August 1st 2012: just like Pearl Harbor and 9/11

[chris_in_pdx]

What I find hilariously ironic is that the same people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ promote this system of economic and social Darwanism, and any attempt to actually put into place processes that conform with what Jesus taught is met with resistance and hostility.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

Ed O.

Vonnegut FTW

 

[Denny Crane]

What I find hilariously ironic is that the same people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ promote this system of economic and social Darwanism, and any attempt to actually put into place processes that conform with what Jesus taught is met with resistance and hostility.

I'm not into religion, but I do believe Christ wanted people to give of themselves, not take from others.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I'm not into religion, but I do believe Christ wanted people to give of themselves, not take from others.

Ahh, yes, the "taxes is forced theft at gunpoint" viewpoint. Good luck with that.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ahh, yes, the "taxes is forced theft at gunpoint" viewpoint. Good luck with that.

More like doctors become slaves of the state viewpoint.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'd love to raise taxes on the rich and well-off (Top 80%) to pay for all these nice things, but the rich act like it's 9/11 when it comes up.

(I would be affected, so it's not like it'd be happening to someone else)

This isn't meant as a slam at all, but why do you think it's fair that some people have to pay more to the government than others?

I understand, the rich have more money, but I've always thought it was unfair to tax someone more just because they have more money. Taxes should be a flat rate (20% or whatever) and leave it at that.

The key is, don't let these people use loopholes to get out of paying taxes. Just made sure everyone pays their fair share and call it good.

My opinion on the matter is, why should someone else be forced to take care of the rest of us just because they have more money? I'm not wealthy. I have a decent job, but I would probably fall somewhere in the lower-middle class. I take care of myself. I'm not looking for handouts. I don't like receiving things I didn't earn.

Maybe it sounds heartless, but I think it's fair to expect people to pay for things themselves. Sacrifice some shit. Maybe you don't need the big screen TV or the nice car. The housing market crashed because people were living outside their means. Americans want to live the lifestyle, but they are unwilling to wait for it. That's why so many people have so much credit card debt (I'm one of them). We need to start living within our means.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

More like doctors become slaves of the state viewpoint.

I'm sure that all doctors in countries with universal health care consider themselves "slaves to the state". Do you even read what you type?

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm sure that all doctors in countries with universal health care consider themselves "slaves to the state". Do you even read what you type?

Yeah, I read what I type and I read what others type. Even left wing sites like this one:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/12/slave-doctors-for-capitalism/

Slave Doctors for Capitalism

I begin by sharing an excerpt from a stunning speech by Leon Eisenberg, MD, in which he spoke truth to power before approximately 300 medical students, educators and administrators at Michigan State University. Here is Eisenberg:

“Like the ancient Greeks there will soon be two types of doctors, slave doctors and free doctors. Which will it be for you?”

Slave doctors are those who dutifully marched to the orders of bean counters and bureaucrats, practicing “cookbook medicine,” seeing 40 patients a day, Eisenberg said. Free doctors placed people’s humanity front and center. He explained they fully understood the dictum that, “medicine is a social science, politics by other means, and politics nothing but medicine on a grand scale,” a phrase uttered by the 19th century socialist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, he said.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

This isn't meant as a slam at all, but why do you think it's fair that some people have to pay more to the government than others?

I understand, the rich have more money, but I've always thought it was unfair to tax someone more just because they have more money. Taxes should be a flat rate (20% or whatever) and leave it at that.

There is a certain point of wealth/income that a person can have that passes the level from "comfortable existence" to "opulence for the sake of opulence". This is the level at which tax should be levied at a progressive rate.

Using your logic:
A person making 20,000 dollars a year pays 4000 in taxes, leaving them 16,000 dollars.
A person making 2 million dollars pays 400,000 dollars, leaving them 1,600,000 dollars.

Which do you think is going to be more impacted in the real world?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

This isn't meant as a slam at all, but why do you think it's fair that some people have to pay more to the government than others?

I don't think it's fair; I think it's morally right. Those with greater influence must act kindly to those with less influence, precisely because that equation isn't fair. Both parties should be fine with passing moral judgments as laws; civil rights wouldn't have been codified otherwise. You are paying more money as a trade-off for the greater societal influence that affluence inherently brings.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

Yeah, I read what I type and I read what others type. *snip*

So, let's be frank. You have no real-world experience with Socialized medicine, you have no real-world knowledge from either doctors or patients from such a system. You are just swallowing supposed "experts" opinions on such who have obvious agendas, and then claiming them to be gospel. I say with conviction that you are full of shit. Live in Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, and talk with the people there first-hand about their experiences. You might find that your pig-headed "America is God's Country And Can Do No Wrong" attitude is absolutely fucking baseless and you are full of complete shit. No, none of those systems are perfect, and yes, there's rampant corruption and probably pissed off doctors and patients in every system that thinks their system is screwed. But at the end of the day, someone with a life-threatening illness or situation isn't going to die because they can't afford treatement. If a guy needs his hangnail looked at, he'll go in and have it treated because he can, and won't wait until he develops gangrene and has to go to an emergency room and have his hand or foot amputated and had to declare bankruptcy because he either can't pay the bill or his insurance company drops him.

You see the negative prospects. I see the positive ones. And in my mind, the positives far outweigh the negatives because I actually give a shit about the common man and don't see him/her as just a commodity/consumer to be exploited.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think it's fair; I think it's morally right that those with greater influence must act kindly to those with less influence, precisely because that equation isn't fair. Both parties should be fine with passing moral judgments as laws; civil rights wouldn't have been codified otherwise. You are paying more money as a trade-off for the greater societal influence that affluence inherently brings.

I think civil rights is a completely different issue.

There's no gray area on "all men are created equal", but there's a hell of a gray area on "how much is too much" and what would be "morally right" in terms of taxing someone more or less.

Just because someone makes what you would consider "too much money" they are morally obligated to give back more? Who decides what is morally right and wrong?

Morals are in the eye of the beholder, but the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights felt that there were certain inalienable rights that every man, woman, and child were entitled to. I wouldn't put taxes in that category.

I think a lot of people could give back more before they start throwing stones at people they perceive to have too much money. Why don't more people volunteer or donate money/old clothes/etc?

 

[Denny Crane]

So, let's be frank. You have no real-world experience with Socialized medicine, you have no real-world knowledge from either doctors or patients from such a system. You are just swallowing supposed "experts" opinions on such who have obvious agendas, and then claiming them to be gospel. I say with conviction that you are full of shit. Live in Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, and talk with the people there first-hand about their experiences. You might find that your pig-headed "America is God's Country And Can Do No Wrong" attitude is absolutely fucking baseless and you are full of complete shit. No, none of those systems are perfect, and yes, there's rampant corruption and probably pissed off doctors and patients in every system that thinks their system is screwed. But at the end of the day, someone with a life-threatening illness or situation isn't going to die because they can't afford treatement. If a guy needs his hangnail looked at, he'll go in and have it treated because he can, and won't wait until he develops gangrene and has to go to an emergency room and have his hand or foot amputated and had to declare bankruptcy because he either can't pay the bill or his insurance company drops him.

You see the negative prospects. I see the positive ones. And in my mind, the positives far outweigh the negatives because I actually give a shit about the common man and don't see him/her as just a commodity/consumer to be exploited.

My parents are doctors.

Next assumption on your part?

 

[Denny Crane]

So, let's be frank. You have no real-world experience with Socialized medicine, you have no real-world knowledge from either doctors or patients from such a system. You are just swallowing supposed "experts" opinions on such who have obvious agendas, and then claiming them to be gospel. I say with conviction that you are full of shit. Live in Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, and talk with the people there first-hand about their experiences. You might find that your pig-headed "America is God's Country And Can Do No Wrong" attitude is absolutely fucking baseless and you are full of complete shit. No, none of those systems are perfect, and yes, there's rampant corruption and probably pissed off doctors and patients in every system that thinks their system is screwed. But at the end of the day, someone with a life-threatening illness or situation isn't going to die because they can't afford treatement. If a guy needs his hangnail looked at, he'll go in and have it treated because he can, and won't wait until he develops gangrene and has to go to an emergency room and have his hand or foot amputated and had to declare bankruptcy because he either can't pay the bill or his insurance company drops him.

You see the negative prospects. I see the positive ones. And in my mind, the positives far outweigh the negatives because I actually give a shit about the common man and don't see him/her as just a commodity/consumer to be exploited.

Ask these 130,000 people in Great Britain? How do you ask them? Do tell.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html

 

[ppilot]

Ask these 130,000 people in Great Britain? How do you ask them? Do tell.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html

I mean the statistics being used come from mid-level conservative tabloid, so obviously they are true.

 

[Denny Crane]

I mean the statistics being used come from mid-level conservative tabloid, so obviously they are true.

Professor Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, was speaking to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

He said: ‘The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.

‘Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.

‘Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition.
‘Predicting death in a time frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible scientifically.

...

Medical criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway were voiced nearly three years ago.

Experts including Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, and Dr Peter Hargreaves, palliative care consultant at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, Surrey, warned of ‘backdoor euthanasia’ and the risk that economic factors were being brought into the treatment of vulnerable patients.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

My parents are doctors.

In a country with socialized medicine? No? Then STFU. Next!

 

[Denny Crane]

In a country with socialized medicine? No? Then STFU. Next!

What does in a country with socialized medicine have to do with anything? Socialized Medicine was first promised by Harry S Truman, so the discussion has been going on for quite a few decades.

My parents actually favored socializing medicine at one point, because they were spending 33% of their time on pro-bono cases and many of their other patients were covered by govt. programs; collecting from the govt. was a huge chore and took a big staff of expensive people doing useless work.

But you see, them choosing to do pro-bono 33% of the time and the assholes you voted for demanding it of them is what would make them slaves. And yeah, it will be demanded of them if they are required to see 2x the patients to make the same money.

 

[MARIS61]

The conversation evolved... did you want us to all simply post that Mike Kelly is a moron? That would be a pretty boring thread.

Mike Kelly is a moron.

There ya go

Nothing more need be said really.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't consider access to birth control, etc., to be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor. I do consider throwing 40M new people at the health care system to be a rather huge time bomb.

Better to throw them in a mass grave then. eh?

You're one of a kind, Denny Crane.

 

[MARIS61]

Not at all. At least not in my opinion.

If the quality of health care is sacrificed for the quantity of users (and the expectation that every malady should be treated for free by a professional will lead to such a sacrifice) then it drags down the quality of health care for those of us who currently have it.

If someone wants to be seen for a hangnail currently, then they can be--even by a doctor. It will cost them to do so, which prevents the demand for hangnail care from becoming too high.

Ed O.

Correct. Forunately hangnails are actually a pretty rare malady, and only the very rich can afford to take the time off work to be pampered by a medical staff for such a benign annoyance. Only the very rich would not be embarassed by being such a sissy in the first place. So your fears are unfounded about the future quality of hangnail treatment.

Unfortunately your theory does absolutely apply for more serious things such as cancer and heart attacks, severed limbs and AIDS, gunshot wounds and strokes...But maybe if very rich sissies stop wasting doctor's time on pampering their hangnails and stuffing their wive's tits with silicone, there will be enough doctors to go around.

 

[Denny Crane]

Better to throw them in a mass grave then. eh?

You're one of a kind, Denny Crane.

No. It's better to make the medicine cheaper so it's affordable to all. Like I said, 30% of my parents' work was pro bono, and I think that's typical of most doctors. 30% covers those who can't afford to pay, hence the pro bono part. Get it?

 

[MARIS61]

No. It's better to make the medicine cheaper so it's affordable to all. Like I said, 30% of my parents' work was pro bono, and I think that's typical of most doctors. 30% covers those who can't afford to pay, hence the pro bono part. Get it?

Non-existent scenario.

Doctor's fees are but a tiny slice of the pie.

But let's say they charge 30% less for all their services and don't do any pro-bono. Suddenly more poor people can afford healthcare. And they don't feel like leeches because they are really paying their way. Your parents walk away just as rich and everybody is happy.

The only ones griping are the selfish bastards who didn't previously do 30% pro bono work. Which is pretty much most doctors.

 

[jlprk]

When people have "free" access to health care, they will use it for less than routine stuff.

It won't be free. The usual insurance rules apply to Obamacare--$30 co-pay, $3000 annual deductible, 80% coverage after that, etc.

There will be the same incentives against overuse as now.

 

[Ed O]

Unfortunately your theory does absolutely apply for more serious things such as cancer and heart attacks, severed limbs and AIDS, gunshot wounds and strokes...But maybe if very rich sissies stop wasting doctor's time on pampering their hangnails and stuffing their wive's tits with silicone, there will be enough doctors to go around.

But there's not. And there's no evidence that there will be.

The answer is ... NPs to replace doctors?

It's bringing down the mountaintops to raise the valleys, and it's not what we should be doing IMO.

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

Non-existent scenario.

Doctor's fees are but a tiny slice of the pie.

But let's say they charge 30% less for all their services and don't do any pro-bono. Suddenly more poor people can afford healthcare. And they don't feel like leeches because they are really paying their way. Your parents walk away just as rich and everybody is happy.

The only ones griping are the selfish bastards who didn't previously do 30% pro bono work. Which is pretty much most doctors.

Charging 30% less won't make a poor person choose medicine over food.

Pro bono means the doctor charges $0 for his services, his staff's services, lab work, and even surgery.

If doctors are doing less pro bono work today than in 1980, it's because the govt. has mandated they perform pro bono work. Turned them into slaves of the government.

 

[Haakzilla]

...so, is this another false flag attack like the subject line -or- just another guise for certain big business companies to make even more of a fortune on healthcare?!

 

[MARIS61]

Charging 30% less won't make a poor person choose medicine over food.

Pro bono means the doctor charges $0 for his services, his staff's services, lab work, and even surgery.

If doctors are doing less pro bono work today than in 1980, it's because the govt. has mandated they perform pro bono work. Turned them into slaves of the government.

You're just spouting bs again.

I've been through the healthcare conglomerate ringer. Lab tests are all outsourced and billed separately. No doctor in America pays the bill for his patient's lab tests. Operating room costs, nurses, meds, x-rays and cat-scans and MRI's are all billed to separate entities. Again, no doctor in America pays those costs for his patients.

I'm seriously doubting your parents are even in the medical field since you seem to be so clueless as to the reality of healthcare in America. But maybe they really are doctors and they're just lying to you.

 

[MARIS61]

Charging 30% less won't make a poor person choose medicine over food.

You're right, so maybe we need price controls on ALL necessities. Food, shelter, water, healthcare, education...

Wouldn't it be much simpler if 1% of our country weren't heartless greedy bastards?

 

[Denny Crane]

You're just spouting bs again.

I've been through the healthcare conglomerate ringer. Lab tests are all outsourced and billed separately. No doctor in America pays the bill for his patient's lab tests. Operating room costs, nurses, meds, x-rays and cat-scans and MRI's are all billed to separate entities. Again, no doctor in America pays those costs for his patients.

I'm seriously doubting your parents are even in the medical field since you seem to be so clueless as to the reality of healthcare in America. But maybe they really are doctors and they're just lying to you.

Nonsense. They do the labs at the last 5 doctors offices I've been to.

And my father was a nephrologist. Go look up what he did.