Let's Privatize the Fire Department and Police Department

[mykevermin]

Y'know, if health care in this country is a privilege and not a right, then why is protection from fires and protection from crime?

Oh, sure, I know you think about some silly reasoning about how everyone needs police protection, or for their home and neighborhood to be protected from fire and disaster, but who says so? Is there a constitutional right to a fire department?

Moreover, we all know that the government just loves to mire organizations in bureaucracy, red tape, and expenditures. Last time I had to call the police, it took them 8 months to respond. To be fair, I didn't fill out form 187-EZ properly (damned box 3A!) - but still, had I done so the right way, it would have still been 4 months.

Moreover, government FDs and PDs are totally socialist in design. Their mere existence renders impossible a potentially fruitful market for private corporations; surely, if we allowed Blackwater the opportunity to police your neighborhood, they'd do it faster and cheaper than your PD. Not to mention all the cool weapons they have - it'd be awesome to see them kick some fucking bad-guy ass, instead of gain weight at the Krispy Kreme. No more fat lazy cops under privatization; the market would ensure that.

It's also welfare for poor people; I pay my taxes like a hardworking American; why do I have to subsidize police and fire care for poor people who already suck off the government teat, let alone actually make a contribution to our government's pocketbook? *I'm* footing the bill for them to sit on their duffs and reap the rewards of socialist wealth redistribution in the form of having their burning project 8 homes put out when they forget where their burning crack pipe was.

I can't stand it any more; this country has a hidden red menace that is taking our hardearned tax dollars, preventing the market from taking root and offering cheaper (after all, Blackwater guys are cheaper to hire than actual US soldiers, right? Right!) and more efficient service; more insidious than that is the equality of service FDs and PDs offer.

Now, we don't want this secret agenda exposed, do we, komrade? Well, tough, I say!

[JolietJake]

I've heard this same argument before, that if we have socialized police and fire services, why not health care? I can't think of a single reason. I'd be willing to bet my life that more people die in this country from preventable health problems than from any type of crime or fire.

Look at this chart of just flu mortality rates.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/2/179/TABLEJOC21709T2

Guns have nothing on germs.

[VanillaGorilla]

I get it.

Ha.

[RAMSTORIA]

myke... have you been drinking?

[Magehart]

I will create a "protection" service for all local businesses then. They pay me so they stay safe. Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder will be my enforcers.

[Ikohn4ever]

might as well do it with libraries and schools too.

[VanillaGorilla]

myke... have you been drinking?Of course he has. Those microbrews aren't going to drink themselves!

[Koggit]

My mom, who cares for my chronically ill sister (neurological disorder), opposes universal health care. She is typically pretty liberal. Her basis for opposing universal health care comes from her discussions with out-of-country patients at some of the specialists she's gone to -- if my mom and sis had the same universal health care as some other countries do, they may not even have a diagnosis for her, since some of the first doctors she saw had no idea what was wrong with her and assumed she was just some bozo hypochondriac. They told her to see a psychiatrist, no joke. It took about two years and several specialists before they finally found a doctor who was familiar with what she had -- Chiari. Many people who have rare diseases/disorders under universal health care don't have the opportunity to see other doctors when one gives a BS diagnosis (or lack of a diagnosis).

I don't really have an opinion about universal health care, either way, but I'm definitely glad my mom and sis don't live in a country where they still don't know what's wrong with her because the first couple local doctors thought it was nothing...

[BigT]

I just got back from a long shift in the ER while fighting a bad case of pharyngitis. With all the meds I'm on, I'm about as lucid as an Indian on peyote staring at a fire.... then I see this post and mykevermin is actually starting to make sense... shit, I must be hallucinating.

But, if playing Army of 2 has taught me anything, it is that an army of private contractors >> a gov't sponsored army. By parallelism, the same should hold for police and fire services.

[mykevermin]

I just got back from a long shift in the ER while fighting a bad case of pharyngitis. With all the meds I'm on, I'm about as lucid as an Indian on peyote staring at a fire.... then I see this post and mykevermin is actually starting to make sense... shit, I must be hallucinating.

But, if playing Army of 2 has taught me anything, it is that an army of private contractors >> a gov't sponsored army. By parallelism, the same should hold for police and fire services.

I haven't played Army of Two yet, but I'll be happy to give you my notes on political lessons learned from SSBB. ;)

myke... have you been drinking?

No, but I was being facetious in the first place.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Police can't be privatized because they have to make decisions from an impartial stance <ahem/> over whether or not a law is being broken.

The fire department could be handled privately much in the same way insurance is handled. Oh, you couldn't afford fire coverage? Enjoy your cardboard box!

[mykevermin]

Police can't be privatized because they have to make decisions from an impartial stance <ahem/> over whether or not a law is being broken.

Hmm. I don't buy it.

The fire department could be handled privately much in the same way insurance is handled. Oh, you couldn't afford fire coverage? Enjoy your cardboard box!

No doubt. In my head, I really get a kick out of picturing fire trucks standing by idly while a house burns to the ground - their only concern is whether or not the fire spills over into a neighbor's yard, who happens to pay for fire service. :lol:

[Hex]

:applause:

[ananag112]

I say we just build a robot army of these things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

[dopa345]

The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?

[seanr1221]

I see what you did thur.

:lol:

[SpazX]

I saw that title and thought "wtf" and then I saw that it was myke.

We already have private police, it's called the Mafia. Now pay your protection money or I can't guarantee that you won't be in a wheelchair tomorrow.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Hmm. I don't buy it.

Which part? That police should be impartial like a judge or that police are impartial?



No doubt. In my head, I really get a kick out of picturing fire trucks standing by idly while a house burns to the ground - their only concern is whether or not the fire spills over into a neighbor's yard, who happens to pay for fire service. :lol:

I know it sounds callous. It is.

I'm looking at it like renter's insurance. If I had a fire in an apartment, the fire department isn't going to replace the property damaged by fire or water. It isn't their job.

For actual buildings ...

If a landlord isn't going to have fire protection insurance on an apartment I want to rent, I may not sign a lease with them.

Also, a homeowner's association could demand fire protection insurance on homes in their area or collect them directly from the homeowners to lure better fire departments with large contracts.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.


In theory, it doesn't have to be. In practice, law enforcement by Microsoft may be more biased to enforce software piracy than murder.

[niceguyshawne]

Myke, I am going to print this out and give it to anyone who thinks that universal healthcare is a bad idea.

[Hex]

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?

Thank goodness this isn't the case.

[mykevermin]

The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.

Not necessarily. Why can't a community/municipality solicit bids from private contractors to police their neighborhoods? Privatizing police isn't necessarily an individual endeavor. Moreover, there are plenty of "2.5s" (I still love that term from my adolescence) who can (and perhaps should have on more than one occasion) arrest and prosecute me.

Alternately, we could have an all-volunteer police force. Like that one Police Academy movie ("Citizens on Patrol"). ;)

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?

It could be just as much of a cost reduction as Blackwater is in Iraq. After all, the government spends less per Blackwater soldier than they do on US soldiers, right?

Not really. Not really at all. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001352.html)

[WhipSmartBanky]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9923/robocop10ci5.jpg
"I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation program. Spare parts for the next decade. Who cares if it worked or not?"

[BigT]

From now on, I'm going to base all of my domestic and foreign policy on lessons I have learned from video games...

I've already mentioned Army of 2 in terms of a privatized military.

Now, I've got to go with Sam and Max: Freelance Police as an example of how a private police force would be superior. http://www.telltalegames.com/samandmax

Imagine the hilarity that would ensue when this irreverent, gun wielding, and DeSoto driving duo would take on our crime problem head on... with the help of everyone's favorite detective, Flint Paper, and conspiracy theorist, Bosco.
...but seriously, support Telltale... Sam and Max forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[camoor]

Apples and Bananas

[gobz]

Privatize the most poorly run entity in all of the world.....

The United States Postal Service... enough said

[JolietJake]

I haven't played Army of Two yet, but I'll be happy to give you my notes on political lessons learned from SSBB. ;)



No, but I was being facetious in the first place.
Final smashes can solve any and all problems?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Privatize the most poorly run entity in all of the world.....

The United States Postal Service... enough said

Haven't you heard of UPS and FedEx?

[Liquid 2]

Privatize the most poorly run entity in all of the world.....

The United States Postal Service... enough said

The USPS is almost entirely autonomous already.

[bmulligan]

Y'know, if health care in this country is a privilege and not a right, then why is protection from fires and protection from crime?


You have a faulty premise, Myke. Police do not protect anyone from crime, and the fire department doesn't protect anyone from fire. They show up after a crime or fire has occurred, clean up the mess and investigate any foul play. Ultimately, YOU are the only one responsible for your own protection.

Municipalities have every right to disband their police and fire departments and contract to anyone they choose. Many do just that, opting to "lease" manpower from an adjacent municipality or county "protection" force (which is a misnomer, as previously stated).

[FitzRoy]

Yeah, the USPS could probably be abolished, but imagine how bad it would be if competition were disallowed entirely. Thank god we're not entirely socialist in that regard.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_postal

Police forces on the other hand are a difficult analogy to make for the case of universal health care. Private security forces outnumber police in this country five to one. Private investigation outfits are also allowed in this country. Most people are also capable of protecting themselves and their property since we have gun rights. So there is definitely a big difference here in terms of the presence of competition. I will defend the police and fire department simply because their service to the community is rather limited and simple in concept: put out the fire, enforce the law. Managing a highly technical field like medicine is quite a bit more personalized.

In the case of health care, government-forced health care honestly scares me. In the current government regulated system, the doctor works for the insurance and drug companies. In the event of socialized health care, the doctor works for the government. In the event of a free market, the doctor works for the patient. The free market route seems like the best way to go. Most people who defend socialized health care often forget that we're not currently a free market system. We're heavily regulated and big pharma lobbies politicians, who, upon getting elected, promise to pass bills that benefit them and subsidize them. The books are a mess right now, and I gaurantee you that if the government got full control, things would suck and become far worse. Instead, we need to deregulate and get the third parties out of this. Subsequently, we need a strong free market economy free of socialist planks like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates and driving inflation for the benefit of banker friends and wall street (hell, read any new lately?), and a sound currency tied to gold that holds the government accountable to expenditures. Lastly, get rid of the income tax and tax consumption only. Taxes on production are the stupidest thing on the planet. If all of those things happen (lol, we can only dream), people will be able to afford basic health coverage easily without even needing insurance (maybe catastrophic). Economic policy has a lot to do with why we went from a country capable of raising seven kids on a carpenter's wage to a country of vastly lower relative income. People are fooled into the thinking the opposite from technological advancements.

Once we enter our little hyperinflationary depression by 2012, I have no doubt that capitalism will be blamed. The general public is too ignorant with money to elect someone like Ron Paul. They will be so poor and unable to afford anything that they will allow the government to successfully sell a new string of socialist new deal programs which will tax and inflate the living daylights out of them under the pretense of taking care of them. God, it makes me sick just thinking of history repeating itself...

[mykevermin]

You have a faulty premise, Myke. Police do not protect anyone from crime, and the fire department doesn't protect anyone from fire. They show up after a crime or fire has occurred, clean up the mess and investigate any foul play. Ultimately, YOU are the only one responsible for your own protection.

Not true. Police presence is something associated with reduced crime rates. It's a pretty basic James Q. Wilson premise: where there are beat cops, there is less crime/where there are less beat cops, there is more crime.

Municipalities have every right to disband their police and fire departments and contract to anyone they choose. Many do just that, opting to "lease" manpower from an adjacent municipality or county "protection" force (which is a misnomer, as previously stated).

Again, those aren't Blackwater dudes in those kick-ass SUVs with gatling mounts on top. That's what I want in my neighborhood.

In the case of health care, government-forced health care honestly scares me. In the current government regulated system, the doctor works for the insurance and drug companies. In the event of socialized health care, the doctor works for the government. In the event of a free market, the doctor works for the patient. The free market route seems like the best way to go. Most people who defend socialized health care often forget that we're not currently a free market system. We're heavily regulated and big pharma lobbies politicians, who, upon getting elected, promise to pass bills that benefit them and subsidize them. The books are a mess right now, and I gaurantee you that if the government got full control, things would suck and become far worse. Instead, we need to deregulate and get the third parties out of this. Subsequently, we need a strong free market economy free of socialist planks like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates and driving inflation for the benefit of banker friends and wall street (hell, read any new lately?), and a sound currency tied to gold that holds the government accountable to expenditures. Lastly, get rid of the income tax and tax consumption only. Taxes on production are the stupidest thing on the planet. If all of those things happen (lol, we can only dream), people will be able to afford basic health coverage easily. Economic policy has a lot to do with why we went from a country capable of raising seven kids on a carpenter's wage to a country of vastly lower relative income. People are fooled into the thinking the opposite from technological advancements.

I'm curious by this mess of a paragraph. Please tell me: how do we progress into a full market-based system that does away with health insurance entirely, and also reduces the ability of big pharma to continue to soak us for all we have? Because I'm very curious; I'm as liberal as all get-out, but if you can convince me that full privatization of the market will kill fucking insurance companies dead dead dead, then I'll jump on your bandwagon.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

how do we progress into a full market-based system that does away with health insurance entirely, and also reduces the ability of big pharma to continue to soak us for all we have? Because I'm very curious; I'm as liberal as all get-out, but if you can convince me that full privatization of the market will kill fucking insurance companies dead dead dead, then I'll jump on your bandwagon.

I'll start the ball rolling.

The current consumer of medical care is all but completely disconnected with the price of medical procedures.

Post prices like they do at McDonald's and do away with discounts for members of one group or another.

For elective procedures, negotiate the price up front and shop for the best combination of price and quality.

[FitzRoy]

As far as blackwater is concerned: unlike soldiers, they're not really accountable under domestic, military, or Iraqi jurisdiction for any crimes they commit. They're not private in the sense that you or I hired them to perform a service. They're a federally compensated corporation being paid with your tax dollars. You didn't choose to give them your money, the government did. Therefore, you can't really correlate their failings to mean private security is bad because they are in a unique loophole where there is no recourse against them.

As far as my "mess" paragraph, the premise being made is simple. The problems that exist today are a result of government intervention in the free market, from bad legislation subsidizing drug companies and reducing competition, and from a myriad of economic policies making you poorer and less able to afford health care in addition to daily living expenses. If you were to turn health care over to the government, government spending will go up. That means taxes and inflation will be even higher than they are now. The cost will simply transfer from one that you choose to pay to one that you are forced to pay under penalty of law. Just like the government decided to take some of your income to pay for blackwater, the government will justify more tax to make these no-bid subsidies to companies under a federal umbrella, because we allow lobbyist influence in the political process and people are too dumb to see past the vote pandering and put 2 and 2 together. Hillary and McCain are the most insincere of the three, but Obama is no saint either. He's a motivational speaker with very little knowledge of economics or the constitution. I mean, the guy voted for the Patriot Act for god's sake.

Long story short, the only universal you need to pay attention to is the universal truth that nobody spends money more wisely than the people who earned it, and that all people are pursuant to their own interests not excepting government officials. Those two truths are the reason you want a constitutional sized federal government. Socialism seems like a good idea when you're young and idealistic, but then you realize that with the nature of man being what it is, transferring the money of the people to federal waste behind well-meaning objectives offers far worse tradeoffs and risks than simply having a free market. Think monopolies are bad? That's exactly what the government is.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34816.html

[mykevermin]

Long story short, the only universal you need to pay attention to is the universal truth that nobody spends money more wisely than the people who earned it, and that all people are pursuant to their own interests not excepting government officials.

Those aren't truths, they're axioms. I see what you're suggesting with the parallel with Blackwater, and your point about the influence of lobbyists is well made. Nevertheless, you've done nothing to demonstrate how my taxes for health care will be greater than my current insurance and copays combined, outside of make the same sort of generic pro-Libertarianism maxims about government and the "ideals" of socialism. You've demonstrated absolutely nothing, including (to my severe disappointment, as I was hoping for some awesome enlightenment) how full privatization of health care would lead to the downfall of insurance companies. I'm still waiting to see that.

[c0rnpwn]

The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?

Then we'd have people like Crassus from the First Triumvirate, hanging around burning houses offering to save it for high prices, or buy it for cheap when it's burned down.

[Msut77]

Then we'd have people like Crassus from the First Triumvirate, hanging around burning houses offering to save it for high prices, or buy it for cheap when it's burned down.

I was so waiting for this to be mentioned.

[bmulligan]

Not true. Police presence is something associated with reduced crime rates. It's a pretty basic James Q. Wilson premise: where there are beat cops, there is less crime/where there are less beat cops, there is more crime.

It still doesn't prevent crime. It's called law enforcement, not personal protection. An associiation of bodies may serve as a deterrent, but won't guarantee you don't get mugged around the corner, or raped behind closed doors, or pickpocketed in a crowd. It also can't "protect" against unseen crime, like your local church treasurer embezzling 100k. The penalty of law iis the actual deterrent, unless you believe we are a nation of men and not laws.

Police are just ordinary citizens with special dispensation relegated to them by the people. They are not bodyguards. Their primary function is to investigate crime and prosecute offenders after a crime has been committed. Your personal protection is ultimately your own responsiibility, not anyone else's.


Again, those aren't Blackwater dudes in those kick-ass SUVs with gatling mounts on top. That's what I want in my neighborhood.

If you're willing to pay for it, I'm sure your local jurisdiction could contract a private protection service, or a private investigation service. However, by contracting wiith the government, you become an agent of the public, de facto, and are subject to the scrutiny and laws of any other public agency, contractor, or service.

Look at it this way: municipalities negotiate and contract labor from the police union, a private company. How is this any different than contracting for labor services with any other company for law enforcement?

The old guy who rides around in a fake police cruiser writing tickets for handicapped parking has a contract to be paid for his services. It's no different than contracting wiith any other private individual or group.

[Magehart]

The police enforce government laws and the Constitution so they have to be a public institution.

You're obviously being facetious but privatizing fire departments is actually an intriguing idea; have homeowners and companies subscribe to fire protection just as they would for private security. If you choose not to and your house burns down, tough luck. A private organization would be more efficient to provide better services at a lower cost and it would free up public money for other use. Why couldn't it be privatized?

Simple. I was riding my bicycle through an interesting and a guy runs a red light and hits me. First responders, like in most incidents, is the fire department. What if a tanker carrying LNG spilled on the freeway. It's not the private FD's responsibility to clean it up. Let it burn.

GG.

[mykevermin]

It still doesn't prevent crime. It's called law enforcement, not personal protection. An associiation of bodies may serve as a deterrent, but won't guarantee you don't get mugged around the corner, or raped behind closed doors, or pickpocketed in a crowd. It also can't "protect" against unseen crime, like your local church treasurer embezzling 100k. The penalty of law iis the actual deterrent, unless you believe we are a nation of men and not laws.

I haven't the slightest what you're trying to argue here. Define what you mean by "preventing crime." Personally, I'll stick with Felson's Routine Activites Theory of crime: For crime you need 3 things:
1) A motivated offender
2) A suitable target
3) An absence of capable guards

These do not translate to a guarantee that crime will not happen at all in areas where the conditions are not met, but that it will be less likely to occur. So considering a basic convenience store holdup, the store without a police cruiser in the parking lot is a more likely target than the one with the cruiser.

The store with no cameras is more likely to be a target than the one with.

It's fairly basic environmental criminology - the situation dictates crimes that are and are not likely to occur. So, a "prevented crime" certainly includes both those that were considered but not followed through based on an assessment of the situation, as well as those not even considered based on the poor likelihood of success (premised on the situation).

Consider the classic example of phone booth (remember those?) coinboxes. Originally made from aluminum, they were exceptionally easy to destroy and take the coins from for a quick and easy profit. Once the boxes were changed to be manufactured from steel, they were no longer easy to break into. Was crime prevented here? In my opinion, absolutely - the drop in the crime rate from phone booths reflects that - including unsuccessful attempts as well as those who found something else to do, having realized how difficult it was to break the new steel boxes.

Consider the relationship between conceal and carry laws and severe reductions in kidnapping/forcible rape rates (Dallas, TX being the largest example, if I recall). So crime went from happening to happening far less frequently, based on the assumption that the person you are thinking about abducting might have a gun and use it on you. Is crime prevented there? Absolutely; when you have a stable victimization rate from year to year that is significantly upset/diminished in correlation with a new law, then there's no other reasonable conclusion.

[Nixon's Revenge]

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department:

CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32825

[speedracer]

Sorry to break from this great thread, but I couldn't help myself with these:
Also, a homeowner's association could demand fire protection insurance on homes in their area or collect them directly from the homeowners to lure better fire departments with large contracts.
There's no possible way on this Earth that you have lived in a homeowners' association. I'll take those schlubs at City Hall over power crazy stay at home moms and retirees any day. Talk about the pinnacle of fail in representative democracy.

Seriously.

Apples and Bananas
Depends on how one feels about the "strict constuctionist" position, no?

[JolietJake]

So police never intervene when a crime is in progress? They only show up to investigate later? I could swear i've heard of police responding to hostage situations and ultimately saving someone's life.

[SpazX]

I don't get what you're saying either bmulligan. Certainly the police aren't always around when a crime is committed and so a lot of what they do is after-the-fact, but that doesn't mean that their job isn't to protect people (it is "to serve and protect" after all, isn't it?). If there is a cop around while there is a crime in progress, they're not supposed to sit around and wait for it to finish and then do something, if they do they're considered bad cops, i.e., they're not doing their jobs.

[Magehart]

Consider the relationship between conceal and carry laws and severe reductions in kidnapping/forcible rape rates (Dallas, TX being the largest example, if I recall). So crime went from happening to happening far less frequently, based on the assumption that the person you are thinking about abducting might have a gun and use it on you. Is crime prevented there? Absolutely; when you have a stable victimization rate from year to year that is significantly upset/diminished in correlation with a new law, then there's no other reasonable conclusion.

We can also look at how the Brady Campaign recently scored all states on a 100 point system. Highest points means they have the "best" (most) Gun Control. There is an inverse relation between crime rates and points meaning that the safer the citizens were because gun laws "protected" them the higher the violent crimes rates were in that area. So if we get guns off the street we can encourage murder, rape, robbery and rape!

[Ugamer_X]

You have a faulty premise, Myke. Police do not protect anyone from crime, and the fire department doesn't protect anyone from fire. They show up after a crime or fire has occurred, clean up the mess and investigate any foul play. Ultimately, YOU are the only one responsible for your own protection.

Speeding, DUI, etc.?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

There's no possible way on this Earth that you have lived in a homeowners' association. I'll take those schlubs at City Hall over power crazy stay at home moms and retirees any day. Talk about the pinnacle of fail in representative democracy.


I'd review a homeowners' charter and list of laws passed before buying property there.

If the neighborhood had a bunch of nutbars based that information OR wouldn't provide that information, I'd keep looking for a house.

It isn't that hard to find a house especially in this economy.

[bmulligan]

Originally Posted by bmulligan View Post
You have a faulty premise, Myke. Police do not protect anyone from crime, and the fire department doesn't protect anyone from fire. They show up after a crime or fire has occurred, clean up the mess and investigate any foul play. Ultimately, YOU are the only one responsible for your own protection.
Speeding, DUI, etc.?

The police don't prevent you from driving while intoxicated, they catch you AFTER you've already started swerving or killed someone. They don't prevent you from speeding, they are a witness to the 'crime' for legal purposes and issue citations AFTER the event. The presence of a police officer may be an indirect deterrent, but ultimately it's the penalty for a crime that prevents it from happening. Do you drive 5 miles over the speed limit on the highway? Sure - even when there are cops around. But would you drive 15 miles over the limit? 20? Shit no, that's a $200 ticket - whether there's a cop around or not, I don't do it.

AND, that speed trap cop doesn't have to be a police officer. He could be an 'independent contractor' just like the handicapped parking ticket guy. As long as he shows up in court as a witness to the crime - the judge is going to rule against you if there's sufficient evidence.

You people who think police exist to prevent crime have unknowingly slid down a slippery slope. Sure, we could hire one body for each person in the country and make sure everyone doesn't commit crimes, or hire more cameras as legal witnesses, or 'crime preventors'. But I'm sure most of you hold disdain for the Bush adiministration's policy's to do just that- saturation monitoring for crime prevention. It's also known by another name: a police state.

Remember that Ben Franklin pseudo quote ~ "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" ? Well, when you relinquish all responsibility to the government for your own personal protection, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

[mykevermin]

:wall:

[Thunderscope]

Fire Dept's were like this in the 1800's, it didnt work so well...

[bmulligan]

if health care in this country is a privilege and not a right, then why is protection from fires and protection from crime?


I think you missed your own argument myke. If you want to know what I'm arguing about, re-read your OP. Not only is healthcare not a right, neither is police and fire protection.

They are free rider programs, community priviledges, instituted among communities by democratically elected proposals. Perhaps you haven't yet had the opportunity to approve a police or fire millage in your community or footed the bill by being a property owner. Isn't democracy great? It's the closest thing we have to socialism. You should be happy about that.

[Ikohn4ever]

I swear mulligan the day you give/use that Franklin quote correctly is the day Bush start pronouncing his words right. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". You tell me how its an Essential liberty and how its Temporary safety and then we can talk.


Ohh and Ben set up one of the first fire companies in the colonies. So I think thats a poor person to quote.

[Msut77]

Isn't democracy great? It's the closest thing we have to socialism. You should be happy about that.

Is anyone capable of putting a number on the amount of people "happy about that"? My guess 95% if not more.

[bmulligan]

I swear mulligan the day you give/use that Franklin quote correctly is the day Bush start pronouncing his words right. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". You tell me how its an Essential liberty and how its Temporary safety and then we can talk.


Ohh and Ben set up one of the first fire companies in the colonies. So I think thats a poor person to quote.

The 'essential liberty' is the freedom, i.e., responsibility, to protect yourself. The 'temporary safety' is the illusion that police presence will protect your life. And, when you wholly transfer the responsibility of personal protection to the 'government', don't be surprised when the government starts monitoring your every action in the name of preventing crime.

So, to reiterate for those who may have perverted versions of liberty and responsibility:

Give up your right to protect yourself - get martial law in return.

[daroga]

Doesn't police "protection" come into play when they bust the drunk or the rapist before they hurt someone else? Sure, it may have been a realized crime that got them moving in the first place, but I think we'd be hard pressed to say they don't protect people.

[bmulligan]

Doesn't police "protection" come into play when they bust the drunk or the rapist before they hurt someone else? Sure, it may have been a realized crime that got them moving in the first place, but I think we'd be hard pressed to say they don't protect people.

The police are agents of the public. The public pass the laws, the police bring offenders to a judge to account for their crimes. The judges rules on the evidence presented and his interpretation of the laws that governs his decisions. If anyone is protecting us from future crimes of an indiidual, it's the judges, the laws, and the people. The police are just proxies. You can't, and shouldn't, think of them as arbiters of justice or a protection squad.

[daroga]

The police are agents of the public. The public pass the laws, the police bring offenders to a judge to account for their crimes. The judges rules on the evidence presented and his interpretation of the laws that governs his decisions. If anyone is protecting us
from future crimes of an indiidual, it's the judges, the laws, and the people. The police are just proxies. You can't, and shouldn't, think of them as arbiters of justice or a protection squad.So the cop who throws the drunk in jail hasn't protected any one else on the road that night?

Service and protection are not mutually exclusive of one another.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

So the cop who throws the drunk in jail hasn't protected any one else on the road that night?

Service and protection are not mutually exclusive of one another.

If somebody tries to punch you in the nose, the cop can allow it until contact is made whereas the bodyguard can't allow contact to be attempted.

[daroga]

If somebody tries to punch you in the nose, the cop can allow it until contact is made whereas the bodyguard can't allow contact to be attempted.Sure. But the cop will step in before he beats the tar out of me.

A police officer isn't my personal body guard, sure, but I think it's kinda foolish to say "Police don't protect people!" I guess there's a difference between protection and keeping you safe from all forms of bodily danger 100% of the time.

[mykevermin]

Sure. But the cop will step in before he beats the tar out of me.

That's the difference between an assault charge and an assault and battery charge.

A police officer isn't my personal body guard, sure, but I think it's kinda foolish to say "Police don't protect people!" I guess there's a difference between protection and keeping you safe from all forms of bodily danger 100% of the time.

I've done what I can to show that "protection" means more than police actively stopping crime - that when the perception of police presence is there, crime rates decline - thus, a small, indirect effect of police on "preventing crime." Those who would disagree are too mired in their false libertarian philosophies of the world, and too mired in their phraseology (imagine me saying that!) of "agents of the public" to even begin to wrangle with actual, factual changes in crime rates.

[daroga]

I just watched like 3 episodes of the Simpsons from season 6. It seems like there were at least 1/2 a dozen quotes to put here, but I can't remember any of them. I blame... the police.

EDIT: Here's a favorite that's not fitting at all. "Let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again!"

[speedracer]

I can't help but look at the world and administration of governance, see the pros and cons of each approach, and then come to the conclusion that ours is lacking (relating back and speaking to the OP's real point). The libertarian view of a utopian state of liberty and freedom (which can't be tired enough, as people seem to turn 19 and read Atlas Shrugged every single day) are far too often the stifling agents, for all their whining about being on the back burner. I'm tired of hearing about how the free market is the natural state and therefore desirable, all the while cinching tight the blindfold that prevents them from seeing the natural state of political organization and results.

That Onion story is so funny it's sad. And yet the whoosh of reality just rushes right on past.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

Couldn't we try out universal health care for about 5 years and see if it works for us? If not, then just switch back to the old system?

[dopa345]

Couldn't we try out universal health care for about 5 years and see if it works for us? If not, then just switch back to the old system?

We already have a form of limited universal health care, Medicare and the government can't even manage that properly. They "cut costs" by only covering visits for specific diangoses, but will refuse to cover routine health maintenance visits. So patients end up waiting until they get sick before seeing the doctor, which drives up costs for everyone. For me as a health care professional, the idea of the government overseeing everyone's health care is frightening.

Has the government proven that it can manage anything effectively and efficiently?

[N1c0_ds]

Police and fire station must belong to the state, otherwise smaller towns would have their houses left burning because they can't afford firemen. I don't think contractors would do the perfect policemen neither. Not to enforce the rogue military contractor stereotype, but these aren't the nicest guys around.

As for healthcare, I support the 2-speed system. This means there is the free healthcare for everyone that is clogged by idiots going to the hospital only for reading magazines (it's almost true in Canada) or the costly but fast private healthcare for those who can afford it.

[Sarang01]

I can't help but look at the world and administration of governance, see the pros and cons of each approach, and then come to the conclusion that ours is lacking (relating back and speaking to the OP's real point). The libertarian view of a utopian state of liberty and freedom (which can't be tired enough, as people seem to turn 19 and read Atlas Shrugged every single day) are far too often the stifling agents, for all their whining about being on the back burner. I'm tired of hearing about how the free market is the natural state and therefore desirable, all the while cinching tight the blindfold that prevents them from seeing the natural state of political organization and results.

That Onion story is so funny it's sad. And yet the whoosh of reality just rushes right on past.

I see things how they are and consider myself an Old School Libertarian, or at least for the closest political viewpoint that makes sense.
Honestly I don't trust Big Business or Big Government. They both will stab you in the back readily. I won't disagree some things MAY work best socially. Most common things WON'T though. Also privatizing Utilities, especially Water, is moronic unless you mean to a not for profirt company. Bottom line in most cases passing these types of services to a not for profit corporation is truly the cheapest option. I know there's the idea passing it off to a regular corporation will make it cheaper but even if that were the case it wouldn't be up to the standards of the government one. The government one would be too expensive because of the redundancy of people hired, the corporation idea would be an issue as the costs would be cut TOO much, be too threadbare to make sure they make a nice tidy profit. If this isn't the case what would happen is it would end up MORE expensive in the end after everyone gets their cut.
Frankly I don't WANT Socialized Medicine because I'm Hollistic and I believe doing this would be gifting some of my tax money to Big Pharma in general which I'm utterly opposed to. Obama's plan frightens me because what will come with Health Care for children being mandatory? If I have a kid and I am FORCED to take them to see a Psychiatrist based on a teacher's recommendation what comes next? My concern is they will be forced to take drugs, even on my objection. Already look how it's believed kid's were overprescribed Ritalin. Some of these doctors do overstep their bounds at times. They must realize some of their patient's parents might be adequately or even more so in terms of education.
Let me add what about Hollistics? Yeah I don't believe that would see any money, what with Pharma trying to minimize them since they can't patent those plants and so on. I pray that Western culture NEVER wins out over Far East there or we may lose the talk in society about this type of healing.

[Xevious]

They privatized the police force in Robocop. Maybe we can get a real-life Robocop!

[XxFuRy2Xx]

So are we pretty much screwed here? All I've seen in this thread is that if the government takes it over, you'll have to wait forever and pay a lot of taxes. If we continue in the current system then there will continue to be a huge amount of people who can't afford health care, and those who do have health insurance aren't exactly guaranteed treatment (some girl died because she was denied a liver or something a little while ago), simply because the company is trying to maximize profits at every turn.

So what the hell is there to do?

[Msut77]

So are we pretty much screwed here? All I've seen in this thread is that if the government takes it over, you'll have to wait forever and pay a lot of taxes. If we continue in the current system then there will continue to be a huge amount of people who can't afford health care, and those who do have health insurance aren't exactly guaranteed treatment (some girl died because she was denied a liver or something a little while ago), simply because the company is trying to maximize profits at every turn.

So what the hell is there to do?

Eventually there will be Universal Healthcare in this country if for no other reason than other large corporations are getting sick of footing the bill for the increased healthcare costs.

We spend more in this country on healthcare than those countries that do have universal healthcare so even if taxes go up because of a single payer system people will probably still be paying less.

Paul Krugman basically lays out a ton of facts and arguments in his book Conscience of a Liberal. Michael Moore's Sicko does an excellent job of contrasting the state of healthcare in the US with other countries even if you do not agree with him politically.

[dopa345]

So are we pretty much screwed here? All I've seen in this thread is that if the government takes it over, you'll have to wait forever and pay a lot of taxes. If we continue in the current system then there will continue to be a huge amount of people who can't afford health care, and those who do have health insurance aren't exactly guaranteed treatment (some girl died because she was denied a liver or something a little while ago), simply because the company is trying to maximize profits at every turn.

So what the hell is there to do?

There are lots of things we can do.

Health Savings accounts so people can can save up for medical care costs by putting away pre-tax in come into treasury bills. The government can also encourage this by matching up to a certain percentage. Allow people to withdraw funds tax free to pay for medical expenses.

Encourage preventative medical care by Medicare paying 100% for routine doctor visits for elderly patients. For younger patients, make any out of pocket expense for annual physicals 100% tax deductible.

Malpractice tort reform.

A lot of it is simply changing the mindset of Americans to health care. Many of the uninsured can afford health care but choose not to purchase it until it's too late. We need to give incentives for people to see their doctors before a problem comes up rather than wait until something happens which it easily could have been preventable.

[davo1224]

Apples and Bananas
You like to eat, eat, eat?

[Ikohn4ever]

Malpractice tort reform.

A lot of it is simply changing the mindset of Americans to health care. Many of the uninsured can afford health care but choose not to purchase it until it's too late. We need to give incentives for people to see their doctors before a problem comes up rather than wait until something happens which it easily could have been preventable.


ha ha ha, thats just a joke. Try being sick without insurance doctors can charge whatever the hell they want. You really can just try to blame everyone but the businesses, when in reality its everyone's fault. Insurance companies, Drug Companies, Doctors and yes the Lawyers too. Everyone is making money, which is not inheritantly a bad thing, but to make it off people that can't afford it is atrocious. Like a medicine that would cost 130 dollars without insurance costing 8 dollars with insurance. That just doesn't make sense. You also naively believe that people have all this money and don't want to spend it on health insurance. People on low incomes either can't afford it or they don't really see the point in putting a preventive measure over food on the table. Insurance isnt cheap especially for a family, and don't get me started if someone in the family has a preexisting condition.

[Liquid 2]

Couldn't we try out universal health care for about 5 years and see if it works for us? If not, then just switch back to the old system?

Once people get used to someone else wiping their ass for them, why would they ever want to do it themselves again?

[dopa345]

ha ha ha, thats just a joke. Try being sick without insurance doctors can charge whatever the hell they want. You really can just try to blame everyone but the businesses, when in reality its everyone's fault. Insurance companies, Drug Companies, Doctors and yes the Lawyers too. Everyone is making money, which is not inheritantly a bad thing, but to make it off people that can't afford it is atrocious. Like a medicine that would cost 130 dollars without insurance costing 8 dollars with insurance. That just doesn't make sense. You also naively believe that people have all this money and don't want to spend it on health insurance. People on low incomes either can't afford it or they don't really see the point in putting a preventive measure over food on the table. Insurance isnt cheap especially for a family, and don't get me started if someone in the family has a preexisting condition.

I'm not naive at all. I have an MBA in health care administration as well as being a practicing physician so I think I have some insight into the situation. I'm not saying there is a large population of uninsured that can't afford it. I'm saying that a large part of the uninsured can afford it but choose not to. When people are healthy, health insurance falls low on their priority list until they actually do get sick then it's too late. As a rule, the government, like more individuals, is too short-sighted to invest resources to prevent something from happening and perfers to react to problems rather than being proactive in preventing them.

[davo1224]

My biggest problem with any insurance is how much of a racket it turns out to be. Those who need it never have enough and those who don't need it end up paying through the nose for it "just in case".

[pittpizza]

My biggest problem with any insurance is how much of a racket it turns out to be. Those who need it never have enough and those who don't need it end up paying through the nose for it "just in case".

So really, all of of these problems stem from economic inequality...right?

[omgu8myrice]

*It's Bush's fault*

/ thread

[fatherofcaitlyn]

*It's Bush's fault*

/ thread

:roll:

Not this time.

The problem with health care is the lack of choice and lack of transparency in prices.

Also, the problem has been going on for decades.

[bmulligan]

I've done what I can to show that "protection" means more than police actively stopping crime - that when the perception of police presence is there, crime rates decline - thus, a small, indirect effect of police on "preventing crime." Those who would disagree are too mired in their false libertarian philosophies of the world, and too mired in their phraseology (imagine me saying that!) of "agents of the public" to even begin to wrangle with actual, factual changes in crime rates.


Of course when criminals think someone is watching, they're not going to commit a crime - until they figure out how to hide their crime or obscure their commission of one. They're still going to commit crimes sooner or later. All your crime rate statistics are garbage. They are either based on conviction rates or reported crimes which can change depending on how many judges, courtrooms, and police are picking up criminals. Or they probably "estimate" non-reported crimes, which is laughable on principle. You need to stop living behind your statistical dreamworld and see the real world, myke. You know, there are actual people out here.

Here's a fact, myke, you probably have no concept of: Police departments are funded by property owners. Their very existence depends on the millage approved by a vote of the people. It's not one of your false socialist programs instituted by the local party representative to ensure compliance with the state. We have recourse at a local level, it's called democracy.

And just like police departments don't protect people from crime, a socialist healthcare system won't protect people from disease and death. Unfortunately, we won't have any recourse once that socialist beast is thrust upon us.

[SpazX]

Of course when criminals think someone is watching, they're not going to commit a crime - until they figure out how to hide their crime or obscure their commission of one. They're still going to commit crimes sooner or later. All your crime rate statistics are garbage. They are either based on conviction rates or reported crimes which can change depending on how many judges, courtrooms, and police are picking up criminals. Or they probably "estimate" non-reported crimes, which is laughable on principle. You need to stop living behind your statistical dreamworld and see the real world, myke. You know, there are actual people out here.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. I don't trust it.

[mykevermin]

All your crime rate statistics are garbage.

I'll let the FBI and Department of Justice know that.

Well, that's not the first time I've been told I'm not an expert on crime. But it is the first time that I've been told the entire field of criminological researchers, theorists, and the work they produce is.

Say what you want about me. That's fine. It's clearly indicative of some kind of peculiar hatred for myself as a person, merely for having ideas (and a self-righteous attitude, yes, I know). A hatred so irrational that anything I type is considered a possible point of contention for them.

The sky is blue.
Your CAG username is bmulligan.
Xbox 360 is the console that gets RRoD.
The president is George W. Bush.
Coffee is a bean and a drink.
Wolf Blizter is on CNN.

Think about the fact that you slowly drew your eyes over those sentences looking for something to pinpoint and argue (or that you have actually argued one of those things!). What does that say about you?

So, anyway, don't like me, disagree with me and any data I report simply because they come from me. That's fine. I get it. But you've delved into a world of such stark idiocy and naivete as a result of your perpetual need to argue anything I say that you're continuing to argue that police do not prevent crime (except when they do, as you imply in your first sentence ;)).

Moreover, you both incorrectly state that property taxes and individual votes are what determine the presence and funding level of PDs (neither is very true, though both may be selectively, if insignificantly - since more funding comes from elsewhere and the decisions are rarely made by voters the way they are for, say, schools levees). So the ultimate irony is that you, the champion of individual liberty, try to act as if the public have a viable ability to determine who their police are and how much they are funded - when the reality is that, if you really think that, you're perpetuating a giant myth and allowing the control of police to remain in the hands of government while lying to the people that they can make changes on their own. Pitiful.

Also, find me a location in the US where the people have voted away a PD, or brought in a new one.

[soonersfan60]

Also, find me a location in the US where the people have voted away a PD, or brought in a new one.

New Rome, Ohio

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Also, find me a location in the US where the people have voted away a PD, or brought in a new one.

San Francisco. I thought there was a Christian Slater movie about it.

[mykevermin]

San Francisco. I thought there was a Christian Slater movie about it.

Kuffs?

I'll look into New Rome, sf60. Thanks.

[bmulligan]

I'll let the FBI and Department of Justice know that.

Well, that's not the first time I've been told I'm not an expert on crime. But it is the first time that I've been told the entire field of criminological researchers, theorists, and the work they produce is.

Say what you want about me. That's fine. It's clearly indicative of some kind of peculiar hatred for myself as a person, merely for having ideas (and a self-righteous attitude, yes, I know). A hatred so irrational that anything I type is considered a possible point of contention for them.

It's interesting that your own naivete would allow you to believe there are no politics behind a government bureau's statistical analysis of it's own job performance. This has nothing to do with you, personally, save for the fact that you are the one delivering the "facts." The sky may be blue, I may be crazy, but to believe without question that statistics don't lie is as unreasonable as believing in miracles. Do you roll dice to see which government department is trustworthy this week? It always seems to change with you depending on your agenda. One day the government is corruptingly corporate, the next we believe they're the bastion for fairness and utopia.

I know you can't trust them when a republican is president, but Pelosi said dems were to make government transparent. Did that happen yet? It must have for you to bathe your baby in that bathwater.

Moreover, you both incorrectly state that property taxes and individual votes are what determine the presence and funding level of PDs (neither is very true, though both may be selectively, if insignificantly - since more funding comes from elsewhere and the decisions are rarely made by voters the way they are for, say, schools levees). So the ultimate irony is that you, the champion of individual liberty, try to act as if the public have a viable ability to determine who their police are and how much they are funded - when the reality is that, if you really think that, you're perpetuating a giant myth and allowing the control of police to remain in the hands of government while lying to the people that they can make changes on their own. Pitiful.

I'm glad you so indirectly acknowledge your disdain for individual liberty. For someone like you, it must represent the most frightening concept you've ever NOT had to face and prefer to attack from your safe haven socialist utopia known as Academia.

It's also funny how your "facts" seem to fade into the obtuse when you have no idea what you're talking about. My community police force is directly funded by my property taxes that I pay twice a year along with all the other property owners in the township. I'm so sorry you weren't at the township meetings where we debated the merits of the millage proposals and questioned our police chief and twp supervisor to justify the increases. Then, low and behold, we didn't see fit to give them a new police station and hire 10 new officers.

You really have no concept of how the world works except for your pre-printed propaganda you consume and consider reality, do you myke ? This is my problem with you, no more, no less. It's not personal, it's the fact that you assume statistics and "fact" sheets are a substitute for life experience. They're not.

Also, find me a location in the US where the people have voted away a PD, or brought in a new one. The point is that we have the FREEDOM to disband one should we choose. I know it goes against your principles to engender or even acknowledge individual liberty as as an essential component of a free society, but you don't trust individuals in a free society, do you? That's rhetorical, myke, you've already answered it many times over.

[mykevermin]

I wasn't aware that the Bureau of Justice Statistics was beaming with pride over its finding that prisons are overcrowded, underfunded (and yet simulataneously BOOMING in expenditures), and end up with 2 out of every 3 released prisoners being rearrested within 3 years of release.

I'll send them a "way to go, tiger!" ego-boosting congratulations card for that.

Are you *that* fucking paranoid and suspicious that you want to disregard facts based on who you THINK does the data gathering? I'll be sure to be wary of my own current research project, which started with basic demographic data that are gathered on *EVERY* arrested person in the particular area that I'm researching. Just fuckin' TEEMING with bias, that must be. :roll:

[thrustbucket]

Mykevermin, why is it that every other post of yours somehow finds a way to talk about the prison system? Are you an aspiring prisoner or do you have a soft spot for criminals? If so, do you work for the ACLU?

[daroga]

I wasn't aware that the Bureau of Justice Statistics was beaming with pride over its finding that prisons are overcrowded, underfunded (and yet simulataneously BOOMING in expenditures), and end up with 2 out of every 3 released prisoners being rearrested within 3 years of release.I'm not going to get in the middle of this little debate, but it seems pretty reasonable to me to provide self-deprecating numbers in a pull to get more funding. Public school systems do it all the time. It runs the risk of pulling at heart strings vs. alienating people who think they should be "smarter with the money they have."

I have no idea nor do I care to debate if that's the case with the DoJ. Just saying that negative numbers doesn't automatically equate with no-spin.

[bmulligan]

Are you *that* fucking paranoid and suspicious that you want to disregard facts based on who you THINK does the data gathering?

Um...yes. I'm always suspicious about WHO is gathering the "facts" and WHO is reporting their analysis. I'd say they are two very important parts of the equation in order to judge objectivity. C'mon, myke, you don't really expect anyone to believe that numbers can't be made to tell untruths? I'm sure your department has an entire doctoral program in that field.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Um...yes. I'm always suspicious about WHO is gathering the "facts" and WHO is reporting their analysis. I'd say they are two very important parts of the equation in order to judge objectivity. C'mon, myke, you don't really expect anyone to believe that numbers can't be made to tell untruths? I'm sure your department has an entire doctoral program in that field.

OK, let's assume myke's findings are crap.

Where is the data countering his findings?

Data is never perfect, but you work with the best you have OR work even harder to find a new data set that disproves the first data set..

[mykevermin]

OK, let's assume myke's findings are crap.

Where is the data countering his findings?

Data is never perfect, but you work with the best you have OR work even harder to find a new data set that disproves the first data set..

Sorry, this is a grammatical sticking point for me: data is a plural word (datum is the singular; I s'pose we culled this shit over straight from Latin - or to use gaming vernacular, it's just a "straight port").

So it's "Where are the data countering..." and "Data are never perfect..."

But, yeah, anyway, you're not going to get anything out of bmulligan. He's like those other cats who can complain about data funding and influence all they want (check out the NYT front page for a timely story as well), but will NEVER offer anything in response outside of discovering the one thing they need to do to confirm their bias that they shouldn't trust anything that doesn't verify what they already believe about the world. It's the same sort of thrustbucket "Oh, I don't trust any of this science crap myke keeps pointing out, while I'll agree with a single allusion to "theory" (with no single source or citation, mind you) that someone else puts out there" approach he had in another thread. Thanks for trying, though.

I wonder what some of these folks think about the validity and reliability of public school standards testing (the "accountability" element) that was part of the NCLB bill. After all, since we are suspicious of any and all data gathering, we should be very suspicious of that particular provision, no?

Ultimately, I'm not angry about these attitudes; I'm disappointed that people are so frightened of confronting facts that run contrary to their worldview that they immediately delve into attacking the source. Me? I've read bad research. In fact, I think I hit a whole new threshold yesterday; my exact reaction to a paper I read was "well, I don't know what the fuck I just read, but I read somethin'." It won't ever be published in a refereed journal, so I'm not concerned about it polluting the popular discourse. That said, I do read bad/not very good published and refereed research. I confront the data, ask about its limitations, the poor use of proxy data, sloppily applied theoretical reasoning for the project, lousy research methods/statistical tests, or qualitative work that I have little patience for (content analysis can suck a big one, for the record).

But, what it comes down to is something I share in common with people like bmulligan and thrustbucket: we both believe that there are some things not even worth discussing in politics. IMO, there are a number of folks who simply don't deserve to have their points acknowledged: this includes the "pro wrestlers" of the political world (in terms of their substance and style): Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, god only knows how many millions of bloggers on the right and left, etc. Others straddle the line between "newz-ertainment" and having ideas worth debating; I think Neal Boortz is one of those folks, and his consumption tax is a debate worth having. Even bad ideas deserve a seat at the table, while vitriol, screaming, selective truths and "gotcha!" moments do not. So in the end, we agree that there are some things that aren't worth discussing: for me, it's pop-politics. For them, it's science and facts that disagree with their worldview that they are frightened and unprepared to confront. Not exactly a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" scenario, but hey...

soonersfan, do you have a viable resource for more information on New Rome? The wiki entry gives some of the story (like the village leader's group falling apart, the chief resigning and then the police being disbanded - all preceding the village being dissolved into another part of Columbus, OH); but it's told in such a way that it's very hard to really identify the order and causation of each incident (particularly because overt corruption seems to seep through all of it.

[daroga]

Sorry, this is a grammatical sticking point for me: data is a plural word (datum is the singular; I s'pose we culled this shit over straight from Latin - or to use gaming vernacular, it's just a "straight port").

So it's "Where are the data countering..." and "Data are never perfect..."It can be, but it can also be a collective noun referring to a collection of information, for which you'd use a singular verb.

[pittpizza]

Actually myke, according to Star Trek, you're wrong.

Data was just one dude...singular. If what you say is true, his name would have been "Datum"

I too was wondering about Thrustbucket's query (even though he is a conservative).

I also agree w/ Bmull's last post, about being critical of the source of your statistics. My dad has this saying about statistics that I just love:

"If the statistics don't support your position...you need to find some more statistics." Still, Fatherofcaitlyn correctly points out that biased or untrustworthy data beats out NO data at all. (Well, except when considering whether to invade Iraq; there it would have been better to have no data at all.)

[mykevermin]

Being critical of statistics involves understanding the data collection technique, the actual data gathered, and the methods used to determine the lil' numbers. It's a complex understanding indeed to identify potential sources bias and problems in the data.

It's criticizing how it is performed from start to finish.

Being critical of statistics is not simply wishing them away or disregarding them on the *presumption* that they come from biased sources; moreover, if we agree with daroga, then the conspiracy circle is complete, as these agencies are prone to simply making up data that make them look good (in order to stay relevant and appreciated) and also data that make them look bad (to bolster their claims for urgent action). It's lazy, and it's attacking the source instead of the information.

As for your father's pithy saying, that's what lazy people who are too unimportant for their own good say about statistics. It's what people who don't know shit about statistics say about statistics. It's a cute phrase for a bumper sticker, but one that won't wash in the real world. It's a naive, ignorant, defeatist, "I don't wanna know it, and I don't wanna like it" phrase.

[BigT]

Sorry, this is a grammatical sticking point for me: data is a plural word (datum is the singular; I s'pose we culled this shit over straight from Latin - or to use gaming vernacular, it's just a "straight port").

So it's "Where are the data countering..." and "Data are never perfect..."


Thanks for pointing this out (data = plural). It's a pet peeve of mine. However, since we're on the topic of grammar and usage, I have to point this out:


Say what you want about me. That's fine. It's clearly indicative of some kind of peculiar hatred for myself as a person, merely for having ideas (and a self-righteous attitude, yes, I know).


Sorry, another pet peeve of mine is that people incorrectly overuse myself or I, when me is the more appropriate word choice. Myself is a reflexive pronoun and should not be used in place of a simple pronoun. By using the word, myself, you imply that you are the one hating yourself. Only I can do something to myself and only you can do something to yourself. Other people can do something to you or me.

[mykevermin]

Heh. Fair is fair.

[soonersfan60]

soonersfan, do you have a viable resource for more information on New Rome? The wiki entry gives some of the story (like the village leader's group falling apart, the chief resigning and then the police being disbanded - all preceding the village being dissolved into another part of Columbus, OH); but it's told in such a way that it's very hard to really identify the order and causation of each incident (particularly because overt corruption seems to seep through all of it.

It was awhile ago, but had been a hot topic around here in Columbus for a number of years. The Wiki story has some of the basics, but there were actually several events leading up to it that are left out. Some of the more interesting tidbits are the votes that went back and forth to keep the police, disband the police, vote in this mayor/council, etc. At one point there were more than one recognized mayor/council depending on who you talked to. Yes, corruption was involved, but it was funny how many people just ignored votes that they didn't agree with. And there were actually votes to disband the current police force (which were ignored). It is not completely analogous to your discussion, but I thought it would be fun to stir it up a bit...

[bmulligan]

OK, let's assume myke's findings are crap.

Where is the data countering his findings?

Data is never perfect, but you work with the best you have OR work even harder to find a new data set that disproves the first data set..

There is no data countering mykes 'findings' because there are none. There is only his opinion about some social situation. You see, this is Myke's recipe for debate on CAG. He'll begin by professing an erroneous premise:


if health care in this country is a privilege and not a right, then why is protection from fires and protection from crime

The implication is that heathcare should be a right, just like police and fire protection are. When someone counters his argument, pointing out that the premise is faulty - police protection is not even really 'protection', he immediately launches into statistics claiming police presence lowers crime which has nothing to do with his first statement, or backs his supposition that police protection is a right because a peaceful society cannot exist without one, or something equally insignificant to his 'theory'.

Then, someone claims police presence is not even a right, it's a privilege and it's instituted just like any other common social privileges are voted upon and funded, he counters with no facts - just an opinion of denial. When someone claims to know how police are funded - by direct polling of residents and taxpayers of a given community, he challenges that with no bases in fact to back him up this time. Fortunately for him, he doesn't press that point or even acknowledge it in subsequent posts because there are no stats on the subject.

Therefore, there is nothing arguing against his facts, his interpretation of some random study, or the effectiveness of some government program which is only tangential to his primary argument. There's just myke, rallying around his stats like they're still proving his opinion , whatever that may have been becuase everyone has forgotten about what he originally said, and anyone who challenges him is arguing against the 100% truth, because, you see, he has numbers to back him up. Unfortunately, all the numbers in the world can't make police departments or heathcare constitutionally protected rights in America; they are privileges and they don't protect us from getting mugged and stabbed to death around the corner where that policeman can no longer see what's happening.

And that's the point of the topic. Myke wants to hear arguments against privilege. Privilege is something that has to be earned, or bestowed to you through some process. With privilege there's no entitlement, it can be revoked. Myke wants none of that nonsense and has admitted as such in his diatribe against personal freedom. He wants you to be able to demand, through force, a right to healthcare and police protection, while someone else foots the bill. Unfortunately, there are few people to defend us from people who have opinions and facts like myke.

[mykevermin]

police protection is not even really 'protection'

You're still pushing that poorly theorized and completely empirically disproven chestnut?

And yet I'm the one who doesn't want to listen, huh?

:rofl:

A brief summary of bmullgan's last post: myke has facts, and there aren't contrary facts to show that myke is wrong, but myke is wrong.

Heh.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

OK. So bmull is theorem and myke is fact in the argument?

[bmulligan]

You're still pushing that poorly theorized and completely empirically disproven chestnut?

And yet I'm the one who doesn't want to listen, huh?

:rofl:

A brief summary of bmullgan's last post: myke has facts, and there aren't contrary facts to show that myke is wrong, but myke is wrong.

Heh.

Ugh, myke....go ahead and cling to the argument you THINK you're winning while ignoring the obvious argument that you have no chance of winning: Police and fire 'protection', even by your so-called, proven factual definition, aren't rights, they are privileges granted by the community. Therefore, you'll have to find another justification for making healthcare a right.

[mykevermin]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you've come up with ZERO FDs/PDs that have been disbanded by the public, while soonersfan (better than "buckeyefan" indeed ;)) came up with one that even they admit is only potentially tangentially related to the idea of privatizing either estate.

So, if we want to play the "you ignored ____" game, why don't you find me a community that decided to privatize either department? Or would that be too much to ask or you?

Meanwhile, who are you convincing that I've "lost" the argument? Me? Or you?

[pittpizza]

As for your father's pithy saying, that's what lazy people who are too unimportant for their own good say about statistics. It's what people who don't know shit about statistics say about statistics. It's a cute phrase for a bumper sticker, but one that won't wash in the real world. It's a naive, ignorant, defeatist, "I don't wanna know it, and I don't wanna like it" phrase.

Oh so you must know my father then? You also must know every other person who said that too, since you know that everyone who says that is lazy, unimportant, doesn't know shit, is naive, ignorant and defeatist, right? You must know a lot of people.

I'm not any of those things, yet I know that stats and data can be and often are skewed in a myriad of ways. As a cynic, I'm always questioning "where is the information coming from?" "Who is telling me this and why?" I've seen that stats can be tortured and specifically selected to support pretty much any view; it may not be convincing but since most of America has to be saddled/chained with tens of thousands of dollars of debt to get a good education, a good deal of the populace will go along with what they're told. They don't think as critically. Hell sometimes they don't even have to be true at all, they can be bold face lies and the people will still chew them up like Coco-puffs (e.g. Iraq has WMD's).

Maybe I'm lazy or naive for being critical of what information I'll accept as fact, or perhaps just don't want to know the truth? Sorry teach, but your argument fails. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite is true: Those who are critical of stats and question their bias/credibility, are usually smarter and less naive than those who eat their coco-puffs with their minds and curtains closed.

And myke, sorry to break it to you, but as a third party (not Bmull or you) I can tell you that you have lost the nitpicky argument. Might want to think about starting to save face, though you don't seem to be concerned about your CAG "face" so please, continue on with your "smarter than thou" and "holier than thou" Ivory tower BS. If nothing else, it's entertaining to me. ;)

To get back to the issue at hand, instead of this semantic bickering, my personal view is that in America, where we have sooooooo much wealth, and sooooo few people have soooooo much money, it is completely fucking atrocious that we let our poor and sick die in our streets. Hospitals will literally kick dieing people out into the street, (well cab drivers paid by the hospitals usually do the kicking). Pharmaceutical companies are racking in the dough, getting old white men's dicks up while the poor and middle class are getting kicked out of their homes b/c they're bankrupt with medical bills. Not everyone can afford to pay for their illnesses, so in a civilized society, where people actually give a shit about each other, it makes sense that we would want to band together to help those that can't help themselves. Here is the rub: I'm not even talking about the UNINSURED!!! I'm talking about the people who actually fucking have and pay for GOOD health insurance, but are getting denied b/c of one of fifty thousand reasons big HMO's can find so they can stamp that "DENIED" and save their company some money.

Adjusters, and physicians employed by health ins. companies get bonuses and commisions by having the HIGHEST DENIAL PERCENTAGE!! They make money by saving their employer money (by denying claims). It's is a fucking racket, it's atrocious, and it needs to stop.

Perhaps the most frustratign thing of it all, is that conservatives and people like Bmull (I'm not saying that you specifically beleive this bmull, but people like you/with your political views genearlly do) live under some false impression that universal health care would actually harm the quality of care in America. THis is completely and totally fucking false! Canda, France, Britain, and EVERY other western democracy (not exagerating or pulling shit out of my ass here, I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE except us) has universal healthcare and most of them have lower infant mortality rates, and higher/longer life expectancies!

This doesn't even start to take into account the increased stress/anxiety Americans have as compared to other countries.

So if the quality of care doesn't suffer, surely these nations must be giving like 50% of their income to the government right? Otherwise it wouldn't even be possible right? WRONG!! They pay roughly the same percentage of taxes that we do. Perhaps they use their tax dollars more wisely than we do (eg. starting wars in the middle east to RAISE gas prices for our people).

Which brings us to "Why?" Why do we tolerate it? Why don't americans give a shit about other Americans?" Simple answer: because the wealthy have the power in this country, and our masses are to afraid, and chained w/ debt and worry to fuckin do anything about it! You know why life is so cushy for people in France? It's because the government is afraid of its people (they have demonstrations and riots and shit to keep their gov in check). Here, the people are afraid of their government. I know I am.

Those of you thinking "then why don't you just leave if you hate the US so much?" go fuck yourselves, because I know there are some of you. Wanting and wishing to improve your country to make it better is the purest form of patriotism there is.

[mykevermin]

As a matter of fact, quite the opposite is true: Those who are critical of stats and question their bias/credibility, are usually smarter and less naive than those who eat their coco-puffs with their minds and curtains closed.

*sigh*

Hm.

*sigh*

*deep breath*

*count to ten*

Phew...okay. Here goes. Calm now.

I never said that people can't be critical of statistics. I do it on a daily basis. My issue is that flippantly disregarding data is NOT a reasonable criticism.

"Oh, I'm sure they're funded by this or that agenda-ridden organization," or "I bet the data are flawed because they want to prove this point or that point/cover their asses," or "anyone can prove anything with statistics." That's all garbage; a nonresponse. That's as much of a well-reasoned criticism as shouting "LALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU!" while you have your hands over your ears.

Honestly now. If you want to make a claim, then prove it. Wrangle with the data; demonstrate its flaws, find contrary (research-based!) evidence, look at the r-squared and tell me it's too tiny to be of any significance; look at the sample collection method and point out its flaws, or that the size is too small/nonrandom/not generalizable. Most of what statisticians DO is read and criticize other people's studies. It helps you sort out your own problems and discern what information is usable and what is better off left out of your argument.

Ultimately, what you consider acceptable "criticism" of statistics is akin to trolling the Xbox 360 forums telling everyone "360 sucks." It's just empty rhetoric. Why does the 360 suck; what sucks about it? The hardware, the games, XBL...what? But you can't get that far, because you've already convinced yourself of the rightness of what you believe that you think it's redundant to bother explaining that the 360 sucks in detail. "Xbox 360 sucks" is the totally self-satisfying evidence, and the only evidence you need. Also, to fulfill the analogy, you'd be completely unaware of any reasons for thinking the 360 sucks beyond "360 sucks."

[pittpizza]

Statistics Rule!

Keep digging.

Unless of course anybody wants to :argue: about universal healthcare, I'm all for that.

[bmulligan]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you've come up with ZERO FDs/PDs that have been disbanded by the public, while soonersfan (better than "buckeyefan" indeed ;)) came up with one that even they admit is only potentially tangentially related to the idea of privatizing either estate.

So, if we want to play the "you ignored ____" game, why don't you find me a community that decided to privatize either department? Or would that be too much to ask or you?

Meanwhile, who are you convincing that I've "lost" the argument? Me? Or you?

Apparently reading uses a different skill set than 'fact' quoting. Another tangent bodes well for fuzzying your original argument. As I stated before, the FREEDOM to disband a police department is a more important principle than the fact that cities all over the country aren't currently folding their law enforcement agencies.

You have yet to prove or even attempt an argument justifying your premise that police 'protection' is a right. Go ahead, get some facts for us and analyze them while we wait.

[camoor]

*sigh*

Hm.

*sigh*

*deep breath*

*count to ten*

Phew...okay. Here goes. Calm now.

I never said that people can't be critical of statistics. I do it on a daily basis. My issue is that flippantly disregarding data is NOT a reasonable criticism.

"Oh, I'm sure they're funded by this or that agenda-ridden organization," or "I bet the data are flawed because they want to prove this point or that point/cover their asses," or "anyone can prove anything with statistics." That's all garbage; a nonresponse. That's as much of a well-reasoned criticism as shouting "LALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU!" while you have your hands over your ears.

Honestly now. If you want to make a claim, then prove it. Wrangle with the data; demonstrate its flaws, find contrary (research-based!) evidence, look at the r-squared and tell me it's too tiny to be of any significance; look at the sample collection method and point out its flaws, or that the size is too small/nonrandom/not generalizable. Most of what statisticians DO is read and criticize other people's studies. It helps you sort out your own problems and discern what information is usable and what is better off left out of your argument.

Ultimately, what you consider acceptable "criticism" of statistics is akin to trolling the Xbox 360 forums telling everyone "360 sucks." It's just empty rhetoric. Why does the 360 suck; what sucks about it? The hardware, the games, XBL...what? But you can't get that far, because you've already convinced yourself of the rightness of what you believe that you think it's redundant to bother explaining that the 360 sucks in detail. "Xbox 360 sucks" is the totally self-satisfying evidence, and the only evidence you need. Also, to fulfill the analogy, you'd be completely unaware of any reasons for thinking the 360 sucks beyond "360 sucks."

I have to say, that's a pretty valid point you make here. My sociology 101 course didn't touch on any of this :lol:

[bmulligan]

well, since we have the right to form a police department.....Sorry, I mean ....

Since police and fire departments are a rights, I guess basic sewage is also a right. Sidewalks....we must have a right to those too. Oh, and fresh water, food and air jordans - gotta have some of those.... and, oh, yes, basic transportation must be a right as well. Gotta get to that government job on time so I'll get my weekly bread ration. Let's see, what else can I get my neigbor to pay for that I need...I mean "have a right to..."

[bmulligan]

Oh yeah, I forgot about Ovaltine. That shit is fantastic - and nutritious too. We should have a right to Ovaltine. Mixed with milk it's the greatest. You could LIVE on that shit for months.

[mykevermin]

I have to say, that's a pretty valid point you make here. My sociology 101 course didn't touch on any of this :lol:

I think far too many folks are turned away by the content of introductory sociology courses, which seem to often be more reminiscent of a Jerry Seinfeld routine mixed with a politically slanted "here are things we take for granted that we have a part in constructing and maintaining" element, than they are science courses.

I'm glad to see the slippery slope in full effect, bmulligan. Just so we're aware of who's still unconvinced of their own argument, look to the one with the logical fallacies first.

[omgu8myrice]

Those of you thinking "then why don't you just leave if you hate the US so much?" go fuck yourselves, because I know there are some of you. Wanting and wishing to improve your country to make it better is the purest form of patriotism there is.

GTFO you damn communist ;)

besides, the healthcare in Canada and other countries have their own problems too, like long lines, and having to wait for surgeries and stuff. Here in the good ole US of A you can have a heart surgeon on you right away. child death rate and life expectancy arnt the only stats that dictate a healthcare system

If it is possible to keep the current high quality care for the rich, whiile still providng for the poor, im all up for that

[Hex]

GTFO you damn communist ;)

besides, the healthcare in Canada and other countries have their own problems too, like long lines, and having to wait for surgeries and stuff. Here in the good ole US of A you can have a heart surgeon on you right away. child death rate and life expectancy arnt the only stats that dictate a healthcare system

If it is possible to keep the current high quality care for the rich, whiile still providng for the poor, im all up for that

Sure you can get a doctor quickly... at the expense of going into bankruptcy. The issues with waiting times are highly exaggerated.

As someone who's in healthcare I'm all for socialization of such. Hospitals and the free market go together like mashed potatoes and peanut butter. (Note I say hospitals, not necessarily medical technology). I think the case in point is the rather lengthy story of Beth Israel Deaconess hospital in Boston- except I can only sort of paraphrase from what I remember reading in this book (http://www.amazon.com/Code-Green-Money-Driven-Hospitals-Dismantling/dp/0801489199/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206676989&sr=8-1)). Originally Beth Israel Hospital, it was *the* hospital in the northern horn of the US, for both patients and healthcare providers. Thanks to competition from another healthcare system that was privately funded, Beth Israel had to merge with Deaconess, which was a hospital known for a more fiscally-efficient, money-oriented means of operation. As a consequence, the two styles couldn't work well together at all, and basically it fell apart.

I'm not that great at articulation, but basically, while money is definitely a significant thing for hospitals to worry about, it should be the last thing they should have to worry about. Hospitals and health care just don't operate the same way as a business, and that's why I think they need to be socialized, because in the current system hospitals are being driven into the ground, employees are being driven out by awful conditions and the end result is that patients suffer. There is only one goddamn thing that discriminates one human from another with regards to healthcare, and that's how effective said care will be to the end of solving their affliction. It doesn't matter whether or not you can pay, what your income is, race, gender, orientation, whatever. Everyone should be treated the same but now we have for-profit hospitals that can pick and choose their patients, and that's just disgusting.

I guess to sum up my thoughts is that (and it may be a pipe dream, but I dunno) by socializing clinical care you take away at the basic level the problem of money, be it discrimination against patients, or patients being unwilling to go see a clinician about a health issue. Hospitals shouldn't be treated like businesses or expected to compete like businesses do. They should be judged on quality of care alone, for its patients and employees both.

Yeah. To that end obviously I believe healthcare is a right.

[pittpizza]

Well put Hex, and omgu8myrice (great name btw) you're flat out wrong about long lines and having to wait for surgery. It's bullshit that is fed to you so you don't demand universal healthcare, and demand that every man woman and child, be treated regardless of their financial stance.

Soooo much crap is fed to the public about the pitfalls of universal healthcare that are flat out untrue, much like the crap fed to the public about WMDs in Iraq.

With universal healthcare, the prerequisite to leaving a hospital isn't "Are you insured and did you pay your bill?" It's "Are you well enough to leave and do you have a safe place to go?" This misconception about long lines, impoverished doctors, and third rate medical equipment is so false it's infuriating. Big Pharma, bureacrats and the AMA spend big bucks on lobbyists (4 per congressman) to keep it this way.

I'm sooooo looking forward to kicking these special interests out on thier fucking asses and getting EVERYBODY good healthcare.

To anybody thinking "I don't want to have to pay for bums who don't buy health insurance!" know that having health insurance doesn't mean your bills get paid. Hell nowadays, the big HMO's are so bad there is a pretty good chance you'll get a DENIED stamped on your claim, so not only are you out all those premiums you paid (likely several hundred dollars a month), you're also out 5k for your ambulance ride, 10k for your x-ray, 20k for your hospital stay, 30k for your surgery, (it goes on and on)... All for reasons such as "you didn't pre-approve the ambulance ride (while the blood was gushing out)" or "it's experimental" or "you failed to disclose your great great half uncle had a bladder infection."

Also people think this would require higher taxes, which is complete shit. What it would require however, is some re-distribution of the BBBBBillions of profits that Pharma and Ins. companies are raking in. Some billionaire CEO's and Bush's cronies might be a little miffed.

Democracy has failed in the area of medicine and healthcare (and education); the people have not voted those in power who will help them in these areas.

[dopa345]

I am for everyone having health care. However I am not for the government being the entity that supervises it. There is no reason to think that the government can do the job any better than the current system and lots of reasons to think it cannot.

As to the "long lines" issues, it is completely true, ask any health care policy expert or simply ask any Canadian. There's a maxim in health care policy: "Cost, Access, Quality: Pick any two at the expense of the third". Obviously, we want to keep costs down and we want high quality of care so it's inevitable that access to care will take the hit. It's not literally people waiting in line outside the hospital or doctor's office; it's the long waiting lists for elective procedures or testing or visits to a specialist; you can expect to wait weeks or months or even years in some cases. It's so bad that the Canadian government outsources many of their citizens to get care in the U.S. and many Canadians are willing to pay out of pocket to get procedures done in U.S. rather than waiting there turn in the Canadian system. Americans will not tolerate such a system and unless we are willing to endure higher costs (unless people want lower quality of care) which then defeats the purpose. Really the best way to cut costs is to instill the philosophy of being proactive with our health rather than reactive. All too often, patients that I see believe they are healthy because they never had to see a doctor in their life... until they come into the ER with a stroke because of their smoking and uncontrolled hypertension and cholesterol that could have been managed with medication. I would argue that healthier patients are the ones that see their doctor regularly to pick up health problems early before they become life-threatening. An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.

Now here is how the government views health care through Medicare. First of all, they will only pay for hospital visits with a diagnosis; they will not pay for a routine physical examination. So already, they encourage patients to wait for problems before they go see the doctor. Secondly, they reimburse based on DRG's (or Diagnostic Related Groups) which means each diagnosis is given a lump sum to cover all the costs in treating it while the health care provider keeps the excess... or takes a hit if they are "inefficient" and spend more. This implies that everyone that comes in with the same diagnosis can be treated the same way which is simply not true. Obviously some patients are sicker than others and incur more costs but this encourages providers to cut corners or at worst dump sicker patients to other hospitals (which happens a lot).

Lastly, and to me this is the most ridiculous part, the DRG system also punishes the provider for doing too good of a job since inherent in the DRG system is that a certain diagnosis should require X number of hospital days so if they leave earlier, then they won't pay for it since it would have been an "inappropriate hospitalization". This happens all the time in my specialty since I see lots of strokes, many of which are mild and I often can reach a diagnosis and initiate appropriate treatment after 24 hours at which point they can be discharged to a rehab hospital. However, in order for patients to qualify for rehab, they need to be in the hospital for a minimum of 3 days. So they just sit in the hospital unnecessarily which incurs costs, increases the risk of hospital related complication and keeps a bed unavailable for a truly sick patient that could have used it.

The government is just so damn inefficient so the idea of them managing health care on a universal scale is just frightening to me. Why would anyone want the government to play a larger role in your health?

Everyone is to blame for the rising costs of health care and the politicians most of all since no one in the government has a thorough enough understanding of the situation or is brave enough to propose real solutions. It's not a simple "Big Pharma" is to blame or the insurance companies are to blame... fundamental a change in how we view health care and if we are willing to make the tough choices to responsibly distribute the limited health care resources that we have.

[Msut77]

I am for everyone having health care. However I am not for the government being the entity that supervises it. There is no reason to think that the government can do the job any better than the current system and lots of reasons to think it cannot.

The government will more than likely be more efficient at providing healthcare than the current system we have.

Profit making companies have to much interest in denying operations and care, the system in the US is expensive and inefficient because we essentially have a whole entire layer of bureaucracy just for that purpose.

[Hex]

Dopa: I agree with your proactive approach, I'm very much a proponent of holistic, more natural medicine- curing the root problem, not pallatively [sic?] getting rid of the symptoms. While I couldn't say whether or not the government would fuck it up or not (who knows what direction the country will take with a new president) but the problem of choosing between going in to have your furuncle removed or buying food for your childruns and honestly universal means seems to be the best way to do that on the patient level.

I'd almost go so far as to maybe suggest salary caps for doctors. It wouldn't be popular but maybe then the less-than-ethical doctors would be forced to realize that they have a dirty job to do, rather than shoving all of their work on us nurses, PAs and MAs so they can go tee-off with their golf buddies.


My point is that it's atrocious to force medical institutions to compete like companies.

[dopa345]

The government will more than likely be more efficient at providing healthcare than the current system we have.

Profit making companies have to much interest in denying operations and care, the system in the US is expensive and inefficient because we essentially have a whole entire layer of bureaucracy just for that purpose.

Fine, you can say that but what supports that contention? I've worked with both private insurers and state Medicaid and Medicare and while private insurers have their own issues, with state Medicaid and Medicare you have to jump through far more hoops just to give quality care to your patients. Every day I have to fill out per-authorization forms because some pencil-pusher thinks they can do a better job in treating my patients than I do.

[pittpizza]

I am for everyone having health care. However I am not for the government being the entity that supervises it. There is no reason to think that the government can do the job any better than the current system and lots of reasons to think it cannot.

As to the "long lines" issues, it is completely true, ask any health care policy expert or simply ask any Canadian. There's a maxim in health care policy: "Cost, Access, Quality: Pick any two at the expense of the third". Obviously, we want to keep costs down and we want high quality of care so it's inevitable that access to care will take the hit. It's not literally people waiting in line outside the hospital or doctor's office; it's the long waiting lists for elective procedures or testing or visits to a specialist; you can expect to wait weeks or months or even years in some cases. It's so bad that the Canadian government outsources many of their citizens to get care in the U.S. and many Canadians are willing to pay out of pocket to get procedures done in U.S. rather than waiting there turn in the Canadian system. Americans will not tolerate such a system and unless we are willing to endure higher costs (unless people want lower quality of care) which then defeats the purpose. Really the best way to cut costs is to instill the philosophy of being proactive with our health rather than reactive. All too often, patients that I see believe they are healthy because they never had to see a doctor in their life... until they come into the ER with a stroke because of their smoking and uncontrolled hypertension and cholesterol that could have been managed with medication. I would argue that healthier patients are the ones that see their doctor regularly to pick up health problems early before they become life-threatening. An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.

Now here is how the government views health care through Medicare. First of all, they will only pay for hospital visits with a diagnosis; they will not pay for a routine physical examination. So already, they encourage patients to wait for problems before they go see the doctor. Secondly, they reimburse based on DRG's (or Diagnostic Related Groups) which means each diagnosis is given a lump sum to cover all the costs in treating it while the health care provider keeps the excess... or takes a hit if they are "inefficient" and spend more. This implies that everyone that comes in with the same diagnosis can be treated the same way which is simply not true. Obviously some patients are sicker than others and incur more costs but this encourages providers to cut corners or at worst dump sicker patients to other hospitals (which happens a lot).

Lastly, and to me this is the most ridiculous part, the DRG system also punishes the provider for doing too good of a job since inherent in the DRG system is that a certain diagnosis should require X number of hospital days so if they leave earlier, then they won't pay for it since it would have been an "inappropriate hospitalization". This happens all the time in my specialty since I see lots of strokes, many of which are mild and I often can reach a diagnosis and initiate appropriate treatment after 24 hours at which point they can be discharged to a rehab hospital. However, in order for patients to qualify for rehab, they need to be in the hospital for a minimum of 3 days. So they just sit in the hospital unnecessarily which incurs costs, increases the risk of hospital related complication and keeps a bed unavailable for a truly sick patient that could have used it.

The government is just so damn inefficient so the idea of them managing health care on a universal scale is just frightening to me. Why would anyone want the government to play a larger role in your health?

None of what you say is true about Canada, at least not according to my Canadian soon to be mother-in-law, who also is in the health care industry. Sounds like your parroting some rightist talking points that are simply not grounded in reality.

The government is inefficient? Oh yeah, are your PDs, FDs, and school's inefficient? Are your streets ineffcient, your courts, your post office? Guess what!? For every inefficient government you can point to, I can point to ten "private" inefficiencies. Again, Sounds like your parroting some rightist talking points that are simply not grounded in reality. You make it sound like some gov. beaurocrat is going to be peforming my cardiogram...are you serious? Pah-lease, gimme a break, thats laughable.

You mentioned long lines, again, you need to check your facts. They're much longer in America! About twice as long usually (judging by emergency room visits). So much for private efficiency huh?

And that "pick any two at the expense of the third" must be a uniquely American POV, b/c it doesnt appear that England, France, or ANY other Western democracy shares it. Q: What does that say about what Americans think of each other or the value they place on life and health? A: Nothing good.

I do agree that the current system is atrocious, and the fact that it doesn't allow for preventative care is a self fulfilling prophecy.

What are these higher costs that you're talking about?? All of it could be payed for, FREE to every American, just by rearranging some government subsidies (to the tune of several billions) going to big pharmaceutical companies and HMO's; and perhaps by re-allocating some of the billions we're spending on killing Iraqis.

Dopa, are you a Doctor? Wouldn't you like to just deal with treating patients instead of authorization forms and bills and insurance? Wouldn't you prefer to just give care to people who need it, do what you were trained to do, which is treat sickness and illness instead of all the "crap" that you currently have to deal with? You really should speak to an English doctor about what his work-day is like.

Again, Hex gets to the root of the problem which is that it is unebleivably atrocious and horrific, that the citizens of the richest country in the world have to choose between feeding their kids or having medical care. Sad. It's very sad and it says somethign about us as a people; about our values; about how we treat each other. We need to change this.

Also Dopa, nobody is advocating more medicade or medicare. We are advocating UNIVERSAL health care, where it does not matter what forms you fill out or what "conditions" you qualify for.

You have a problem = you get treatment. It's that simple. The 86ing of the beaurocracy alone would save millions.

[dopa345]

Dopa: I agree with your proactive approach, I'm very much a proponent of holistic, more natural medicine- curing the root problem, not pallatively [sic?] getting rid of the symptoms. While I couldn't say whether or not the government would fuck it up or not (who knows what direction the country will take with a new president) but the problem of choosing between going in to have your furuncle removed or buying food for your childruns and honestly universal means seems to be the best way to do that on the patient level.

I'd almost go so far as to maybe suggest salary caps for doctors. It wouldn't be popular but maybe then the less-than-ethical doctors would be forced to realize that they have a dirty job to do, rather than shoving all of their work on us nurses, PAs and MAs so they can go tee-off with their golf buddies.


My point is that it's atrocious to force medical institutions to compete like companies.

Believe it or not, I wouln't necessarily be against caps on physician salaries if the issues of physician debt (the average medical student now has a $200,000 debt when they graduate) and malpractice issues are addressed. There definitely needs to be caps on malpractice damages and a "loser pays" system to discourage frivolous lawsuits. Two thirds of all physicians will get sued at least one in his/her career; far higher depending on the specialty (high risk specialties like OB/GYN's have to pay over $100,000 in malpractice insurance).

It's not really atrocious but more of a necessary evil that medical institutions are now run as a business. Hospitals have to learn to be more efficient in order to continue to deliver high quality care to patients. In the 1990's, hospitals were all in the red because of poor fiscal management that led to hospital mergers. That's a different topic that I won't go into detail (unless we want a discussion on this) but it was necessary, otherwise there would be far few hospitals than they are now.

[Msut77]

Fine, you can say that but what supports that contention?

Taiwan.

[dopa345]

pittpizza - I've actually studied the issues in great detail and come up with my own conclusions. I've "parroted" no one since neither Democrats nor Republicans truly understand the situation. I though you wanted an intelligent debate on the subject. I suppose expertise from your mother-in-law may trump my MBA in health management and my experience as a physician who is neck deep in these issues every day. The quote about access, quality and cost is straight from Stuart Altman who is one of the leading experts on health care policy at the Heller School at Brandeis University. If you have an issue with that, take it up with him. But you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

[pittpizza]

Taiwan and most other Western Democracies.

Fixed.

[pittpizza]

Please excuse the double post.

pittpizza - I've actually studied the issues in great detail and come up with my own conclusions. I've "parroted" no one since neither Democrats nor Republicans truly understand the situation. I though you wanted an intelligent debate on the subject. I suppose expertise from your mother-in-law may trump my MBA in health management and my experience as a physician who is neck deep in these issues every day. The quote about access, quality and cost is straight from Stuart Altman who is one of the leading experts on health care policy at the Heller School at Brandeis University. If you have an issue with that, take it up with him. But you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

Of course, I didn't mean to offend, obviosly this fires me up.

Perahps Altman's rule applies in the CURRENT system of healthcare in the US. In that case I would agree, but I don't agree that it HAS to be that way, as there are plenty emprical examples of where that rule fails. See my previous post.

I'm sure you know much more about this than I do (and waaaaayy more than most conservatives who parrot the "first step to communism!" BS). Still, you can't argue with a primary source who knows how it is first hand, who never had to pay a dime for anything health related, and who never had to wait "months or years" for a necessary surgery, as the ill-informed suggest would be the case in a Universal Healthcare system.

As to lower doctor salaries, I completely agree. It is worth pointing out though, that lots of legislation (at least in PA) has been passed to weed out frivilous lawsuits. And the plaintiff of a frivilous suit does have to pay the expenses. Also it's worth reminding the public who think that "McDonalds" verdicts happen every day, that they are the ones (juries) that choose these verdicts. It's not like the injured plaintiff or the lawyers get to pick the verdicts.

[Msut77]

pittpizza - I've actually studied the issues in great detail and come up with my own conclusions. I've "parroted" no one since neither Democrats nor Republicans truly understand the situation. I though you wanted an intelligent debate on the subject. I suppose expertise from your mother-in-law may trump my MBA in health management and my experience as a physician who is neck deep in these issues every day. The quote about access, quality and cost is straight from Stuart Altman who is one of the leading experts on health care policy at the Heller School at Brandeis University. If you have an issue with that, take it up with him. But you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

You are a neurologist (MD, Plus 3 years or so of specialized training) and you have an MBA in Health Management?

Pardon me for being rude but you were the one who brought up the the relevance of how Canadians feel about their healthcare, trying to pull rank on pitt for responding that well gee Canadians do tend to like their system does not dazzle me with your brilliance.

[Msut77]

Fixed.

Taiwan specifically because they changed to a single player system fairly recently (1995), they now cover pretty much everyone for a hardly noticeable increase in cost.

[pittpizza]

Taiwan specifically because they changed to a single player system fairly recently (1995), they now cover pretty much everyone for a hardly noticeable increase in cost.

Oh I didn't know that.

I'm just so fed up with everyone (including stuart whatshisname) saying it can't be done when there are so many Nations that have successfully done it. Some of em with lower taxes, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, and FAR less resources and wealth than we have.

Hillary tried to do it back in what? 1994? 1996? She almost did too, but special interests pretty much BOUGHT congress with millions in campaign contributions so it was defeated.

[BigT]

The government will more than likely be more efficient at providing healthcare than the current system we have.

Profit making companies have to much interest in denying operations and care, the system in the US is expensive and inefficient because we essentially have a whole entire layer of bureaucracy just for that purpose.

After working at government run VA and county health facilities, I can tell you that government does not equal efficiency. Plus, it is at these facilities where we have to beg radiology to authorize imaging studies and its also where uninsured patients wait several months for hernia surgeries or gallbladder removals.

I'm not saying that this same thing would happen in a national healthcare system, but...

Plus, the government is already intimately involved in healthcare. Physician reimbursement is based on what is paid by government programs and the government accounts for 45% of our healthcare spending by payers.

It seems like many people have this view that a national healthcare system will be a utopia in which patients and doctors will sing and dance in harmony, while getting any procedures they want instaneously for "free." Well, someone is going to have to pay for all these services and no matter how much they tax us, I can tell you that the gov't will not be able to afford it if everyone gets everything that they want in a timely fashion.

As dopa345 mentioned, there are a lot of ass-backwards aspects of our healthcare system. Our geriatrics patients have to stay in the hospital (very expensive) for 72 hours before being placed in a skilled nursing facility (cheaper), due to how medicare funding works - this is regardless of their condition. And, while people often blame pharma, spending on drugs only accounts for 10% of our expenses; hospital stays account for the largest slice of the pie, 35%. Then, don't let me get started on the 98 yo patients in multi-organ failure in the ICU who are on full code status (and on whom we waste hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting an impossible battle just to extend their hopeless situation.

Someone brought up salary caps on physicians and having them do dirty work. Salary caps would suck because we start getting paid a real salary only in our late 20s or more commonly in our 30s. Before that, we get stuck with expensive and lengthy education process (it's not like graduate school, where people get stipends, etc.). Plus having doctors do the dirty work will not cut costs... would you like a $200,000/yr phlebotomist? Doctors in Poland have always been notoriously underpaid; before they could supplement their income through bribes by patients and pharma... now, the gov't has cracked down on this... so what has happened? With the EU, now many physicians have left the country for greener pastures in Germany or the UK. Those who stay either put up with the shitty system, do private practice, or go on strike... patients have to get private care because the national system is so useless.

[Msut77]

Leave it to BigT to support the soylent green option.

[pittpizza]

I'm not saying that this same thing would happen in a national healthcare system...

BINGO! And your "wait list" info about the VA pretty much defeats any argument that Universal Health will result in long lines, since we have that crap already.


It seems like many people have this view that a national healthcare system will be a utopia in which patients and doctors will sing and dance in harmony, while getting any procedures they want instaneously for "free." Well, someone is going to have to pay for all these services and no matter how much they tax us, I can tell you that the gov't will not be able to afford it if everyone gets everything that they want in a timely fashion.

Actually for the most part, you're wrong, but lets go ahead and see you try to support this anyway. Lets see you prove something won't work before we've ever even tried it (especially since it's already been succesfully done in most other developed countries).



As dopa345 mentioned, there are a lot of ass-backwards aspects of our healthcare system. Our geriatrics patients have to stay in the hospital (very expensive) for 72 hours before being placed in a skilled nursing facility (cheaper), due to how medicare funding works - this is regardless of their condition. And, while people often blame pharma, spending on drugs only accounts for 10% of our expenses; hospital stays account for the largest slice of the pie, 35%. Then, don't let me get started on the 98 yo patients in multi-organ failure in the ICU who are on full code status (and on whom we waste hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting an impossible battle just to extend their hopeless situation.

Someone brought up salary caps on physicians and having them do dirty work. Salary caps would suck because we start getting paid a real salary only in our late 20s or more commonly in our 30s. Before that, we get stuck with expensive and lengthy education process (it's not like graduate school, where people get stipends, etc.). Plus having doctors do the dirty work will not cut costs... would you like a $200,000/yr phlebotomist? Doctors in Poland have always been notoriously underpaid; before they could supplement their income through bribes by patients and pharma... now, the gov't has cracked down on this... so what has happened? With the EU, now many physicians have left the country for greener pastures in Germany or the UK. Those who stay either put up with the shitty system, do private practice, or go on strike... patients have to get private care because the national system is so useless.

10% of whose expenses? The same exact prescription that would cost AN INSURED $120 could be bought in cuba for the equivalent of $3 and in England for $10. Someone is making a shit ton of money (look at Pfizer's 1.7 BILLION in earnings from just viagra) and it is not going to help the people. Have you seen the HQ of big insurance companies? They're like Gigantic Saudi palaces.

Salary caps wouldn't suck if the goverment subsidized medical education instead of Pharma's HMO's and Big Oil's coffers would they? The money is there, it has been there, its just being used for bombs and CEO's bentleys instead of books. Again, we're one of the richest nations in the world, and yet many nations w/ far less wealth than us have much better healthcare systems. Something does not add up.

Germany and the UK have Universal Healthcare, so this really isn't an argument against Universal Healthcare, it's an argument against Poland. And honestly, we should be able to do it a little bit better than the Poles right?

[Koggit]

The big problem that many seem to be overlooking is insurance. Everyone is arguing about government efficiency, quality of health care, etc. The issue is insurance.

The issue isn't limited to health insurance (I personally believe that auto insurance should be provided by each state through taxes). Insurance companies charge an arm and a leg and rip off everyone involved. They pressure doctors into doing things their way, they pressure pharmaceutical companies into doing things their way, and, most of all, they pressure our politicians into doing things their way. You want to talk about government overhead increasing the cost of health care? Look to the billions in profit the insurance and pharmaceutical companies in America are reaping from dying, sick Americans in need of health care that's being either denied or overlooked.

You can look to other countries with universal health care all you want, say this sucks, say that sucks, whatever. Who's to say our policies will be like theirs? You're arguing the bits and pieces of a plan that hasn't even been proposed yet. You're assuming the plan will have some aspect you consider negative, and then debunking the pros of that aspect with supporting evidence from another country. That's a bit ridiculous. There's no reason to make assumptions about what policies this plan, which doesn't yet exist, will hold.

One thing's for sure: countries with universal health care have less corruption in their insurance and pharmaceutical sectors. Less of their dollar is going to conniving CEOs, who avoid taxes through off-shore banking and complex company structures. Less of their dollar goes to the bonuses of corporate fatcats denying treatment to those who need it. Less of their dollar goes to pay off politicians who pass legislation allowing the corruption to continue. Less of their dollar is spent on pills with 7800% profit margins. I want to be able to say the same about my dollar.

[pittpizza]

The big problem that many seem to be overlooking is insurance. Everyone is arguing about government efficiency, quality of health care, etc. The issue is insurance.

The issue isn't limited to health insurance (I personally believe that auto insurance should be provided by each state through taxes). Insurance companies charge an arm and a leg and rip off everyone involved. They pressure doctors into doing things their way, they pressure pharmaceutical companies into doing things their way, and, most of all, they pressure our politicians into doing things their way. You want to talk about government overhead increasing the cost of health care? Look to the billions in profit the insurance and pharmaceutical companies in America are reaping from dying, sick Americans in need of health care that's being either denied or overlooked.

You can look to other countries with universal health care all you want, say this sucks, say that sucks, whatever. Who's to say our policies will be like theirs? You're arguing the bits and pieces of a plan that hasn't even been proposed yet. You're assuming the plan will have some aspect you consider negative, and then debunking the pros of that aspect with supporting evidence from another country. That's a bit ridiculous. There's no reason to make assumptions about what policies this plan, which doesn't yet exist, will hold.

One thing's for sure: countries with universal health care have less corruption in their insurance and pharmaceutical sectors. Less of their dollar is going to conniving CEOs, who avoid taxes through off-shore banking and complex company structures. Less of their dollar goes to the bonuses of corporate fatcats denying treatment to those who need it. Less of their dollar goes to pay off politicians who pass legislation allowing the corruption to continue. Less of their dollar is spent on pills with 7800% profit margins. I want to be able to say the same about my dollar.

Speak on it Koggit, Speak on it!

[thrustbucket]

Universal health care is a great idea, as long as you have a relatively small population so that your country can afford it (Europe).

There is no way on this earth that we can afford it for nearly 400 million people, many of which are already on welfare. Not without raising taxes to 80%+

[pittpizza]

Universal health care is a great idea, as long as you have a relatively small population so that your country can afford it (Europe).

There is no way on this earth that we can afford it for nearly 400 million people, many of which are already on welfare. Not without raising taxes to 80%+

Ugh, more parroting. Polly want a cracker? Have you read anything in this thread at all?

What if I told you that we spend FAR more than any other country per capita, on healthcare under the current system. Would you believe me? Well it's true, and totally refutes your point about our population size, being that it is a per capita statistic.

Every single nation with universal healthcare, without exception, spends less per capita than we do, and almost all of them have better healthcare.

Universal healthcare, would SAVE us money. So yeah...um...nice try?

[omgu8myrice]

Universal health care is a great idea, as long as you have a relatively small population so that your country can afford it (Europe).

There is no way on this earth that we can afford it for nearly 400 million people, many of which are already on welfare. Not without raising taxes to 80%+

thats pretty flawed logic. with more people, there is more income, and im pretty sure that the United States can afford it. Esp. since we are ALREADY spending more of a percentage of our GDP on healthcare than countries with nationalized healthcare.

My main concern is accessibility and quality. If a system is devised that can keep both up while still being nationalized, id be all up for that. If it drops too low, then forget it, i can afford my healthcare right now anyway.

[daroga]

It seems to me that universal health care is a lot like communism. It's something that on paper would be wonderful, but rarely if ever is executed as it should be.

[dopa345]

Taiwan specifically because they changed to a single player system fairly recently (1995), they now cover pretty much everyone for a hardly noticeable increase in cost.

I agree, Taiwan has done a great job providing health care coverage to their citizens. However the quality of coverage is lower than in the U.S.. While for basic services, the disparity is not as much of an issue, in specialized care such as cancer treatment, the quality issue becomes much more evident. Also Taiwanese doctors are expected to see up to 30 patients an hour. Hey, I could do a half-assed job and see that many patients an hour but that's poor patient care and I also can get sued when I inevitably screw up and miss something which will happen if I can only spend a few minutes per patient. In many countries, especially in Asia, the concept of malpractice is non-existent so doctors don't have to worry about covering their ass and just churn out as many patients as possible. So if we want such a system, we have to be willing to sacrifice quality of specialized care to provide basic services to everyone (which is not necessarily wrong and some people do advocate this approach) but there also has to be protection for physicians to limit liability or even do away with the concept of malpractice except for egregious errors if we are expected to see more patients for less money.

[thrustbucket]

Every single nation with universal healthcare, without exception, spends less per capita than we do, and almost all of them have better healthcare.
You aren't selling me on anything. I already know our welfare system is bloated beyond proportion. The fact that medicare and medicade is a large part of it certainly isn't a good thing.

Universal healthcare, would SAVE us money. So yeah...um...nice try?

Next time you, or a family member, is ill - go get your surgery or care in Canada or Cuba. Then come back and tell us about the wonderful experience. (Hint- We may not see you for a year or two)

[The Crotch]

It seems to me that universal health care is a lot like communism.Who are you, and what did you do with Daroga?

[Msut77]

It seems to me that universal health care is a lot like communism. It's something that on paper would be wonderful, but rarely if ever is executed as it should be.

Except on the whole it is executed far better than the US system.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

It seems to me that universal health care is a lot like communism. It's something that on paper would be wonderful, but rarely if ever is executed as it should be.

It is.

However, what is the alternative? Accepting ballooning medical costs? Health care companies have to be forced to pay benefits through court? Wildly different costs for the patient based on their insurance?

I want the free market to work, but we don't have that in the US right now.

I say, give the insurance companies a couple more years to ship up or be sunk.

[Msut77]

Who are you, and what did you do with Daroga?

Was there a time when daroga was less kooky?


But anyhoo dopa as little time as is spent per patient (and that problem can be fixed) in Taiwan their system still rates high in quality and satisfaction.

[bmulligan]

I'm sure MykeV is furiously finding facts and researching figures for financing our new national heathcare system. Gruelingly crosschecking his math, calculating the necessary tax base to institute the latest and largest free rider health program in the world. Figures can't lie, especially when the stakes are life and death.

I humbly await the results of your latest polling data. But in the interim, having given this much reasonable thought and consideration, I'd just like to state for the record, and mykes disbelief, my opinion on this national healthcare fiasco...I mean proposal.

I'm actually in favor of a public healthcare system. I'm not too keen on a 'national' system, yet, as there are too many caveats to relinquishing complete control to an autonomous federal authority. Taking a cue from the Social Security system, it's best not to give the fed any more money that they can misspend and replace with an IOU. SS is also an 'insurance' program, albeit a perverted one, that does nothing but infuriate everyone and satisfies no one. Nevertheless, a baseline system of healthcare for citizens could alleviate many problems in our society and be a spark to re-ignite our national pride, spirit, and drive - if it's handled properly, and preferable locally.

Looking at how healthcare is distributed now, specifically in public hospitals around the country, we are already providing emergency healthcare to everyone who demands it. The ones who pay for it through insurance, or privately, are already paying for the ones that don't. This is at best, an ineffective subsidy program.

The only difference between this and a government run program is who gets to be the middleman. Currently, insurance people decide which procedures get covered and how much premiums should be. I'm sure most here know what it's like to have to deal with an insurance company not paying benefits, or at least you know of the long standing cultural jokes about the process. In a program subsidized by the 'people', we have recourse with the people running the program. We get to decide which procedures get covered, which medicines are covered. We do it through our representatives. It's why we're supposed to revere representative democracy so much. With insurance companies we have no such avenue for appeal save the court system. The downfall of the public system, though, is that you have no recourse through the courts. In the case of malpractice, you're pretty much screwed. But, we all get to enjoy that same dirty bus 'free ride' together.

So, doctors still get paid, drug companies still get paid, insurance companies get the shaft, and we all get to see the doctor every time we get a sore throat. Take THAT, myke. Now do your best to tell me wherer and why I may be wrong.

[BigT]

So, doctors still get paid, drug companies still get paid, insurance companies get the shaft, and we all get to see the doctor every time we get a sore throat. Take THAT, myke. Now do your best to tell me wherer and why I may be wrong.

I'll save you some time and a copayment. The vast majority of sore throats are caused by viral infections (viral pharyngitis)... Drugs won't really help. Just stick to salt water gargles, personal humidifiers, lozenges, and tylenol. Even strep throat, which benefits slightly from antibiotics, is a self limited disease, and you can do the same as above and you'll most likely be fine (it's mainly only treated to prevent the possibility of rheumatic fever). Strep throat is unlikely if you have a cough, a runny nose, and/or lack a fever.

[Sarang01]

B when you say National this is what really scares me. I'm afraid of Hillary and Obama putting it up, not just because of the tremendous cost but trying to force me to take shots.
In terms of cost I can see National Healthcare BREAKING our system or slowing it down to a grinding halt, at least for operations. I say breaking because so many people here are fucking fat and I'm sure some would end up in surgery.
In terms of Taiwan so many people are thin, through diet, excersize or both. In other words they don't eat shit.
I believe a Universal Healthcare system could work but even before ANY politician proposes this a complete overhaul must be done. By this I mean we have to convince people to change their eating habits, make sure they're taking preventative measures in seeing the doctor too and stress the importance of this. The last is making sure they regularly exersize.
These are the "safe" suggestions. Going further would require being honest by Politicians and risk some of their funding. Part of this would be to push people eating Organic. Roll your eyes all you want out there but these Pesticides and Herbicides are NOT good for you. Getting more clean and renewable energy produced is another. I mean putting viable solar panels on every home as well as going to businesses and power plants to do this. We can't believe all that smoke from Coal and Oil being burned and put in the air is healthy. All of these are factors and would help to contribute to truly affordable Health Insurance. This isn't something you can just push at the next election. You need a "Green, Clean, Healthy Revolution" and THIS is the revolution where everyone gets what they want.

[bmulligan]

Someone earlier made the analogy between state sponsored auto insurance and state run healthcare. I initially poo-pooed this idea as a poor comparison as the different tiers of auto owners drive vastly different types of cars, which would amount to a greater subsidy for Mercedes drivers' repairs compared to those who drove a cheap Fords. This analogy is becomes more accurate when comparing fat people or smokers and their healthcare costs compared to skinny fit people, but in an inverse ratio.

How fair is it to charge rich people in taxes more for the same level of care as some poor person who doesn't even pay into the system? Will employers be paying the premiums and giving us our missing compensation from the old system? Will that compensate for the increased tax burden that will assuredly occur? The non-payers and number of claimants will vastly outnumber the payers - quickly overtaking the Social security system's payer/payee ratio leaving us with a bankrupt system almost immediately.

I'm not sure how this can be rectified, or balanced, I haven't given it that much thought yet. The government solution would be to borrow more money from the Fed, at interest, plunging us further into an unpayable debt. At least that's the Government's answer to everything else - and look where it's taken us.

[daroga]

Who are you, and what did you do with Daroga?uh-oh! What'd I say?