Label Yourself

[thegreekdog]

What would be a comparable country then? Which system works well?

There are no comparable countries.

As for which system works well, I don't know obviously.

If you say to me, "TGD, the US should use the Japanese system," I would point to the hundreds of differences between the United States and Japan. This is not an American exceptionalism argument (it's the other way around if anything). I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?

[Symmetry]

I just had free knee surgery!

Arthroscopy + Microfracture!

All govt paid!

I like our system.

Wait, you don't feel that it was government tyranny? That you lost your freedom? Are you insane?

[thegreekdog]

I just had free knee surgery!

Arthroscopy + Microfracture!

All govt paid!

I like our system.

Wait, you don't feel that it was government tyranny? That you lost your freedom? Are you insane?

You do know, Lootifer, that your knee surgery wasn't free, right?

Oh, guess what - I also had knee surgery that my health insurance paid for. I like my system too!

[Lootifer]

I just had free knee surgery!

Arthroscopy + Microfracture!

All govt paid!

I like our system.

Wait, you don't feel that it was government tyranny? That you lost your freedom? Are you insane?

You do know, Lootifer, that your knee surgery wasn't free, right?

Oh, guess what - I also had knee surgery that my health insurance paid for. I like my system too!

Lol, I was being silly ofc.

I think healthcare is a public good, and should remain so. Sure there are efficiency gains to be made from the private sector, but there are social gains to be made from the public sector, of which I feel are more important than the efficiency gains you get from the private sector.

[Symmetry]

What would be a comparable country then? Which system works well?

There are no comparable countries.

As for which system works well, I don't know obviously.

If you say to me, "TGD, the US should use the Japanese system," I would point to the hundreds of differences between the United States and Japan. This is not an American exceptionalism argument (it's the other way around if anything). I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?

Well, you put me in a difficult position if you won't look at systems that work, but are proposing a model that has never been implemented. Faith is sometimes a virtue, but trusting the free market on something like this just doesn't seem to be a great solution. I'm not even sure how it would work.

You're right to anticipate the American exceptionalism argument, but I'm not sure how it works the other way round. All the other countries that have Universal healthcare and pay less for it are exceptions?

[Aradhus]

I just had free knee surgery!

Arthroscopy + Microfracture!

All govt paid!

I like our system.

Wait, you don't feel that it was government tyranny? That you lost your freedom? Are you insane?

You do know, Lootifer, that your knee surgery wasn't free, right?

Oh, guess what - I also had knee surgery that my health insurance paid for. I like my system too!

Lol, I was being silly ofc.

I think healthcare is a public good, and should remain so. Sure there are efficiency gains to be made from the private sector, but there are social gains to be made from the public sector, of which I feel are more important than the efficiency gains you get from the private sector.

PHUCKING liberal!! You just like spending other people#s money!!!

[thegreekdog]

What would be a comparable country then? Which system works well?

There are no comparable countries.

As for which system works well, I don't know obviously.

If you say to me, "TGD, the US should use the Japanese system," I would point to the hundreds of differences between the United States and Japan. This is not an American exceptionalism argument (it's the other way around if anything). I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?

Well, you put me in a difficult position if you won't look at systems that work, but are proposing a model that has never been implemented. Faith is sometimes a virtue, but trusting the free market on something like this just doesn't seem to be a great solution. I'm not even sure how it would work.

You're right to anticipate the American exceptionalism argument, but I'm not sure how it works the other way round. All the other countries that have Universal healthcare and pay less for it are exceptions?

The people of the United States would be putting their faith into a system that may or may not work in our country.

Let me give you just one example of the type of American anti-exceptionalism I'm talking about - In 2011, the United States spent $698 billion on the military (or 4.8% of its GDP or 43% of the world's share). Do you think that a universal healthcare system in the United States would be good for the country from a fiscal perspective? Or is the United States' military spending an impediment to that theory. To continue with this fiscal example - The reason the Affordable Care Act may be budget neutral is that the United States is eliminating current government healthcare spending and taxes are raised to pay for the program; further, the Affordable Care Act doesn't even insure everyone who is uninsured or underinsured. So we're getting a half-assed attempt at universal health insurance that raises taxes to remain budget neutral and doesn't even solve any significant problems.

American anti-exceptionalism. When the UK only spends 2.7% of its GDP and has 3.7% of the world's share of military spending and when Japan spends 1% of its GDP and has 3.3% of the world's share of military spending, and you compare them to the United States, perhaps you can see why universal healthcare would cause the United States a load of fiscal problems.

[Symmetry]

What would be a comparable country then? Which system works well?

There are no comparable countries.

As for which system works well, I don't know obviously.

If you say to me, "TGD, the US should use the Japanese system," I would point to the hundreds of differences between the United States and Japan. This is not an American exceptionalism argument (it's the other way around if anything). I don't think the Affordable Care Act will reduce healthcare costs - the government is essentially paying for peoples' health insurance. There is no incentive to reduce healthcare costs, so what makes anyone think they won't continue to rise?

Well, you put me in a difficult position if you won't look at systems that work, but are proposing a model that has never been implemented. Faith is sometimes a virtue, but trusting the free market on something like this just doesn't seem to be a great solution. I'm not even sure how it would work.

You're right to anticipate the American exceptionalism argument, but I'm not sure how it works the other way round. All the other countries that have Universal healthcare and pay less for it are exceptions?

The people of the United States would be putting their faith into a system that may or may not work in our country.

Let me give you just one example of the type of American anti-exceptionalism I'm talking about - In 2011, the United States spent $698 billion on the military (or 4.8% of its GDP or 43% of the world's share). Do you think that a universal healthcare system in the United States would be good for the country from a fiscal perspective? Or is the United States' military spending an impediment to that theory. To continue with this fiscal example - The reason the Affordable Care Act may be budget neutral is that the United States is eliminating current government healthcare spending and taxes are raised to pay for the program; further, the Affordable Care Act doesn't even insure everyone who is uninsured or underinsured. So we're getting a half-assed attempt at universal health insurance that raises taxes to remain budget neutral and doesn't even solve any significant problems.

American anti-exceptionalism. When the UK only spends 2.7% of its GDP and has 3.7% of the world's share of military spending and when Japan spends 1% of its GDP and has 3.3% of the world's share of military spending, and you compare them to the United States, perhaps you can see why universal healthcare would cause the United States a load of fiscal problems.

I'm also not quite so sure that the world sees the US military budget as part of its "share", but anyway...

As I've been saying from the start, perhaps look at the systems that work before

a) Saying that they don't work.
b) Saying that they could never work in the US.
c) Proposing a vague solution that amounts essentially to opposing whatever Obama proposes as a compromise.

It would be a sad day if the US had to cut back on its military budget a bit though.

[ViperOverLord]

The people of the United States would be putting their faith into a system that may or may not work in our country.

Let me give you just one example of the type of American anti-exceptionalism I'm talking about - In 2011, the United States spent $698 billion on the military (or 4.8% of its GDP or 43% of the world's share). Do you think that a universal healthcare system in the United States would be good for the country from a fiscal perspective? Or is the United States' military spending an impediment to that theory. To continue with this fiscal example - The reason the Affordable Care Act may be budget neutral is that the United States is eliminating current government healthcare spending and taxes are raised to pay for the program; further, the Affordable Care Act doesn't even insure everyone who is uninsured or underinsured. So we're getting a half-assed attempt at universal health insurance that raises taxes to remain budget neutral and doesn't even solve any significant problems.

American anti-exceptionalism. When the UK only spends 2.7% of its GDP and has 3.7% of the world's share of military spending and when Japan spends 1% of its GDP and has 3.3% of the world's share of military spending, and you compare them to the United States, perhaps you can see why universal healthcare would cause the United States a load of fiscal problems.

I'm also not quite so sure that the world sees the US military budget as part of its "share", but anyway...

As I've been saying from the start, perhaps look at the systems that work before

a) Saying that they don't work.
b) Saying that they could never work in the US.
c) Proposing a vague solution that amounts essentially to opposing whatever Obama proposes as a compromise.

It would be a sad day if the US had to cut back on its military budget a bit though.

Regardless of your personal slant on US military spending, you/we can't ignore that reality.

And you talk of all these systems that allegedly work while ignoring stats that point out their inefficiencies and waste. The only potential benefit of universal health care is covering people that otherwise might not be covered. I don't think anybody is against that value. They are against the billions of dollars in theft (that greatly affect us all) and the infringement of personal liberties to accomplish that end.

[Symmetry]

The people of the United States would be putting their faith into a system that may or may not work in our country.

Let me give you just one example of the type of American anti-exceptionalism I'm talking about - In 2011, the United States spent $698 billion on the military (or 4.8% of its GDP or 43% of the world's share). Do you think that a universal healthcare system in the United States would be good for the country from a fiscal perspective? Or is the United States' military spending an impediment to that theory. To continue with this fiscal example - The reason the Affordable Care Act may be budget neutral is that the United States is eliminating current government healthcare spending and taxes are raised to pay for the program; further, the Affordable Care Act doesn't even insure everyone who is uninsured or underinsured. So we're getting a half-assed attempt at universal health insurance that raises taxes to remain budget neutral and doesn't even solve any significant problems.

American anti-exceptionalism. When the UK only spends 2.7% of its GDP and has 3.7% of the world's share of military spending and when Japan spends 1% of its GDP and has 3.3% of the world's share of military spending, and you compare them to the United States, perhaps you can see why universal healthcare would cause the United States a load of fiscal problems.

I'm also not quite so sure that the world sees the US military budget as part of its "share", but anyway...

As I've been saying from the start, perhaps look at the systems that work before

a) Saying that they don't work.
b) Saying that they could never work in the US.
c) Proposing a vague solution that amounts essentially to opposing whatever Obama proposes as a compromise.

It would be a sad day if the US had to cut back on its military budget a bit though.

Regardless of your personal slant on US military spending, you/we can't ignore that reality.

And you talk of all these systems that allegedly work while ignoring stats that point out their inefficiencies and waste. The only potential benefit of universal health care is covering people that otherwise might not be covered. I don't think anybody is against that value. They are against the billions of dollars in theft (that greatly affect us all) and the infringement of personal liberties to accomplish that end.

And yet oddly enough universal healthcare is popular in the countries that implemented it. People don't seem to find it an infringement on their liberties, and while few would claim their system to be perfect, few would want to approach an American model.

And it costs less. And it works better. And the military slant was courtesy of TGD.

[ViperOverLord]

And yet oddly enough universal healthcare is popular in the countries that implemented it. People don't seem to find it an infringement on their liberties, and while few would claim their system to be perfect, few would want to approach an American model.

Satisfaction levels are lower in the US. But you're tone deaf about the reasons why that is. I've seen posters repeatedly tell you that we don't like that our healthcare is basically a cartel. Instead of addressing that reality, you come back with the social health care of other countries vs. current US system argument. That's not the argument anybody is making though. We want free market health care to dramatically drive down costs and get the government out of our lives. We view Obamacare as only an extension of something that has been a proven failure.

As for other countries universal health care. I tend to agree that those countries do have adequate satisfaction rates. But European and American values are not one in the same. Europeans embrace government control. Europeans willingly put restrictions on speech and economic freedom while Americans detest such restrictions. You advocate a system that goes against the grain. That is why even when Obamacare was passed, it was done against will of the people (according to the polls).

And the military slant was courtesy of TGD.

TGD made a legitimate point that you tried to wash away with your own personal slant.

[Phatscotty]

I agree that if another country has something that works for them, it's all fine and dandy and I am truly happy for you and your country.

What I don't get is foreigners trying to dictate their values into our markets..... that is unless you realize they just hate my country and it's values and want us to go broke ASAP, then it makes sense.

[Symmetry]

And yet oddly enough universal healthcare is popular in the countries that implemented it. People don't seem to find it an infringement on their liberties, and while few would claim their system to be perfect, few would want to approach an American model.

Satisfaction levels are lower in the US. But you're tone deaf about the reasons why that is. I've seen posters repeatedly tell you that we don't like that our healthcare is basically a cartel. Instead of addressing that reality, you come back with the social health care of other countries vs. current US system argument. That's not the argument anybody is making though. We want free market health care to dramatically drive down costs and get the government out of our lives. We view Obamacare as only an extension of something that has been a proven failure.

As for other countries universal health care. I tend to agree that those countries do have adequate satisfaction rates. But European and American values are not one in the same. Europeans embrace government control. Europeans willingly put restrictions on speech and economic freedom while Americans detest such restrictions. You advocate a system that goes against the grain. That is why even when Obamacare was passed, it was done against will of the people (according to the polls).

And it costs less. And it works better. And the military slant was courtesy of TGD.

TGD made a legitimate point that you tried to wash away with your own personal value system.

And I say it's weird to say that looking at effective models is somehow a bad thing. Take a look. Cheaper, healthier, greater coverage, high levels of satisfaction... What's to lose?

Why start out with the premise that there's no comparison? Why propose a fantasy model?

[ViperOverLord]

And I say it's weird to say that looking at effective models is somehow a bad thing. Take a look. Cheaper, healthier, greater coverage, high levels of satisfaction... What's to lose?

Why start out with the premise that there's no comparison? Why propose a fantasy model?

Effective? I've already showed you deficiencies in those models regardless of the satisfaction rates.

Cheaper? That's a pretty convenient argument to make when you ignore posts like this:

The top two most indebted nations in the world, Japan (471%+ of GDP) and UK (466%+ of GDP).

It's also a dishonest argument, when we already know that the costs have been projected to rise (according to the CBO and countless other sources). I think you're the one making fantasy arguments.

[patches70]

These are things you should consider, Sym, it's called reality. Economic reality in this case.

Chancellor George Osborne (I figure you know who this is)-

The British Government has run out of money because all the money was spent in the good years,.... The money and the investment and the jobs need to come from the private sector.”

Your Institute of Fiscal Studies urged the Chancellor to cut taxes to ease the economic slump but Mr. Osborne can't.

England is in heavy economic distress.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... money.html

Like I say, everyone might end up dirt poor but they'll all be happy they have insurance. Right?


All these problems are because of debt based currency that almost every nation in the world uses. Socialize healthcare could be a good thing under a better currency model. Debt based currency is unstable, and everything funded by debt based currency is also unstable. That's what makes it all unsustainable. To keep it going nations and her citizens must keep going further and further into debt. An inexorable march into the poor house. Except for the privileged elite that is....

[Symmetry]

And I say it's weird to say that looking at effective models is somehow a bad thing. Take a look. Cheaper, healthier, greater coverage, high levels of satisfaction... What's to lose?

Why start out with the premise that there's no comparison? Why propose a fantasy model?

Effective? I've already showed you deficiencies in those models regardless of the satisfaction rates.

Cheaper? That's a pretty convenient argument to make when you ignore posts like this:

The top two most indebted nations in the world, Japan (471%+ of GDP) and UK (466%+ of GDP).

It's also a dishonest argument, when we already know that the costs have been projected to rise (according to the CBO and countless other sources). I think you're the one making fantasy arguments.

But what does that have to do with healthcare when percentage of spending on healthcare as a proportion of GDP is lower in Japan and the UK, as well as many other countries?

[ViperOverLord]

^^^

Again -- You argue the recent US health spending vs. European spending instead of free market spending vs. universal health care. And that graph with the US ahead in spending; it's only going to increase under Obamacare.

[Symmetry]

^^^

Again -- You argue the recent US health spending vs. European spending instead of free market spending vs. universal health care. And that graph with the US ahead in spending; it's only going to increase under Obamacare.

Check the graph, think about it a bit, work out if all the countries on the graph are in Europe.

[Symmetry]

Take your time.

[ViperOverLord]

^^^

Again -- You argue the recent US health spending vs. European spending instead of free market spending vs. universal health care. And that graph with the US ahead in spending; it's only going to increase under Obamacare.

Check the graph, think about it a bit, work out if all the countries on the graph are in Europe.

I take it this is your way of saying that you can't argue for your losing arguments any longer. You just want to argue trivialities. I refer to the European model. I know that there are Asian countries, other continental countries etc, on the chart. (Hell, we were just talking about Japan. I think you are keenly aware that I'm aware of the scope of the argument but you'd rather piddle around).

[Symmetry]

^^^

Again -- You argue the recent US health spending vs. European spending instead of free market spending vs. universal health care. And that graph with the US ahead in spending; it's only going to increase under Obamacare.

Check the graph, think about it a bit, work out if all the countries on the graph are in Europe.

I take it this is your way of saying that you can't argue for your losing arguments any longer. You just want to argue trivialities. I refer to the European model. I know that there are Asian countries on the chart.

So is Canada a European or an Asian country?

[ViperOverLord]

So you're running on E. You seriously want to piddle around? I thought we were having a healthcare debate.

[Symmetry]

So you're running on E. You seriously want to piddle around? I thought we were having a healthcare debate.

No we were having a debate about labeling yourself, perhaps consult the author of the thread if you find yourself confused.

But anyway, just to reiterate- there are many government run systems in place that are cheaper, more effective, and popular. Some of them aren't even European.

Now a conservative who is genuinely concerned about spending would have to look at the costs and say, yeah- that's a model that costs less. A conservative who is more interested in nationalism and a narrow partisan agenda, will just look at those models and say they don't work or don't apply.

[Symmetry]

Not a comfortable truth to confront, of course, if your basic stance is that government is bad.

[ViperOverLord]

So you're running on E. You seriously want to piddle around? I thought we were having a healthcare debate.

No we were having a debate about labeling yourself, perhaps consult the author of the thread if you find yourself confused.

But anyway, just to reiterate- there are many government run systems in place that are cheaper, more effective, and popular. Some of them aren't even European.

Now a conservative who is genuinely concerned about spending would have to look at the costs and say, yeah- that's a model that costs less. A conservative who is more interested in nationalism and a narrow partisan agenda, will just look at those models and say they don't work or don't apply.

To reiterate arguments that you ignored when you decided to take your silly detour to classify what continent Canada was in:

• Free market health care vs. universal health care (free market health care being cheaper).
• US Healthcare being a virtual cartel.
• Obamacare being more expensive despite your unfounded claims that it would be cheaper. (And even while the CBO and every other source states that costs are rising you come at me with this strawman argument: Now a conservative who is genuinely concerned about spending would have to look at the costs and say, yeah- that's a model that costs less. A conservative who is more interested in nationalism and a narrow partisan agenda, will just look at those models and say they don't work or don't apply.
• The state of the UK and Japanese economies relative to their universal health care.
• Your claims of efficiencies/effectiveness of universal health care while ignoring facts contrary to that claim.
• Chancellor George Osborne wrote:The British Government has run out of money because all the money was spent in the good years,.... The money and the investment and the jobs need to come from the private sector.”
• Personal freedoms/liberties that are being denied due to Obamacare.