aractus Wrote: I thought I already explained to you why this argument is invalid?
Okay, let's say I agree with you that healthcare resources are limited. This is true. Let's say here in Australia a politician decided that his or her policy was that we need 25% more nurses in our hospitals so that the nurse-to-patient ratio goes up. Well, we have a finite number of nurses, and every one of them who is able to work is employed. So where would we get more nurses from? It's just not possible. Right, we agree about that much.
Increased demand produces increased supply. So if there's a greater demand that goes beyond the capacity of the market, then healthcare supply will increase overtime. The other thing that will happen is that people with more necessary needs will be prioritised before those who have less crucial needs. In Australia this is called a "waiting list", and you go on the waiting list if your surgery needs are not directly life threatening. It might be very important to improve the quality of your life, but if you can live without the surgery then you'll wait. This is the primary reason why people do buy private health cover, so they don't have to wait if they have an injury or other medical problem that adversely affects their quality of life: they want it fixed now, not in 2-3 years.
So even if you're right that healthcare needs will exceed healthcare capacity, all it means is that the people who need the healthcare the most will be the first ones able to access it, and those with less essential needs can wait.
People who need liver transplants are put on waiting list too. Why? Because there are not enough livers to go around. The fact that you have waiting lists in Australia is indicates you are not producing enough health care to meet peoples needs.
When I talk to people about socialized health care this seems to be their biggest concern...that the government won't produce enough of it and there will be waiting list or rationing. This could be true....but it doesn't have to be true. There is no law of physics that prevents the government from producing enough health care to meet everyone's needs and wants. The government just needs the resources(and I believe the US government has those resources) and the will. Socialized medicine could not work in Somalia, but it could certainly work in the USA if the will is there.
Obamacare will lead to additional demand of healthcare...but not necessarily to an additional supply. Why? Because much of the prices for health care are set arbitrarily low by the state. Demand increases supply because demand bids up prices. High prices create an incentive to produce more. But with Obamacare demand won't bid up prices because many of the newly insured are on medicaid....which pays at an arbitrarily low rate.
(November 19, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Aractus Wrote: I thought I already explained to you why this argument is invalid?
Okay, let's say I agree with you that healthcare resources are limited. This is true. Let's say here in Australia a politician decided that his or her policy was that we need 25% more nurses in our hospitals so that the nurse-to-patient ratio goes up. Well, we have a finite number of nurses, and every one of them who is able to work is employed. So where would we get more nurses from? It's just not possible. Right, we agree about that much.
Increased demand produces increased supply. So if there's a greater demand that goes beyond the capacity of the market, then healthcare supply will increase overtime. The other thing that will happen is that people with more necessary needs will be prioritised before those who have less crucial needs. In Australia this is called a "waiting list", and you go on the waiting list if your surgery needs are not directly life threatening. It might be very important to improve the quality of your life, but if you can live without the surgery then you'll wait. This is the primary reason why people do buy private health cover, so they don't have to wait if they have an injury or other medical problem that adversely affects their quality of life: they want it fixed now, not in 2-3 years.
So even if you're right that healthcare needs will exceed healthcare capacity, all it means is that the people who need the healthcare the most will be the first ones able to access it, and those with less essential needs can wait.
People who need liver transplants are put on waiting list too. Why? Because there are not enough livers to go around. The fact that you have waiting lists in Australia is indicates you are not producing enough health care to meet peoples needs.
When I talk to people about socialized health care this seems to be their biggest concern...that the government won't produce enough of it and there will be waiting list or rationing. This could be true....but it doesn't have to be true. There is no law of physics that prevents the government from producing enough health care to meet everyone's needs and wants. The government just needs the resources(and I believe the US government has those resources) and the will. Socialized medicine could not work in Somalia, but it could certainly work in the USA if the will is there.
Obamacare will lead to additional demand of healthcare...but not necessarily to an additional supply. Why? Because much of the prices for health care are set arbitrarily low by the state. Demand increases supply because demand bids up prices. High prices create an incentive to produce more. But with Obamacare demand won't bid up prices because many of the newly insured are on medicaid....which pays at an arbitrarily low rate.
You missed the entire point of what I said. The point of what I said is that in universal healthcare the cancer patient is the one who gets care ahead of the chronic pain sufferer who needs knee surgery. Thus your argument that healthcare is finite is irrelevant.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50.-LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea.-LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
(November 18, 2014 at 6:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: Healthcare is consumed just like any other service Parker. Its continually being produced by doctors(and nurses and other health care providers) but also continually being consumed. If demand for it exceeds the amount produced people will have to go with out. We are seeing this starting to happen already.
(November 18, 2014 at 6:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: Healthcare is consumed just like any other service Parker. Its continually being produced by doctors(and nurses and other health care providers) but also continually being consumed. If demand for it exceeds the amount produced people will have to go with out. We are seeing this starting to happen already.
Numbers, please?
I cited my claim. Just because you decided to edit out my citation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So you'd rather have nothing at all, than have a fairer and more tightly regulated health insurance industry?
