"Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."

That much lawyers IMO points out to an over-legalized society, meaning a society where the legislative system is so powerful yet complex that the simple citizen can't hope to survive it without these mercenaries, who are cashing quite a lot on it.

It is certainly no hindrance to raising medical costs, still IMO - quite the contrary.

Lawyers, politicians, judges, bureaucrats, policemen - what a wonderful job our authorities do these days.

 

When the result of one's dead was his own decision, there ain't no system which can fix that. But a socialized form of healthcare can, and does, those who would be restrained to get preventive medical services for lack of liquidities.

It that obvious enough or would you prefer a study that "proves" it?

In which there's a lot of good about it. So what?

It's like saying that environmentalists are pushing this clean cities/living and green world upon us, these nefarious beings.

 

In this country there is a differentiation between Laws and rights. How do I know that? Because I live here.
Can't argue we have too many lawyers. You have it correct with loser pays. Shakespeare was correct.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/crime-police/ferrari-trump-is-right-there-are-no-go-areas-in-lo/

 

Excellent; a right-wing talk show quoting anonymous sources. This is the same LBC which employs the odious islamophobic Katie Hopkins, recently convicted for libel. You want to take that LBC piece as gospel? Be my guest. Meanwhile I'll be out looking for one of these nebulous 'no-go zones'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa...wins-24k-damages-columnist-Katie-Hopkins.html

 

I have a great idea. You stay on England where you have absolutely no problems (where did I hear that before? Oh ya! It was from the Swedes) and I will stay here in the US where at least there is a feeble attempt not to become what is Europe and Scandinavia.

 

KellyAnne is that you? Scandinavia?

 

Why are you asserting a counter-point that I am not arguing? If there are doing to be deaths - and there are, regardless - I would far prefer that they are a consequence of a failure of personal responsibility than at the end of a wait list.

Wouldn't you? No one, including you, has demonstrated any moral superiority in moving the cause of death from failure to be responsible (which falls on the head of the individual) to failure to provide timely medical services. No one, including you, has demonstrated that you can even lower the amount of people who die by migrating to a government-controlled system which, by definition, removes choice.

Color me surprised that a Marxist loves Marxism.


So what? The core of your difference from me is that I REBEL against that insipid belief system. It fails, by suppressing the incentive to produce.

Face it. Your ideology is totalitarian. You cannot get people do things about which you deeply believe via their own free will, so you have no problem exerting the power of Government to make them. That you are OK with that makes you no different than any other despot in history, many of whom rationalized genocide when outcomes didn't result in their will being imposed without bloodshed.

 

This is like saying "No one gets raped because some guy shoves a dick in them when they don't want it"

 

Here's what a profit motive provides. It is endemic to human nature; to preservation of self:

• The desire to provide the best service at the lowest possible cost;
• The need - in pursuit of the first goal - to provide innovation; the source of the best/newest/etc;
• The constant self-adjustment in protocols/procedures to assure the success of the first goal;
• An understanding that profit only comes when the customers vote with their patronage

Removing that motive from a critical service such as health care is good because of...what again? Government costs are ENORMOUS. Do you wish to argue that removing the profit motive from the equation is somehow a cost-cutting endeavor? If so, please do: we all could use a laugh as you vainly explain how the Government is a lean-mean-streamlined cost-effective machine.

 

Choice, sure - choice between being treated or keeping the house. Freedom. Yay.

It has been part of our system for centuries, under one appelation or another. Socialism is a sign of progress. Without it, you'd be working your 16-h shift down the coal mine and be paid in company store bonds or worse - you'd be exploiting those who did.

Ah come - tone down the hysteria. Laws are also mandatory, and prevent good business for the mob I suppose.

 

Profiteerings have no business in healthcare. The gains pharmaceuticals make are a fine exemple of capitalism messing up with essential humanitarian needs. Researches can be funded by governments or worldwide foundations.

Healthcare is as much about a profiteering venture as the armed forces are: they are not supposed to generate any profits - to the contrary, it is expected that they generate expenses, because they actively protect a nation's citizens.

 

Bankruptcy rates decreased by 50%?
Do tell

 

Imaginary number, like the others. Ask about the tens of millions of us who now don't derive any benefit at all from having to pay into premiums on High Deductible plans that essentially make all of our coverage useless to us. It's like taxing us with no expectation that the service will provide for the basic stuff like doctor visits that are now all 100% out of pocket until we reach the out of pocket deductible. So, we pay thousands of dollars into a process that won't even begin to cover us until yet more money directly out of pocket is paid. It's laughable that liberals think this is cool.

 

Binary poster is binary. There is no free lunch. Pulling that amount of money from the economy - from people's paychecks - is just another way to harm people economically.

Regardless: bankruptcy protects from such things, so your claim is a red herring.

The Constitution recognizes the need for Government, but is written to control its tendency: to grow. It grants Government specific - very limited and enumerated - rights, specifically counter to your claim. It is not "progress" to grow Government, and - yet - that is the only way Socialism spreads.

It is not progress. It is a tumor.

No I wouldn't. I'd be using my considerable and developed skills to be getting further ahead than I already am - and utilizing that largesse to give my family an additional leg up with life's challenges, as well as further contribute charitably to society the manners of my choosing. I am not a leftist, who floats as does flotsam and jetsam down life's creek, helpless to impact or influence my surroundings.

Your refusal to consider the degree of something indicates the weakness of your argument. Heart patients often take nitroglycerin. That doesn't mean that they can survive the whole bottle.

 

Why? The self-serving motive to get ahead - what profit actually is - provides an organic check and balance to serve the best-interests of the recipient of the product or service.

Why would it be any different in health care? Further, if "profiteering" has no place in healthcare, why would it have any place in the food industry?

How's that? It's already incredibly difficult and expensive to bring new medications or treatments to market. Those "huge gains" are the only reason that such companies take such a risk. In fact, those companies live and die by the percentage of new treatments or medications they pursue that succeed. Many fail, and cost these companies billions of dollars in the process.

I submit that you have no understanding whatsoever what it takes to actually do what they do. Without them, these treatments would not exist.

Why? That is not the role of Government, nor is there any indication that the Government could possibly do it well. Why do you trust Government? Do you not see the news, and daily reports of graft and corruption in Washington DC?

"World-wide foundations" will do what they want to do.

That's silly. You could say the same of any number of industries which provide staples. Nationalize the Energy industry, the Food industy, the Housing industry.

Whatever you say, Hugo Chavez. Enjoy Venezuela.

 

It is absolutely rationalized theft.

 

So they were misinformed. Yes?

 

Because you're not listening, and don't want to hear it even if you were?

How idealistically naive and obtuse. If "everyone used everyone's", why not simply allow each to use their own?

Sure you are. You DEMAND use of other people's money.

Sure, Trotsky. Just like yours is "I don't have enough; give me yours or I will take it from you".

Post what you want people to see, and make an argument. No one is interested in your Easter egg hunt.

 

You really are clueless on this subject. So, tell me where in the British media, Parliament or in the streets, anyone is wanting to change the NHS. I posted in response to what you requested. Don't bother me in future if you don't like what you read. And quit with the infantile 'Trotsky' references; it doesn't make you look any brighter, frankly, along with the rest of your puerile sarcasm.

 

And there are going to be many, many more enemies.

 

P.S.- Trump obviously hasn't even managed to scare North Korea

 

Slogan vs Reality: Yes, there is.

Okay then; It's choice between healthcare or bankruptcy - much better.

Dogmatic. Big governments are fine when it's about police or armed forces, under the guise of "protecting the people" but yet when the very same people is sick, they are left to fend for themselves in a sea of sharks.

Socialism gave you roads, police, armed forces, fire services, mail, and the right to some leisure time. The idea of pooling ressources to serve the population at large existed well before Marx.

Having socialism in our system does not prevent it to go all the way for neo-liberalism economy, which is our real system. For a guy who will later complain about using binary extremes, it's salt on your pork, but you see it as pork in your salt.

But of course... You seem to have "winner" printed all over your forehead. And of course it's your entire merit - no such thing as nepotism, being well-off from birth or plain ole luck... and giving so much back, wow. You are an unsung hero, that's what you are.

Right back at ya.

 

O

Perhaps some domestic enemies, as yourself. You call yourselves the "resistance". We knew you were enemies all along. Unlike other elections, you just couldn't except the results so you became enemies of the American system of government. In fact, for a 1st time, the political losers from the last election are still in it. "The "deep State"......who are it's leaders??? HRC, Obama or Pocahontas?

 

Because healthcare isn't the luxury of consumption: We are not sick because we chose it like we chose to buy a 25000-bucks car instead of a 15000 one. It is also a matter of prevention. Do you know how much a guy who can't work, or can't work well, costs society, Mr Winner?

Such naive nostalgia; Touching but irrelevant here and now. It's like your slogan up there: Fairy tales to convince yourself - they don't work on others, you know.

New capitalism isn't the old capitalism: Nowadays, privates eat one another until what's left is a gigantic, transnational organisation which more of less thrives off monopoly, it's size, being comparable to some governments, permits it to grease and influence your elected officials, and it's done in your face since NAFTA.

This anathema to true capitalism, which thrives on competition and bright ideas. In any case, pharmaceuticals are now in it for the money, at the cost of some cadavers here and there. The low producing prices of many medication have been proven, in spite of their excessive tag prices based exclusively on demand. This isn't in any way related to Hypocrat in any way - Healthcare is a matter of need, like water, not demand.

I submit that you believe yourself much more intelligent than you might be. Sound like a young guy, too.

You do have a point: Since capitalistic cronysm invaded our governents, they are managed by lesser yes-men, soul-less bureaucrats and PR sell-men, elected by fools. Still, they are supposed to represent the people - not just a few fat cats. If they do not, you likely did something wrong at some point.

Why do you trust profits-based organisations over good ideological, non-profit one when it concerns your health is beyond rationality. One's goal is to see you healthy while the other one wants to sell you stuff. What's wrong with you people? You are Satanists or something?

To some extent, it would be a good idea. We in Quebec nationalized electricity, and they can't cut you off in the middle of winter now.

Or Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Danemark etc.

On the other hand, if you want a place that's government-less, might I suggest Somalia?

 

The cost of ill health is in the quality of life and productivity not in dollars and cents and it is a cost that we all have to pay. Money is the current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes. It does not have any value of itself. A soldier doesn't fight for money but for duty, a farmer does not work for money but for duty. The money we spend, or receive is just a measure by ourselves and others of the value put on the work or product.