toad

Ocasio

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

...    ...    ...

Honestly, wasn't following it. Stuck the JizZKid on ignore ages ago. The sad little troll hadn't changed his tune in the first five or so years since I encountered him online, he was only going to get worse as time & life's failures made him even more bitter at the world. Trust me, you'd be doing yourself (and those of us who can't be bothered with his shit) a big favour by using the ignore feature on his drivel. 

So far I haven't put anybody on ignore . I apologize for dragging out the discussion

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Your comment about how much income is taken away for governmental programs, coupled with your general stance on all things political, leads me to believe you feel the average Dane is taxed too heavily and this policy is onerous and less than popular.

Maybe your comparison of then and now was meant to convey things are better then they were.  But, I read it to mean the opposite.

Living in a treeless rabbit warren is not better than they were.

Perhaps you should look into WHY the Danes are happy from the lifestyle vs. financial perspective.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's always funny watching the free marketeer folks slam head-first into the success of democratic socialist countries. Yes, they pay higher taxes then the US, but they get more "bang for their buck" than their yankee counterparts too. There is a reason such countries happier and it's not cos we have better weed. ;)

You mean those countries that are more economically free than the United States?  Those are the countries that you call "democratic socialist?"  Not very intellectually honest of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So far I haven't put anybody on ignore . I apologize for dragging out the discussion

-DSK

Apology accepted.  You really wasted everyone's time with your nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's always funny watching the free marketeer folks slam head-first into the success of democratic socialist countries. Yes, they pay higher taxes then the US, but they get more "bang for their buck" than their yankee counterparts too. There is a reason such countries happier and it's not cos we have better weed. ;)

https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

Denmark's own Prime Minister debunking the nonsense claim that Denmark is socialist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Living in a treeless rabbit warren is not better than they were.

Perhaps you should look into WHY the Danes are happy from the lifestyle vs. financial perspective.

I'm still stuck on your "high density is bad" dumbfuckery. It's almost as impressive as your "brexit is good because they can bring back pint glasses" dumbfuckery. It's almost like you are a bitter old fuck that trolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's always funny watching the free marketeer folks slam head-first into the success of democratic socialist countries. Yes, they pay higher taxes then the US, but they get more "bang for their buck" than their yankee counterparts too. There is a reason such countries happier and it's not cos we have better weed. ;)

https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

Denmark's own Prime Minister debunking the nonsense claim that Denmark is socialist.

OK, the Danes are not socialist. I don't have a problem with that.

Now, since they're not socialist, would YOU have a problem enacting similar tax rates to support similar gov't programs here in the US?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, the Danes are not socialist. I don't have a problem with that.

Now, since they're not socialist, would YOU have a problem enacting similar tax rates to support similar gov't programs here in the US?

-DSK

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Living in a treeless rabbit warren is not better than they were.

Perhaps you should look into WHY the Danes are happy from the lifestyle vs. financial perspective.

 

Your photos used for comparison are misleading.  Maybe you need to look at the bigger picture.

There is a master plan for developing Copenhagen.

What you call a "treeless rabbit warren" is anything but.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, the Danes are not socialist. I don't have a problem with that.

Now, since they're not socialist, would YOU have a problem enacting similar tax rates to support similar gov't programs here in the US?

-DSK

Thank you for your intellectual honesty in making that admission.  It is in short supply on this forum.

No, of course I wouldn't support similar tax rates.  Why would I?  Just because it is a fact that the Danes are not "socialist," doesn't mean that everything they do is the ideal economic model either.

Just like someone sucking off of government programs has no bearing on whether those programs are ideal.  

Your logic simply doesn't lead to the conclusion that you are trying to make.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Your photos used for comparison are misleading.  Maybe you need to look at the bigger picture.

There is a master plan for developing Copenhagen.

What you call a "treeless rabbit warren" is anything but.

I took both of those pictures from my hotel window.  The modern buildings extend for miles and it is grown in sections.  The green area beyond those is the next scheduled for permitted development.  The tracks and road will be extended into the empty space.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/denmark-immigration-16059.html

It's kind of interesting that a lot of Danes actually live in Sweden and commute because they can't afford to live in Copenhagen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

I took both of those pictures from my hotel window.  The modern buildings extend for miles and it is grown in sections.  The green area beyond those is the next scheduled for permitted development.  The tracks and road will be extended into the empty space.

Clearly it'd be better to pave over 5 or 10x the area for lowdensity suburban sprawl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Really?? I live in a town described by many who create such lists as the best place in the USA for business or jobs opportunities. 150 new people come here EVERY DAY!!

Waitstaff in popular upscale restaurants  do pretty well. 

Many of the new unfilled jobs do offer better pay and benefits FOR THOSE WITH THE RIGHT RESUMES. 

What jobs are open for those whose resume says:

washed dishes, promoted to cleaning tables, promoted to day shift waiter, promoted to dinner shift waiter?? 

note: Congressman is NOT an available answer as the Texas Legislature  gerrymandered the districts such that Austin does not have its own congressman 

Austin doesn't even have a local critter? Damn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Saorsa said:

I took both of those pictures from my hotel window.  The modern buildings extend for miles and it is grown in sections.  The green area beyond those is the next scheduled for permitted development.  The tracks and road will be extended into the empty space.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/denmark-immigration-16059.html

It's kind of interesting that a lot of Danes actually live in Sweden and commute because they can't afford to live in Copenhagen.

 

A lot of people live in Lyndon, Washington and commute because they cant afford to live in Vancouver. And with them there is a border involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

 

Jealous that she's already accomplished more than you ever will?

 

It's Sad. Bigly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Ouch.

That's gotta leave a mark.

I guess in those 10+ years the 3 branches of gov't have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, the Danes are not socialist. I don't have a problem with that.

Elaborate social safety net (welfare), free education, universal healthcare, public pensions, >50% of national GDP spent by the government. All hallmarks of a democratic socialist nation. Absolutely agree that they are not a true socialist nation, in the same way the USA, Canada, etc are not true democratic nations... but anyone looking to them for repudiation of democratic socialism in their support of free market capitalist solutions to social problems is barking up the wrong tree.

Which is why it's funny watching Saorsa brought them up unprompted. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Elaborate social safety net (welfare), free education, universal healthcare, public pensions, >50% of national GDP spent by the government. All hallmarks of a democratic socialist nation. Absolutely agree that they are not a true socialist nation, in the same way the USA, Canada, etc are not true democratic nations... but anyone looking to them for repudiation of democratic socialism in their support of free market capitalist solutions to social problems is barking up the wrong tree.

Which is why it's funny watching Saorsa brought them up unprompted. :lol: 

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” - Prime Minister Rasmussen

Bent is such a clown.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

Elaborate social safety net (welfare), free education, universal healthcare, public pensions, >50% of national GDP spent by the government. All hallmarks of a democratic socialist nation. Absolutely agree that they are not a true socialist nation, in the same way the USA, Canada, etc are not true democratic nations... but anyone looking to them for repudiation of democratic socialism in their support of free market capitalist solutions to social problems is barking up the wrong tree.

Which is why it's funny watching Saorsa brought them up unprompted. :lol: 

Why don't you find the post where I called them socialist and refer to it by post number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why don't you find the post where I called them socialist and refer to it by post number.

I didn't say you called them socialist. I said you brought them up. Do you need a link to that post or do you think you can handle that on your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Not guilty said:

Considering the number of toes he has makes steam fliers IQ look high, it is no surprise. 

Aww, looks like I hurt somebody's widdle feelings

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think A O-C is a  much needed breath of fresh air.

She's more of a swamp drainer than Trump could ever hope to be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I think A O-C is a  much needed breath of fresh air.

She's more of a swamp drainer than Trump could ever hope to be.

Funny how some folks who thought electing a political outsider to the WH deride AOC as just that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

I think A O-C is a  much needed breath of fresh air.

She's more of a swamp drainer than Trump could ever hope to be.

Trump hired the swamp to run his campaign, that's not a high bar to clear.

It's interesting how AOC has used "new media' to explain the day to day of politics in a way few others have attempted. It's also interesting the reaction of the rightwingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Funny how some folks who thought electing a political outsider to the WH deride AOC as just that. 

Freshman congressmen can't write EOs.

She'll be interesting to watch.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is she, six or seven years too young to run?  I guess that’s enough time to gin up a bullshit hatestorm. Carry on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Freshman congressmen can't write EOs.

She'll be interesting to watch.

 

 

I wasn't comparing the two.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy in the rationale mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless people were truly afraid of the concepts Ocasio puts forward, they wouldn't make up stupid memes about her.  This fear is of what?  Typically a fear of taking away a definition "freedom" that minimizes responsibility to the society that they require to maintain them.  Maximize personal return, minimize personal responsibility.  I am concerned about how the responsibility of a lot of people stops at the circle of their immediate family and only continues to the extended family they like.  I would really like a reasoned debate about the need for a two front military vs the need for efficient medical care.  I think they are going to really get their nickers in a twist when the baby boomers suck up wealth and then die.  This will give a lot of power to people born in the 80s.  The boomers will be too old to work and their capital will have to take care of them.  Problem is that the balance of power of capital vs labor will start to tip a bit towards labor.  One of the reasons for democracy was the Black Death.  There were too few workers to support the power structure without making some changes.  I think this will happen again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Laker said:

I would really like a reasoned debate about the need for a two front military vs the need for efficient medical care. 

"American Interests"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Laker said:

I would really like a reasoned debate about the need for a two front military vs the need for efficient medical care.

Is there someone that doesn't support efficient medical care?

In our current world, what products and services tend to delivered to us most efficiently?  In what sectors do we have the most innovation?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

 

osc0.jpg

And yet, she's accomplished more in her short life than you ever will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Stupid memes say more about the people propagating them then they say about the subject. 

He's just jealous that a young woman has seen some success. Not much yet, and she has much to accomplish before people will say she's had an impact, but her resume already looks better than most on this board. bhyde and Sol, excepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

He's just jealous that a young woman has seen some success. Not much yet, and she has much to accomplish before people will say she's had an impact, but her resume already looks better than most on this board. bhyde and Sol, excepted.

You're planning to sail your own boat to HI next year - getting to the point that you can make that trip ain't a small accomplishment either.  I'd hazard that many here are quite accomplished in their own right, and that some of those are allowing partisan animosity to infect their thoughts as it pertains to what Ms Ocasio might accomplish, or spur others to accomplish.   She's naive - but, she's in office for the right reasons, and THAT is something we all should want to see a lot more of.  

That said - there are a few who's contributions to the forums make me wonder how/if they ever managed to do anything more than carry old tires from the changer to the shredder out back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her success politically hasn't actually shown much so far.  She won a primary in a solidly democrat district.  Once she did that the rest was pretty much a foregone conclusion.  it's not like her district is gerrymandered or anything.  They did actually elect a republican in 1983 and 1920.  (That may have been when Hillary ran for the House.)  

Kerry was the only presidential candidate to get less than 75% of the vote.

District.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Her success politically hasn't actually shown much so far.  She won a primary in a solidly democrat district.  Once she did that the rest was pretty much a foregone conclusion.  it's not like her district is gerrymandered or anything.  They did actually elect a republican in 1983 and 1920.  (That may have been when Hillary ran for the House.)  

Kerry was the only presidential candidate to get less than 75% of the vote.

District.jpg

Hard to be a political success when you haven't been sworn in to office yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Hard to be a political success when you haven't been sworn in to office yet.

I figured getting elected took a bit of politicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Memes...merely trying to keep it simple and less painful...

 

Memes - " I'm too lazy to worry about context and understanding, so I'll just post the vapid stupidity that some other shallow, incurious person put on my Facebook feed". 

No personal affront intended - I've just never liked the damn things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

Is there someone that doesn't support efficient medical care?

In our current world, what products and services tend to delivered to us most efficiently?  In what sectors do we have the most innovation?  

Son; don't even go there.  US medical, 33% of GDP.  Danish medical 18% GDP and it isn't just because of a homogeneous patient base and if they are in better health guess what, it is because of their system.  Lets try auto insurance.  Much more efficient under a single payer process, especially when auto insurance is required by law.  And on and on.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

 

osc0.jpg

I thought that was how Trump got elected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Laker said:

Son; don't even go there.  US medical, 33% of GDP.  Danish medical 18% GDP and it isn't just because of a homogeneous patient base and if they are in better health guess what, it is because of their system.  Lets try auto insurance.  Much more efficient under a single payer process, especially when auto insurance is required by law.  And on and on.......

Do you have think that the US has a free market health care system?  Why do people in the US spend more money on healthcare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Laker said:

Son; don't even go there.  US medical, 33% of GDP.  Danish medical 18% GDP and it isn't just because of a homogeneous patient base and if they are in better health guess what, it is because of their system.  Lets try auto insurance.  Much more efficient under a single payer process, especially when auto insurance is required by law.  And on and on.......

Where is there single payer auto insurance?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Her success politically hasn't actually shown much so far.  She won a primary in a solidly democrat district.  Once she did that the rest was pretty much a foregone conclusion.  it's not like her district is gerrymandered or anything.  They did actually elect a republican in 1983 and 1920.  (That may have been when Hillary ran for the House.)  

Kerry was the only presidential candidate to get less than 75% of the vote.

District.jpg

I wonder how the voting went on rikers and hart island

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Where is there single payer auto insurance?

 

Why don't we just have single payer cars, electronics, food and housing?  We can all drive trabants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Funny little graphic, illustrating what many people have been saying, rightwingers love hating on AOC

Dtgfiu0W0AElFXG.jpg

 

10x the number of articles written, more than 10x the number of shares.

And she's yet to cast a single vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

And she's yet to cast a single vote.

 

Hard to vote when you haven't been sworn in yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Hard to vote when you haven't been sworn in yet.

Yep, and that's when we see what she accomplishes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Yep, and that's when we see what she accomplishes.

 

Hopefully she does better than Sen. Rubio.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Pick me, pick me!!!!

Anytime you "socialize" anything, be it auto insurance, healthcare, college education, whatever, it has to go up for the simple reason that people start thinking in terms of "what is this going to cost me a month in payments?" rather than, "what does this actually cost all up?". Not a damn thing has ever become cheaper by sharing the cost with other, nothing.

Ignoring the countries that have "socialist" health care that gives twice the performance for half the cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Ignoring the countries that have "socialist" health care that gives twice the performance for half the cost?

As long as you can stand the wait.

We are all about instant gratification and thoroughness.  Ever been to the ER without getting a CAT scan?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

As long as you can stand the wait.

We are all about instant gratification and thoroughness.  Ever been to the ER without getting a CAT scan?

Ever been out of the US? For that matter, have you ever been in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

You mean like The United Kingdom where when NHS started out it cost 28% of all revenues collected and now it is north of 40% and still in financial trouble?

UK spends 9.8% of GDP on healthcare. The US spends 17.9%.

I'm starting to think you are a stupid ideologue Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BillDBastard said:

And I now know what an abject idiot you are. The United Kindom spends more than 40p of every pound they collect in tax revenue on National Health Service and you think that is a good deal? One other thing, it does not cover everyone. In theory, yes, but in practice those in the upper half of the middle class and upper class all elect private health care. Many travel abroad for surgeries because of the crisis/failure the NHS is. 

Oh yes please, give us some of that!

Well, boy, if yer gonna be stupid we can just put you all on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

And I now know what an abject idiot you are. The United Kindom spends more than 40p of every pound they collect in tax revenue on National Health Service and you think that is a good deal? One other thing, it does not cover everyone. In theory, yes, but in practice those in the upper half of the middle class and upper class all elect private health care. Many travel abroad for surgeries because of the crisis/failure the NHS is. 

Oh yes please, give us some of that!

NHS FY17/8 spending was £124.7bn. UK tax revenues 2017/2018 were £594.3bn.  124.7 / 594.3 = 0.2098.

https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/AutumnBudgetWhatItMeans.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284298/total-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/

So you're stupid rather than informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

As long as you can stand the wait.

We are all about instant gratification and thoroughness.  Ever been to the ER without getting a CAT scan?

 

You mean like when I went in to get my palm sewn up after I stuck a 2" chisel into it? I don't think I have ever had a CAT scan, but the Canadian system does not encourage maximum billing for minimum results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Well I guess the BBC has it all wrong then. Note that this chart is dated and spending on NHS increased significantly over the past 12 months.

Graph showing the change in proportion of public services budget spent on health

Yet it seems no matter how much is invested, it's still not enough. (Note this is the BBC's comment)

That says proportion of public services budget rather than every pound they collect in tax revenue you fucking moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

That says proportion of public services budget rather than every pound they collect in tax revenue you fucking moron.

Here's the GDP numbers vs other EU members, which is what we were talking about.

CoTM%20Aug%202017.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

And I now know what an abject idiot you are. The United Kindom spends more than 40p of every pound they collect in tax revenue on National Health Service and you think that is a good deal?

Yes. Healthcare costs for the entire country (providing statistically better outcomes than the US) is only 9.8% of the UK GDP. Healthcare costs in the USA (with it's worse overall outcomes) costs 17.9% of US GDP. Comparing the deals, yes - the Brits are doing far better than you yanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:
57 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

And I now know what an abject idiot you are. The United Kindom spends more than 40p of every pound they collect in tax revenue on National Health Service and you think that is a good deal?

Yes. Healthcare costs for the entire country (providing statistically better outcomes than the US) is only 9.8% of the UK GDP. Healthcare costs in the USA (with it's worse overall outcomes) costs 17.9% of US GDP. Comparing the deals, yes - the Brits are doing far better than you yanks.

Bill provided a classic example of Trumpian economic theory. That is, find a number that looks close to your prejudices and run with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I am not going to argue "half the cost"...but twice the performance is laughable....I have an old sailing friend ,he is French, he is going through hospital stays for diagnosis and treatment for several diseases and conditions. It has been very slow and frustrating ordeal for him and the photos from his hospital rooms are spartan and old looking, better than a 100 years ago but nothing like treatments and facilities very common here in the US.      

Even if the cost is half for the same outcomes, the yanks are getting a shit deal... and the stats show better outcomes for the vast majority of countries with single-payer systems.

There isn't a way for right-wingers to win this on the economics and healthcare statistics. The numbers are pretty solidly against them. However, they still have anecdotes and the odd fit of outrage that they're paying for someone else's healthcare (cos, you know, that's not how insurance works :rolleyes: ). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Even if the cost is half for the same outcomes, the yanks are getting a shit deal... and the stats show better outcomes for the vast majority of countries with single-payer systems.

There isn't a way for right-wingers to win this on the economics and healthcare statistics. The numbers are pretty solidly against them. However, they still have anecdotes and the odd fit of outrage that they're paying for someone else's healthcare (cos, you know, that's not how insurance works :rolleyes: ). 

The US doesn't have a capitalist healthcare system.  If we did, insurance would cost as much as a cell phone plan and services would be much more affordable.  Drug costs would be much much lower than they are today.

If the economics were on the side of socialized medicine, we should have socialized farming and flat screen TVs.  But it just isn't.  So we don't.  What we have is some sort of sentiment that socialized medicine is the only way to be "kind" to the common man.  When the truth is that a competitive health care system would provide the most "kindness" because it would actually be affordable to the common man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

The US doesn't have a capitalist healthcare system.  If we did, insurance would cost as much as a cell phone plan and services would be much more affordable.  Drug costs would be much much lower than they are today.

If the economics were on the side of socialized medicine, we should have socialized farming and flat screen TVs.  But it just isn't.  So we don't.  What we have is some sort of sentiment that socialized medicine is the only way to be "kind" to the common man.  When the truth is that a competitive health care system would provide the most "kindness" because it would actually be affordable to the common man.

In a way, that is a good argument. Except the fundamental property of capitalism is to maximize the return on capital. What the US does in healthcare is exactly that and nothing else. Capitalism in no way promotes quality, efficiency, or the well being of society except as, from time to time, such things might affect the return on capital.

Perhaps surprisingly, people have the power to change this inhumane situation. Even amend the constitution if required to crush the illiterate right’s delusions that Capitalism (and Whiteness and English) are somehow enshrined therein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I am not going to argue "half the cost"...but twice the performance is laughable....I have an old sailing friend ,he is French, he is going through hospital stays for diagnosis and treatment for several diseases and conditions. It has been very slow and frustrating ordeal for him and the photos from his hospital rooms are spartan and old looking, better than a 100 years ago but nothing like treatments and facilities very common here in the US. 

    

 

I think a lot of it depends on how you define and measure 'performance.

I've told this story before - two years ago,   My wife was experiencing chest pains.  She went to an instacare.  They checked her out and said they didn't know why she had chest pain.  They ran an EKG and said it didn't look like she was experiencing a heart attack but recommended she go to the ER.  She went.  In the ER, they admitted her.  The ran another EKG because they didn't believe the instacare EKG.  They said it didn't look like she was experiencing a heart attack but observed her for a few hours.  The protein markers were negative.  At that point, we asked if they knew what was causing the chest pain.  They said 'no, but it doesn't look like a heart attack'.  We asked to go home.  They flipped out and basically said NO, YOU MIGHT BE HAVING A HEART ATTACK.  Ok.. so we stayed and they ran more tests.  Ultimately, she stayed overnight.  The next day, they ran more tests, looked over the more detailed notes and pronounced she didn't look like she had a heart attack.  But they ran ANOTHER battery of tests including the full 'treadmill/ultrasound/blah blah' test.  They discharged her that afternoon, confident she hadn't had a heart attack.

Total Charges?  Something around $20K but since it was in-network, blah blah -  a couple hundred bucks?  

Fact.  She didn't have a heart attack.

Fact.  We accepted that diagnosis after the first couple of tests and were, frankly, much more interested in what might be causing the chest pain.

Fact.  They never actually gave any insight into the cause of the pain - just that she DIDN'T have a heart attack.

What was their 'performance'?  They were nice and I certainly appreciate them being there - despite the fact that the nurses were having this really creepy discussion right outside our door about who got to give the exam to this apparently smoking hot patient that was suffering abdominal pain a few rooms down.  But after the first few tests, I believed them.  I wanted to know what WAS causing the pain, not what WASN'T, particularly when all the tests were for the exact same thing.  They didn't know.  Sorry. 

US Medical care is top notch but my personal belief is that 'defensive medicine' has run amok or, at least, is used as an excuse to pad the bill if you DO have insurance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

 

I think a lot of it depends on how you define and measure 'performance.

I've told this story before - two years ago,   My wife was experiencing chest pains.  She went to an instacare.  They checked her out and said they didn't know why she had chest pain.  They ran an EKG and said it didn't look like she was experiencing a heart attack but recommended she go to the ER.  She went.  In the ER, they admitted her.  The ran another EKG because they didn't believe the instacare EKG.  They said it didn't look like she was experiencing a heart attack but observed her for a few hours.  The protein markers were negative.  At that point, we asked if they knew what was causing the chest pain.  They said 'no, but it doesn't look like a heart attack'.  We asked to go home.  They flipped out and basically said NO, YOU MIGHT BE HAVING A HEART ATTACK.  Ok.. so we stayed and they ran more tests.  Ultimately, she stayed overnight.  The next day, they ran more tests, looked over the more detailed notes and pronounced she didn't look like she had a heart attack.  But they ran ANOTHER battery of tests including the full 'treadmill/ultrasound/blah blah' test.  They discharged her that afternoon, confident she hadn't had a heart attack.

Total Charges?  Something around $20K but since it was in-network, blah blah -  a couple hundred bucks?  

Fact.  She didn't have a heart attack.

Fact.  We accepted that diagnosis after the first couple of tests and were, frankly, much more interested in what might be causing the chest pain.

Fact.  They never actually gave any insight into the cause of the pain - just that she DIDN'T have a heart attack.

What was their 'performance'?  They were nice and I certainly appreciate them being there - despite the fact that the nurses were having this really creepy discussion about who got to give the exam to this apparently smoking hot patient that was suffering some abdominal pain a few rooms down.  But after the first few tests, I believed them.  I wanted to know what WAS causing the pain, not what WASN'T, particularly when all the tests were for the exact same thing.

US Medical care is top notch but my personal belief is that 'defensive medicine' has run amok or, at least, is used as an excuse to pad the bill if you DO have insurance.

There are really only a few ways to measure quality:
Satisfaction with the system

Basic data like life expectancy,infant and mother mortality

etc.

The US lags in all the basics. And no, google it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I am talking about state of the medical arts and quality of care provided here in the US...we have excellent options for treatments and excellent patient care between competing practices and hospitals....not a DMV take a number and we'll get to you when we get to you.

Sure, and Britain also has state of the art medical facilities and quality of care for those that pay more for it. No-one is arguing that you have "options". Merely pointing out that those options are more expensive, are inaccessible to large parts of the citizenry, and as such fail to provide the overall healthcare benefits single-payer systems do. The statistics show that healthcare outcomes for US citizens are worse than that of British citizens. The economics show they achieve those better outcomes for less than half the cost of their US counterparts. Most of your country is getting a shit deal, even if the rich amongst you are getting one you can live with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on every scale of economic/medical treatment. From gold plated private insurance, to free clinics in the 3rd world, to...... What I guess I would call "tin plate" state coverage back in the states.

 In every case the doctors, and staff treated me with the utmost care, no matter what I was, or wasn't paying.

 The billing dept.s, however, were very different.

 I got late notices before I got my bills in Florida. I literally had a paper chaser call me for a past due notice 1 week out of the hospital, and I had never even received an invoice. I got no bills at all in the 3rd world. They did what they did, and if I could pay, they accepted what I had on hand.

In the gold plate situation, I saw pages and pages of billing statements, none of which I was responsible for.

It's pretty sad when you chase down a person you think doesn't have the money to pay you, to try to make them pay.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

Sure, and Britain also has state of the art medical facilities and quality of care for those that pay more for it. No-one is arguing that you have "options". Merely pointing out that those options are more expensive, are inaccessible to large parts of the citizenry, and as such fail to provide the overall healthcare benefits single-payer systems do. The statistics show that healthcare outcomes for US citizens are worse than that of British citizens. The economics show they achieve those better outcomes for less than half the cost of their US counterparts. Most of your country is getting a shit deal, even if the rich amongst you are getting one you can live with.

It's not even the richest amongst us. It's increasingly ultra rich foreigners travelling to the US for medical care and spending astonishing sums on it. You can find Saudis driving around Rochester, MN wearing keffiyeh because the extended Saudi Royal family has decided the Mayo clinic is the best place in the world to receive care. They've spent millions on millions there. It's nice money, but only a fool would think there's much trickle down healthcare for the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I've been on every scale of economic/medical treatment. From gold plated private insurance, to free clinics in the 3rd world, to...... What I guess I would call "tin plate" state coverage back in the states.

 In every case the doctors, and staff treated me with the utmost care, no matter what I was, or wasn't paying.

 The billing dept.s, however, were very different.

 I got late notices before I got my bills in Florida. I literally had a paper chaser call me for a past due notice 1 week out of the hospital, and I had never even received an invoice. I got no bills at all in the 3rd world. They did what they did, and if I could pay, they accepted what I had on hand.

In the gold plate situation, I saw pages and pages of billing statements, none of which I was responsible for.

It's pretty sad when you chase down a person you think doesn't have the money to pay you, to try to make them pay.....

 

The biggest difference I noticed with "3rd world" or even "French" healthcare was they could simply answer the up front question of "how much will this cost". You want an exam - they can tell you what it would cost. You injured something - they'd have a rough idea. In the US the idea of such pricing is anomalous - you want a price it's like a business deal, they've got to run a credit check and quote you - despite our pretensions at free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The biggest difference I noticed with "3rd world" or even "French" healthcare was they could simply answer the up front question of "how much will this cost". You want an exam - they can tell you what it would cost. You injured something - they'd have a rough idea. In the US the idea of such pricing is anomalous - you want a price it's like a business deal, they've got to run a credit check and quote you - despite our pretensions at free market.

I never asked until the procedure was done, and then it was usually: "Well, normally, this would be covered, but because you're a non-citizen resident, it will be ($100USD)"..... And usually a case of beer, or an invitation to a meal. Which means it was covered, but the Dr. needed some money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The biggest difference I noticed with "3rd world" or even "French" healthcare was they could simply answer the up front question of "how much will this cost". You want an exam - they can tell you what it would cost. You injured something - they'd have a rough idea. In the US the idea of such pricing is anomalous - you want a price it's like a business deal, they've got to run a credit check and quote you - despite our pretensions at free market.

The overall stats have been covered enough and there are those who will never accept them - you know, better results, lower cost. So, to an anecdote. On the way from Easter Island to Pitcairn I developed a nasty boil on ass - apparently a staph infection. When we got to Mangareva, about the sleepiest little spot in French Polynesia I went for treatment at the clinic there about eight times in three weeks. The doctor or nurse depending on who was available cleaned the nastiest and did a new dressing. I asked how much it was and they said they would get back to me, but never did. They would not get many foreigners there and it likely was more trouble than it was worth to figure out how to charge me. When we got to Papeete I went to the fancy new hospital in town (and it is fancy) and was checked over by the doctor and had infection cleaned in my knee - the big one (bigger than a golf ball) on my ass was getting better but new infections had appeared on my knee. I had someone doing active treatment on me (either the doctor or nurse, all attractive youngish women with lovely accents) for an hour and half straight. The bill was $120. I also prescriptions for four or five things - this was another $100. I was still getting infections popping up on my leg by the time we got to Fiji (staph infections are apparently very nasty things to deal with and can be serious). Went to the 'private hospital' (there was also a public one) after someone said the doctor fee would be $6. The Aussie trained doctor prescribed a particular antibiotic for skin infections. That prescription (actually two course of it so we would have one for the first aid kit) also cost $6. The moral is you can get good healthcare quite cheaply, as long as you are outside the US. BTW, we lived in NJ for 18 months and my wife had a top-notch health plan through her employer, a very large international finance company. I was not impressed with the health service we received on the few occasions we needed to see someone.

An actual cruising note, If anyone is going to do extensive cruising in remote areas we learned that you should have four different kinds of antibiotics onboard: one for gastro, one for respiratory, one for dental, and one for skin. Before we left a doctor said that Ciproflaxin was the best one to have with us. Turns out it is useless for skin infections and not much good for dental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Boracho said:

In a way, that is a good argument. Except the fundamental property of capitalism is to maximize the return on capital. What the US does in healthcare is exactly that and nothing else. Capitalism in no way promotes quality, efficiency, or the well being of society except as, from time to time, such things might affect the return on capital.

Perhaps surprisingly, people have the power to change this inhumane situation. Even amend the constitution if required to crush the illiterate right’s delusions that Capitalism (and Whiteness and English) are somehow enshrined therein.

In a capitalist system, how might one maximize the return on capital?  By offering a more expensive, lower quality product than one's competitor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

An actual cruising note, If anyone is going to do extensive cruising in remote areas we learned that you should have four different kinds of antibiotics onboard: one for gastro, one for respiratory, one for dental, and one for skin. Before we left a doctor said that Ciproflaxin was the best one to have with us. Turns out it is useless for skin infections and not much good for dental.

what did you choose? my old travel med kit was cipro, immodium, doxycycline, tylenol, asprin. this was remote mostly mountainous areas (there was some altitude med too, can't remember which one), not cruising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Took me a bit to find the article I read back in August citing the ever spiraling costs of NHS..... but since you all insist.

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/999369/nhs-social-care-crisis-ageing-population-health-service

You cited an opinion piece as your evidence and it just gives numbers conjured out of thin air, you fucking moron. Try looking at the UK govmint statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Took me a bit to find the article I read back in August citing the ever spiraling costs of NHS..... but since you all insist.

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/999369/nhs-social-care-crisis-ageing-population-health-service

You're quoting an opinion piece that does not state the source of those figures nor even provides the author's name. It then gobbles down on  Those numbers could be mistakes like yours were or they could have been pulled out of the op-ed author's ass (kind of how your look). 

I see two realistic scenarios here - you're either a blithering idiot that thinks someone pulling numbers out of thin air is a reliable source... or you went digging around the Internet looking for something to cover your earlier fuck-up and this was the best you could find. The idea a yank who thinks the UK healthcare system sucks would just so happen to stumble across a half page op-ed from The Express that, amongst other things unrelated to the US, gives tribute to the Chuckle Brothers of British children's TV fame is asking a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jzk said:

The US doesn't have a capitalist healthcare system.  If we did, insurance would cost as much as a cell phone plan and services would be much more affordable.  Drug costs would be much much lower than they are today.

If the economics were on the side of socialized medicine, we should have socialized farming and flat screen TVs.  But it just isn't.  So we don't.  What we have is some sort of sentiment that socialized medicine is the only way to be "kind" to the common man.  When the truth is that a competitive health care system would provide the most "kindness" because it would actually be affordable to the common man.

Uh huh

Because providers of health care are going to compete to provide service to sick people who are already bankrupt? Or the elderly living on SocSec?

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Domestic General Government Health Expenditure (GGHE-D) per Capita in US$ (2016)

USA: $8,078
UK: $3,175

 

source:

http://apps.who.int/nha/database/ViewData/Indicators/en

 

just sayin.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh

Because providers of health care are going to compete to provide service to sick people who are already bankrupt? Or the elderly living on SocSec?

You forget that jzk has religion and you're arguing against a core tenet of his faith - that the free market solves everything. There is no getting through to zealots, so you really are wasting your time with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is religion with the likes of jzk rather than any real understanding. Religion believes and provides an identity. Understanding is difficult and you're wrong a lot of the time. With religion, you're never wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites