Topic: Fuck, I love socialism!
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #120,314
Free insurance that covers all medications and doctor visits 100%. Fuck yeah!
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later[^] [v] #1,316,985
that is neoliberalism
dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 1 year ago, 15 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,986
scourge upon society
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,987
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 47 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,988
@previous (A)
Socialism is when the medical providers themselves are owned by the public/government, not just an insurance scheme funded by the state.
Socialism is when the medical providers themselves are owned by the public/government, not just an insurance scheme funded by the state.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,989
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,991
@previous (A)
Medical provider as in the organization providing the healthcare, not the individuals who work there.
Medical provider as in the organization providing the healthcare, not the individuals who work there.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,316,993
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,005
ugh
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,006
@1,316,985 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
What does neoliberal actually mean? I only hear it being used in a derogatory manner by conservatives.
What does neoliberal actually mean? I only hear it being used in a derogatory manner by conservatives.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,011
@1,316,989 (A)
You're thinking of extremist socialism, AKA communism. Communism is when the government sends soldiers to take over the hospitals by force and any doctors or nurses who refuse to work are shot and replaced with butchers and grocers.
You're thinking of extremist socialism, AKA communism. Communism is when the government sends soldiers to take over the hospitals by force and any doctors or nurses who refuse to work are shot and replaced with butchers and grocers.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,016
@1,317,006 (E)
It is often used as a catch all for "things I don't like" but traditionally it means the exact opposite of what dw is saying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
> Neoliberalism is often associated with a set of economic liberalization policies, including privatization, deregulation, consumer choice, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending.
It is often used as a catch all for "things I don't like" but traditionally it means the exact opposite of what dw is saying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
> Neoliberalism is often associated with a set of economic liberalization policies, including privatization, deregulation, consumer choice, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,020
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 35 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,024
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,025
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,028
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Okay I see now this is just some esoteric bit that is going over my head, carry on
Okay I see now this is just some esoteric bit that is going over my head, carry on
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,033
@1,317,024 (G)
Socialized insurance ≠ socialized healthcare
@1,317,025 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> Um the us does not have socialized healthcare
G never said it does, and OP was saying it should be this way not that it currently is.
Socialized insurance ≠ socialized healthcare
@1,317,025 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> Um the us does not have socialized healthcare
G never said it does, and OP was saying it should be this way not that it currently is.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,036
Here's an informative piece from DW today explaining how socialized healthcare is failing in Britain: https://www.dw.com/en/britains-ailing-nhs-healthcare-system/video-69964081
The US should not copy their mistake, socialized healthcare is simply the elimination of competition. When you eliminate competition, the monopoly that replaces it will decline in quality to the detriment of the nation's most vulnerable.
The US should not copy their mistake, socialized healthcare is simply the elimination of competition. When you eliminate competition, the monopoly that replaces it will decline in quality to the detriment of the nation's most vulnerable.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,038
@1,317,033 (C)
> Socialized insurance ≠ socialized healthcare
Fair, I suppose one doesn't require the other
> Socialized insurance ≠ socialized healthcare
Fair, I suppose one doesn't require the other
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 18 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,044
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,058
@1,317,036 (C)
I'm sure the deep cuts by a hostile government did nothing to cause this. It must be the monopoly!
I'm sure the deep cuts by a hostile government did nothing to cause this. It must be the monopoly!
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,106
A good way to check the quality of a taxpayer funded healthcare system is to see what proportion of people pay extra for health insurance. In my country that number is roughly 1/3.
So the lower the proportion, the better the taxpayer funded healthcare system is. 2/3 of people see no point in paying extra.
So the lower the proportion, the better the taxpayer funded healthcare system is. 2/3 of people see no point in paying extra.
Frankie !ZqavIChWfs (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,107
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,108
@previous (Frankie !ZqavIChWfs)
> What do you mean by "pay extra"?
So people get healthcare by asking for it. This healthcare is funded by taxpayers. Hence me calling it taxpayer funded healthcare rather than "single payer" which I don't know what it means.
Just as people can choose to buy new jeans or rebuild their cafe racer's engine with the money in the bank, they can decide to buy a healthcare insurance service with their hard earned money.
> What do you mean by "pay extra"?
So people get healthcare by asking for it. This healthcare is funded by taxpayers. Hence me calling it taxpayer funded healthcare rather than "single payer" which I don't know what it means.
Just as people can choose to buy new jeans or rebuild their cafe racer's engine with the money in the bank, they can decide to buy a healthcare insurance service with their hard earned money.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,109
The United Kingdom currently has 22% of people paying extra for health insurance, so we can assume that the United Kingdom medical service (also known as the NHS) is better than the New Zealand taxpayer funded healthcare service.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,110
@1,317,108 (H)
You mean they have free healthcare already, but they choose to spend money for private health insurance? Are they mental?
You mean they have free healthcare already, but they choose to spend money for private health insurance? Are they mental?
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,111
@previous (A)
> You mean they have free healthcare already, but they choose to spend money for private health insurance? Are they mental?
There are problems with taxpayer funded healthcare. The biggest is the dreaded "waiting list". You wait for a healthcare service. Waiting lists are probably the biggest reason for paying extra.
> You mean they have free healthcare already, but they choose to spend money for private health insurance? Are they mental?
There are problems with taxpayer funded healthcare. The biggest is the dreaded "waiting list". You wait for a healthcare service. Waiting lists are probably the biggest reason for paying extra.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,112
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,113
@previous (A)
It's complicated. Anywhere from 1-40 days, depending on a number of factors such as the cancer type, how bad it is and the availability of diagnosis machinery etc. Actually you asked about after diagnosis, didn't you.
I have no idea if it's relatively good or relatively bad. Let's call it "medium", excepting Southland schmucks.
It's complicated. Anywhere from 1-40 days, depending on a number of factors such as the cancer type, how bad it is and the availability of diagnosis machinery etc. Actually you asked about after diagnosis, didn't you.
I have no idea if it's relatively good or relatively bad. Let's call it "medium", excepting Southland schmucks.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,114
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,115
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,116
@1,317,058 (D)
Throwing money at a monopoly doesn't help.
They have no competition, so if they waste it or line the pockets of people in the organization the patients have no recourse.
Competition means wasteful/corrupt hospitals are replaced, and innovative hospitals thrive.
Throwing money at a monopoly doesn't help.
They have no competition, so if they waste it or line the pockets of people in the organization the patients have no recourse.
Competition means wasteful/corrupt hospitals are replaced, and innovative hospitals thrive.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,118
@1,317,115 (A)
If you break a bone, you go to accident and emergency. You'll be treated immediately, although when I broke my ankle I think it was about 3-5 hours until my ankle was reset etc. it was years ago.
If you break a bone, you go to accident and emergency. You'll be treated immediately, although when I broke my ankle I think it was about 3-5 hours until my ankle was reset etc. it was years ago.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,119
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,120
@previous (A)
> It sounds better than the US then.
Yikes. A topic as hot as the center of the sun. I came across a document about why life expectancy in the US wasn't as good as other wealthy countries. The document (400 pages if I recall correctly) was written in about 2012. But the most informative graph showed that life expectancy for one particular demographic started diverging from other rich countries about 1955. So it's not a recent phenomenon.
> It sounds better than the US then.
Yikes. A topic as hot as the center of the sun. I came across a document about why life expectancy in the US wasn't as good as other wealthy countries. The document (400 pages if I recall correctly) was written in about 2012. But the most informative graph showed that life expectancy for one particular demographic started diverging from other rich countries about 1955. So it's not a recent phenomenon.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,122
@1,317,116 (C)
> They have no competition, so if they waste it or line the pockets of people in the organization the patients have no recourse.
Except they're not a for-profit corporation and therefore don't behave like one.
> They have no competition, so if they waste it or line the pockets of people in the organization the patients have no recourse.
Except they're not a for-profit corporation and therefore don't behave like one.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,123
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,124
Here's an example of the United States failing its citizensAnonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,125
@1,317,115 (A)
When I broke my shoulder, I was treated by medics in an ambulance within the hour and taken to A&E, where I was x-rayed and slung in maybe 2 hours. I had to go back to the fracture and breaks clinic a few times afterwards for checks and inspections, and also a couple rehab sessions to help me recover.
When I broke my shoulder, I was treated by medics in an ambulance within the hour and taken to A&E, where I was x-rayed and slung in maybe 2 hours. I had to go back to the fracture and breaks clinic a few times afterwards for checks and inspections, and also a couple rehab sessions to help me recover.
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,126
@1,317,123 (C)
Your point seems to be that a corporation with a monopoly will rip off the customer. This is because a corporation has the mandate to provide a profit for its shareholders.
The NHS does not have customers. It does not have shareholders, or a mandate to be profitable.
The issues are not because hospitals are wasteful. In fact, they have been exceptionally well managed in order to survive the conditions imposed upon them (for ideological reasons) by the previous government.
Your point seems to be that a corporation with a monopoly will rip off the customer. This is because a corporation has the mandate to provide a profit for its shareholders.
The NHS does not have customers. It does not have shareholders, or a mandate to be profitable.
The issues are not because hospitals are wasteful. In fact, they have been exceptionally well managed in order to survive the conditions imposed upon them (for ideological reasons) by the previous government.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,127
@previous (D)
> Your point seems to be that a corporation with a monopoly will rip off the customer. This is because a corporation has the mandate to provide a profit for its shareholders.
No, my point is any organization can fail for multiple reasons. Ripping customers off is just one way, a well-intentioned leader can make bad decisions too.
When a monopoly fails, the people it's supposed to serve have no recourse. When there is competition, those organizations lose funding and potentially close down.
> The NHS does not have customers. It does not have shareholders, or a mandate to be profitable.
It has patients that need it. If it makes bad decisions, even for reasons that have nothing to do making money, patients suffer for it.
Those patients should have choices, so that when their provider fails they can try something else.
> The issues are not because hospitals are wasteful. In fact, they have been exceptionally well managed in order to survive the conditions imposed upon them (for ideological reasons) by the previous government.
That sounds like a good reason to get the government out of managing medical providers.
> Your point seems to be that a corporation with a monopoly will rip off the customer. This is because a corporation has the mandate to provide a profit for its shareholders.
No, my point is any organization can fail for multiple reasons. Ripping customers off is just one way, a well-intentioned leader can make bad decisions too.
When a monopoly fails, the people it's supposed to serve have no recourse. When there is competition, those organizations lose funding and potentially close down.
> The NHS does not have customers. It does not have shareholders, or a mandate to be profitable.
It has patients that need it. If it makes bad decisions, even for reasons that have nothing to do making money, patients suffer for it.
Those patients should have choices, so that when their provider fails they can try something else.
> The issues are not because hospitals are wasteful. In fact, they have been exceptionally well managed in order to survive the conditions imposed upon them (for ideological reasons) by the previous government.
That sounds like a good reason to get the government out of managing medical providers.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,128
There are good ways for the government to manage medical systems and bad ways. One good way is an organisation called Pharmac - funded by the government, its job is to bulk buy medicine from medical companies. When a medicine is first released, the discount is minimal. As the patent expirery date comes near, the discount is significant. I guess halfway the discount is medium.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,130
Socialism is just a word to describe a bogeyman (not to be confused with Boogeyman - scary being who hides under beds and in closets at night) just like some left wingers call Billionaires the bogeyman.
Socialism doesn't really exist out there in the real world.
Socialism doesn't really exist out there in the real world.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,131
@1,317,127 (C)
The NHS closing down is contrary to the will of the People, and will lead to a worse result for millions. Unlike a typical for-profit company, NHS trusts are transparent with their spending.
> Those patients should have choices, so that when their provider fails they can try something else.
Prior to the formation of the NHS, this was the system and it failed people.
> That sounds like a good reason to get the government out of managing medical providers.
No, it sounds like a good reason to properly fund the NHS. As a monopoly (that isn't even a monopoly), the NHS is successfully able to negotiate discounts for medications in return for access to the NHS market of 70 millions.
The NHS closing down is contrary to the will of the People, and will lead to a worse result for millions. Unlike a typical for-profit company, NHS trusts are transparent with their spending.
> Those patients should have choices, so that when their provider fails they can try something else.
Prior to the formation of the NHS, this was the system and it failed people.
> That sounds like a good reason to get the government out of managing medical providers.
No, it sounds like a good reason to properly fund the NHS. As a monopoly (that isn't even a monopoly), the NHS is successfully able to negotiate discounts for medications in return for access to the NHS market of 70 millions.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,132
@previous (D)
> The NHS closing down is contrary to the will of the People, and will lead to a worse result for millions. Unlike a typical for-profit company, NHS trusts are transparent with their spending.
Publicly traded companies publish their financials already. A law requiring transparency for private companies does not require establishing a monopoly.
>
> >Those patients should have choices, so that when their provider fails they can try something else.
>
> Prior to the formation of the NHS, this was the system and it failed people.
People are saying the NHS is failing now. Why does it only count if it's a private system?
Like you said, the government messed up the NHS. The solution is to stop that from happening altogether by letting healthcare operate without the government directing everything.
> >That sounds like a good reason to get the government out of managing medical providers.
>
> No, it sounds like a good reason to properly fund the NHS. As a monopoly (that isn't even a monopoly), the NHS is successfully able to negotiate discounts for medications in return for access to the NHS market of 70 millions.
Large private healthcare companies have negotiating power too. If they are allowed to operate multinationally they can expand that even more.
> The NHS closing down is contrary to the will of the People, and will lead to a worse result for millions. Unlike a typical for-profit company, NHS trusts are transparent with their spending.
Publicly traded companies publish their financials already. A law requiring transparency for private companies does not require establishing a monopoly.
>
> >Those patients should have choices, so that when their provider fails they can try something else.
>
> Prior to the formation of the NHS, this was the system and it failed people.
People are saying the NHS is failing now. Why does it only count if it's a private system?
Like you said, the government messed up the NHS. The solution is to stop that from happening altogether by letting healthcare operate without the government directing everything.
> >That sounds like a good reason to get the government out of managing medical providers.
>
> No, it sounds like a good reason to properly fund the NHS. As a monopoly (that isn't even a monopoly), the NHS is successfully able to negotiate discounts for medications in return for access to the NHS market of 70 millions.
Large private healthcare companies have negotiating power too. If they are allowed to operate multinationally they can expand that even more.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,133
Although I'm not British dismantling the NHS would be like dismantling the US military. 78% of people are happy the way things are. It's not going to happen. Few people want it to happen.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,134
@previous (H)
> 78% of people are happy the way things are.
What is your source?
This source says only 24% are satisfied: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/public-satisfaction-nhs-social-care-2023
Any major US healthcare company has a higher satisfaction rate.
> 78% of people are happy the way things are.
What is your source?
This source says only 24% are satisfied: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/public-satisfaction-nhs-social-care-2023
Any major US healthcare company has a higher satisfaction rate.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,135
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,136
@1,317,132 (C)
> Publicly traded companies publish their financials already
But do not operate as a taxpayer-funded public service, and so escape the scrutiny which the NHS receives.
> People are saying the NHS is failing now.
Successive funding cuts have resulted in an NHS capacity crisis, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an issue with allocated funding, not the model.
> Like you said, the government messed up the NHS. The solution is to stop that from happening altogether by letting healthcare operate without the government directing everything.
The government has a mandate to make the NHS succeed, not to dismantle it. Any party running with that policy would never get into power, and almost the whole political spectrum would revile such a policy. If your goal was to make the Guardian and the Daily Mail agree with each other, then this policy would be a good idea.
> Large private healthcare companies have negotiating power too. If they are allowed to operate multinationally they can expand that even more
A fragmented British market, which many would not be able to afford access to in the first place, would necessarily result in price rises. We have seen this in America, where many have to choose whether to eat or see a doctor, or where diabetics can't afford their insulin. Nobody in this country wants this.
> Publicly traded companies publish their financials already
But do not operate as a taxpayer-funded public service, and so escape the scrutiny which the NHS receives.
> People are saying the NHS is failing now.
Successive funding cuts have resulted in an NHS capacity crisis, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an issue with allocated funding, not the model.
> Like you said, the government messed up the NHS. The solution is to stop that from happening altogether by letting healthcare operate without the government directing everything.
The government has a mandate to make the NHS succeed, not to dismantle it. Any party running with that policy would never get into power, and almost the whole political spectrum would revile such a policy. If your goal was to make the Guardian and the Daily Mail agree with each other, then this policy would be a good idea.
> Large private healthcare companies have negotiating power too. If they are allowed to operate multinationally they can expand that even more
A fragmented British market, which many would not be able to afford access to in the first place, would necessarily result in price rises. We have seen this in America, where many have to choose whether to eat or see a doctor, or where diabetics can't afford their insulin. Nobody in this country wants this.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,137
@1,317,135 (H)
Those 78% are still taxpayers.
22% choose to pay a second time because the monopoly is unable to help them.
Those 78% are still taxpayers.
22% choose to pay a second time because the monopoly is unable to help them.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,138
@1,317,136 (D)
> But do not operate as a taxpayer-funded public service, and so escape the scrutiny which the NHS receives.
Those companies are under scrutiny by patients who can choose to stop paying that company, and they are under scrutiny from shareholders who do not want to see their business fail.
>
> >Large private healthcare companies have negotiating power too. If they are allowed to operate multinationally they can expand that even more
>
> A fragmented British market, which many would not be able to afford access to in the first place, would necessarily result in price rises. We have seen this in America, where many have to choose whether to eat or see a doctor, or where diabetics can't afford their insulin. Nobody in this country wants this.
Last time we had this thread there was someone who could not grasp the difference between whether the system was a state monopoly vs a private marketplace, and whether the government funded healthcare.
I assume that was you. I said it many times then, and I'll just say it once here because repeating this over and over doesn't seem to work: you can have a charitable system where the government pays for the healthcare of the poor, without establishing a healthcare monopoly.
This is how Medicare and Medicaid works, it's paid by the government so the elderly and poor have healthcare, but they choose from a selection of competing providers.
Either country could have a universal Medicare system, without creating a monopoly in providing that healthcare.
> But do not operate as a taxpayer-funded public service, and so escape the scrutiny which the NHS receives.
Those companies are under scrutiny by patients who can choose to stop paying that company, and they are under scrutiny from shareholders who do not want to see their business fail.
>
> >Large private healthcare companies have negotiating power too. If they are allowed to operate multinationally they can expand that even more
>
> A fragmented British market, which many would not be able to afford access to in the first place, would necessarily result in price rises. We have seen this in America, where many have to choose whether to eat or see a doctor, or where diabetics can't afford their insulin. Nobody in this country wants this.
Last time we had this thread there was someone who could not grasp the difference between whether the system was a state monopoly vs a private marketplace, and whether the government funded healthcare.
I assume that was you. I said it many times then, and I'll just say it once here because repeating this over and over doesn't seem to work: you can have a charitable system where the government pays for the healthcare of the poor, without establishing a healthcare monopoly.
This is how Medicare and Medicaid works, it's paid by the government so the elderly and poor have healthcare, but they choose from a selection of competing providers.
Either country could have a universal Medicare system, without creating a monopoly in providing that healthcare.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,278
@1,317,028 (G)
No it isn't it's just very neolib to provide healthcare via subsidies via private insurance companies
No it isn't it's just very neolib to provide healthcare via subsidies via private insurance companies
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 10 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,327
@1,317,124 (H)
I would just like to point out the obviously insane presentation of this data. This graph is intentionally misleading, and it's from a highly biased source.
I would just like to point out the obviously insane presentation of this data. This graph is intentionally misleading, and it's from a highly biased source.
(Edited 12 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 26 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,328
@previous (F)
They make 3 years look like 50% more life, and the graph doesn't show the quality of life that US patients get that socialized systems fail to provide.
A US citizen can consume large amounts of red meat, unnatural food colors, and refined drugs then enjoy the innovations of the most advanced healthcare.
They're in such good shape they end up crashing during some extreme sport or overdosing during an orgy and enjoyed a great life until dying a few years before they had to.
Meanwhile Europeans waste hours making whole foods from scratch, pay for expensive healthcare through taxes, can't get proper care when they finally need it, and then live a sad life inside in their home for their final years prolonging their suffering because they can't make it onto a bike or get it up for the orgy.
They make 3 years look like 50% more life, and the graph doesn't show the quality of life that US patients get that socialized systems fail to provide.
A US citizen can consume large amounts of red meat, unnatural food colors, and refined drugs then enjoy the innovations of the most advanced healthcare.
They're in such good shape they end up crashing during some extreme sport or overdosing during an orgy and enjoyed a great life until dying a few years before they had to.
Meanwhile Europeans waste hours making whole foods from scratch, pay for expensive healthcare through taxes, can't get proper care when they finally need it, and then live a sad life inside in their home for their final years prolonging their suffering because they can't make it onto a bike or get it up for the orgy.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 54 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,339
@previous (C)
I hope you do know that Western Europe has just as advanced healthcare as the US, AND 100% of citizens can access it. US healthcare costs MUCH more than European healthcare.
I hope you do know that Western Europe has just as advanced healthcare as the US, AND 100% of citizens can access it. US healthcare costs MUCH more than European healthcare.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,353
@previous (A)
It's not as advanced, the US has more researcha nd development in medicine and many more services for patients.
When Europe does have advanced equipment the wait times are much longer.
It's not as advanced, the US has more researcha nd development in medicine and many more services for patients.
When Europe does have advanced equipment the wait times are much longer.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,362
@1,317,339 (A)
Nobody in this topic has shown that it costs more, just that Americans spend more. There could be many more elective procedures done in the U.S., since they are only paying once and have nearly on demand access to a wider variety of healthcare services and products.
Nobody in this topic has shown that it costs more, just that Americans spend more. There could be many more elective procedures done in the U.S., since they are only paying once and have nearly on demand access to a wider variety of healthcare services and products.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,454
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,479
@1,317,124 (H)
the primary reason for the united states placements in most metrics, has to do with our large negroid infestation.
for those of you skeptical, merely look up a heat map of [insert topic] and compare it to a racial demographic map.
the primary reason for the united states placements in most metrics, has to do with our large negroid infestation.
for those of you skeptical, merely look up a heat map of [insert topic] and compare it to a racial demographic map.
(Edited 39 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,497
@previous (I)
Yeah, maybe. But who keeps selling them fried chicken and menthol cigarettes? Perhaps it is white folk whom tanked this metric.
Yeah, maybe. But who keeps selling them fried chicken and menthol cigarettes? Perhaps it is white folk whom tanked this metric.
def_note, LLC. joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,663
© MMXXIV def_note, LLC. All right reserved.
Unauthorized distribution of this thread is prohibited by law unless with the expressed written consent of def_note, LLC.
Unauthorized distribution of this thread is prohibited by law unless with the expressed written consent of def_note, LLC.