Premeds: Do you believe access to healthcare is a right or a privilege?

[Greonis]

Income taxes = not free, agreed. Someone else is paying for your health care. I said YOU either pay for YOUR healthcare or you don't get any. Money doesn't grow on trees, and i'm not trying to pay 50% of my income in taxes. We can't afford to provide universal health care without raping the country on taxes. Luckily, me and most sane americans will never allow that to happen.

The country is already being "raped" by the healthcare system. It's called defensive medicine.

Swap out the lawyers, healthcare payers, and the "barriers" the discourage physicians from practicing medicine based on their skill/experience for universal coverage, and I guarantee you that the system will improve dramatically.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

The country is already being "raped" by the healthcare system. It's called defensive medicine.

Swap out the lawyers, healthcare payers, and the "barriers" the discourage physicians from practicing medicine based on their skill/experience for universal coverage, and I guarantee you that the system will improve dramatically.

There are many, many studies showing how out of sync administrator costs and clinical costs in hospitals and on insurance policies are. It's really frightening.

 

[mdmarty]

Its so they can get their degree and get paid.

Take the "paid" out of that and they aren't gonna be nearly as willing to put in all that work.

This explains why I did research for free throughout college in addition to working 15 hrs/week in a job. That extra income (of $0) from lab sure helped!

Privilege. The people who provide the care, and the materials needed to provide that care, are simply offering a service. You either pay for the privilege of that service or you don't. The people who provide it can not afford to provide it for free and nobody else should be forced to cough up their hard earned money to give someone the "right" to have healthcare.

Except kids. It should be a right for kids to be covered. In which case the government should provide the health care.

Your argument is just primitive. You even manage to contradict yourself in the same post! Using your logic, why should I pay for someone elses kid's health care?

You just cannot comprehend that there are people on this planet that are not capable of taking care of themselves. We have laws that require seat belts, K12 education, and that ban the selling of organs to protect such people. Medical care is not any different.

 

[amph119]

This explains why I did research for free throughout college in addition to working 15 hrs/week in a job. That extra income (of $0) from lab sure helped!

Oh please. It had nothing to do with padding your medical school application, right? You weren't motivated by being published or being able to talk about it at your interviews... it was totally voluntary and selfless! C'mon now.

 

[Chemist0157]

Oh please. It had nothing to do with padding your medical school application, right? You weren't motivated by being published or being able to talk about it at your interviews... it was totally voluntary and selfless! C'mon now.

For serious.

 

[mdmarty]

Oh please. It had nothing to do with padding your medical school application, right? You weren't motivated by being published or being able to talk about it at your interviews... it was totally voluntary and selfless! C'mon now.

And here is where your argument (or the original poster's) breaks down. Being published, getting LORs, etc. are perks that come with research; money is not. The original poster claimed that money is the driving force behind research. It's not mine.

As for your particular post, yes my research was voluntary. If you think graduate students (or serious undergrads) are motivated by profit because they want to be published, but are willing to work for free, then you need to rethink your definition of 'resume padding'. BS volunteering, clubs, and medical trips to Pluto are 'resume padding'.

 

[mdmarty]

For serious.

Based on your MDapps, you haven't even done research. In what position are you to judge why people do research?

 

[45408]

You're right, they may. Good to see you condemn children in utero. Awesome.

Good job on intentionally and completely misreading that post. Unless you're Miss Cleo, it works a lot better to not assume anything about the child's future.

 

[45408]

This explains why I did research for free throughout college in addition to working 15 hrs/week in a job. That extra income (of $0) from lab sure helped!

Deferred payment is still payment. Working in a lab for free - like I did - so that you can get into med school so that you can become a doctor and be compensated for your efforts = working in a lab to get paid.

 

[Chemist0157]

Based on your MDapps, you haven't even done research. In what position are you to judge why people do research?

Heh, and he's touchy too. There's no "judging" about it. I don't need a robe and a gavel to know why you are in a research program. How do you know I haven't done any research? Because MDapps doesn't say so? You really want to base your remark on MDapps and then be proven wrong? Please.

And the "why"? Like everyone else has said, you could profit from it. There's nothing wrong with that, but your willingness to do grad work (where you have something to gain), and the "willingness" of Americans to pay for each other's health care is just not a good analogy.

 

[amph119]

And here is where your argument (or the original poster's) breaks down. Being published, getting LORs, etc. are perks that come with research; money is not. The original poster claimed that money is the driving force behind research. It's not mine.

As for your particular post, yes my research was voluntary. If you think graduate students (or serious undergrads) are motivated by profit because they want to be published, but are willing to work for free, then you need to rethink your definition of 'resume padding'. BS volunteering, clubs, and medical trips to Pluto are 'resume padding'.

I haven't even given an argument that can "break down." Heck I haven't even given a stance on the central issue on this thread. I just can't believe you think that money isn't a prime motivating factor behind conducting research and/or graduate school. Just because you aren't getting paid for yours doesn't make you better than someone who is. I said in an earlier post, why do you think the vast majority of major medical advances come from the U.S.?

Simple answer: because there is profit to be made from it.

 

[chris1264]

i, like many others, find it to be neither a right nor a privilege.

however, if healthcare is to be reformed, here is how i believe it should be done. costs must be cut in some way or another. exorbitant costs due to percentage based reimbursement has all but made healthcare unaffordable to about 1/8 of america (i say this because around 10 million of the 40 million americans without healthcare do so by choice, not because it is unaffordable). i believe the best way to combat this situation is to do more to regulate the insurance industry and by tort reform. if insurance companies and medicare are forced to provide 100% reimbursement, (at what would have to be a price deemed reasonable by some act of legislation) unisured people walking in the door would not be forced to pay sometimes 80% more for a procedure. tort reform will also greatly reduce overhead costs for physicians to operate, thereby increasing their net income without the consumer paying a penny more for their service. if you really think about it, its a systematic rethinking of our entire legal system, albeit with the facade of healthcare reform.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Good job on intentionally and completely misreading that post. Unless you're Miss Cleo, it works a lot better to not assume anything about the child's future.

I didn't misread your post. I stated my position of not discounting a child as far as being a benefit to society. You replied by saying that there is also a chance they will turn into a criminal/murderer. You are essentially finding them guilty until proven innocent, which is a handy way to disenfranchise the poor.

Also, I'm not assuming anything about the child's future. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Until they are proven to be anything other than a functional citizen, they should reap the benefits of that citizenship, rather than be derided as a criminal simply because of their parents' lifestyle.

 

[mdmarty]

I haven't even given an argument that can "break down." I just can't believe you think that money isn't a motivating factor behind research. Just because you aren't getting paid for yours doesn't make you better than someone who is. I said in an earlier post, why do you think the vast majority of major medical advances come from the U.S.?

Simple answer: because there is profit to be made from it. Period.

Companies are driven by profit; Pfizer needs to make make more money than it spends on research. Research institutions (like universities) are NOT driven by profit. Their success is measured by their publication record--or what discoveries they make. Some people are actually interested in research (physicians included), and will forgoe large profits in order to work on a topic that is of particular interest to them. Your simple answer is, well, just wrong.

your willingness to do grad work (where you have something to gain), and the "willingness" of Americans to pay for each other's health care is just not a good analogy.

No one has made this analogy. Please go and read the posts above.

I have no interest in these mute points; please reutrn to the topic of if people have a 'right' to recieve medical care.

 

[Bradstein]

"Healthcare" is already a right, everyone can go into the ER regardless of a real condition existing or not. What are you communists who want universal care arguing FOR? Everyone should get knee replacements and heart transplants if they need it, regardless of their tax status or criminal history?

I think the AMA opposed socialized healthcare EXACTLY to avoid having to deal with these things; they FEARED government controlling the availability of care. Who is Uncle Sam to tell you that you can get that surgery?

The problem in my mind is that our current system has a bastard hybridization of socialized care and privatization. The nanny state is subsidizing private insurance through various mechanisms, and the free market is not operating.

People who get denied for various charges should be able to switch insurers because the service they are getting does not meet their standards. The autonomy of physicians should be chief in the minds of anyone working on legislation. PHYSICIANS should be the gatekeepers to service, not insurance companies and ESPECIALLY not the government. As the patient's point of contact in the healthcare system the physician is in the best position to explain the benefits of any given therapy.

Additionally, the BS everyone is talking about, and Panda has mentioned, includes much of the CYA testing done. Even in the ER, I see patients getting hundreds of dollars of lab work done simply to limit the liability on the doctor. Why not let the physician exercise some clinical judgment? Occasionally, hospitals will put pressure on the ER physicians to stop spending so much money, in effect telling them to stop doing so many tests. There's a balancing act between malpractice liability and cost. This shouldn't be the case; let the physician decide.

Even more privatization or socialization is NOT going to be a panacea. You have to identify what makes the US so competitive in medical treatment and research. Obviously, the ability to profit is one of them. You also have to look at what socialized systems offer. Obviously, access is the big one. The way to go is to make changes to our system to give us the best of both worlds.

 

[amph119]

.

 

[Bradstein]

Research institutions (like universities) are NOT driven by profit. Their success is measured by their publication record--or what discoveries they make.

Publications and discoveries are ammunition to secure more grants, of which the institution takes a share before giving it to the investigator. That's their revenue, and the money secured for the institution could be viewed as profit.

 

[amph119]

Companies are driven by profit; Pfizer needs to make make more money than it spends on research. Research institutions (like universities) are NOT driven by profit. Their success is measured by their publication record--or what discoveries they make. Some people are actually interested in research (physicians included), and will forgoe large profits in order to work on a topic that is of particular interest to them. Your simple answer is, well, just wrong.

Of course it isn't the ONLY thing behind research. But are you really that out of touch with reality?

 

[bozz]

Yale, Hopkins, and WashU are not driven by profit

wait wut

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

What about children?

What about someone whose company goes bankrupt/lays them off?

What about college students who cannot afford healthcare AND tuition?

What about people with chronic, non-preventable conditions who onl qualify for high premium "pre-existing condition" policies?

What about people who are injured and are no longer able to work, but need physical therapy and/or home assitance, which many lower-end insurers will not cover?



No one is asking you to pay 50% income tax. The highest rate I've heard of was in Denmark, and they pay between 38 and 45%, depending on your income level. That tax rate is for healthcare and tons of other social programs. Many other Western European nations pay similar, though slightly lower, rates. Maybe you should go tell those people they are being "raped", to use your crass term. Apparently they are pretty happy in their current system.




Actually, 62% (given, polls are not accurate, but it's still within the margin of error) of Americans DO support a shift to some sort of universal healthcare.

I posted the link a few posts back in response to PremedPrincess's post. It was an ABCNews poll.

I said children should be covered. Everyone else, not so much.


Really, if you can keep taxes where they are at now, then i'm all about universal health care. Otherwise, no thanks.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

This explains why I did research for free throughout college in addition to working 15 hrs/week in a job. That extra income (of $0) from lab sure helped!



Your argument is just primitive. You even manage to contradict yourself in the same post! Using your logic, why should I pay for someone elses kid's health care?

You just cannot comprehend that there are people on this planet that are not capable of taking care of themselves. We have laws that require seat belts, K12 education, and that ban the selling of organs to protect such people. Medical care is not any different.

I said kids should be covered because the kids didn't **** up. They had no choice and the government should cover them until they are of age. Adults on the other hand, you're on your own.

Like i said in my last post. Keep taxes where they are, and i'd agree to universal coverage. Also, physicians salaries shouldn't take a hit. If those two conditions are met, then I'm all about universal health care and you have won me over.

In reality, taxes will increase, salaries will go down, competition will decrease and in turn quality will go down.

 

[Katatonic]

Just thought I'd throw in my new opinion. I used to feel it was a right, no doubt, that every person should be able to get medical treatment no matter what. I even thought that socialized healthcare was the answer, and that I wouldn't mind an increase in taxes to help alleviate the cost for others less fortunate than I.

Over the last year, I've come to realize that I was completely backwards, even though that seems a bit cold-hearted to my old way of thinking about healthcare. It would take way too long to explain here, but I will say that I believe healthcare to be a privilege, not a right.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

And here is where your argument (or the original poster's) breaks down. Being published, getting LORs, etc. are perks that come with research; money is not. The original poster claimed that money is the driving force behind research. It's not mine.

And the publications and LOR's help get you into medical school which helps land you a job making very good money. It's all driven by profit. Of course some people aren't that way (you may be one of them), but a large portion are. I know I was one of them.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

How do the MD's you guys have shadowed or worked around feel about universal health care?

Almost all of the specialists I shadowed were completely against it and the 2 primary care doctors I shadowed were for it.

I'd also like to hear from the current physicians I see posting in here. Are the majority of your colleagues for or against universal health care?

 

[Greonis]

Although I only know a few ER physicians, all of them are in support of universal health care. It would improve access to health care for everyone and eliminate a lot of "hidden" costs that already get passed on to the taxpayers.

Yes, taxes would certainly need to be raised to accommodate such a system. But, if one were to take a look at how much public money is already spent on healthcare for often frivolous purposes (AKA defensive medicine), one would realize that the costs of insuring ~50 million people are truly insignificant in comparison. Therefore, if such coverage were to be implemented, I would propose that it be concomitant with major changes to the system (namely tort reform, improving the public's understanding of when/how health care should be sought, and more reliance on physicians' judgment).

 

[brucecanbeatyou]

It's a right, silly.

 

[Quix]

Without having read the rest of the thread (beginning of a busy semester and evacuated from Louisiana, so little time), it's a right.

 

[TehDoc]

if it's man-made (good or service), it's a privilege. Simple as that. Healthcare, running water, electricity, highways, military defense, jobs, school, etc, are all privileges. You're not entitled to anything upon birth and nothing is free.

boom! That is correct sir!

 

[TejasMed2009]

Its a privilege...if you think its a right you are just plain wrong and need to go back and understand the definition of a right...if you still think its a right then move to Canada or GB and see what a "great right" it is....

 

[mterp45]

Lyndon B Johnson once preached for equality not "as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result". How we choose to define Healthcare—whether it be a right or a privilege—should be independent of our decision to instill laws which will transform it into a fact and create the much needed results needed for uninsured Americans.

 

[45408]

I didn't misread your post. I stated my position of not discounting a child as far as being a benefit to society. You replied by saying that there is also a chance they will turn into a criminal/murderer. You are essentially finding them guilty until proven innocent, which is a handy way to disenfranchise the poor.

Also a chance != essentially finding them guilty


Strike 2. We'll see if you can get it this last time. It's really not that hard.

 

[45408]

If it's man-made (good or service), it's a privilege. Simple as that. Healthcare, running water, electricity, highways, military defense, jobs, school, etc, are all privileges. You're not entitled to anything upon birth and nothing is free.

That's a good way to put it. I can't think of any counter-examples.

 

[DarknightX]

Let me guess, you are in your second year, you've taken some sociology courses and you think you know the ins and outs of our economy.

FYI, if it was up to the "MAJORITY" we'd still be paying taxes to england and having our slaves fetch us some water. THANK GOD the majority doesn't matter. MOST people are stupid, end of that discussion.

A doctor provides a service, and should be compensated according to the demand and supply of his/her service. It is NOT your RIGHT to demand a doctors service. What part of that do you not understand?

You are awesome!

 

[DarknightX]

I'm not sure why I even argue with you anymore. Every thread you post in turns into the same thing: you swoop in, drop a few anecdotes about how much you hate the poor, and then call everyone who disagrees with you a "kool-aid" drinker. Sort of hard to defend against ad hominems and anecdotes.

Well you certainly lost this argument, buddy.

Let me see....a ER resident, or some snot nosed pre-med/med student. I think the guy who actually works in the hospital might know just a little bit more on the subject matter.

Why don't you go through medical school and then we'll see how much nonsense you keep spewing.

Most people are hard working and want better for themselves. But not all people. Someday, you'll realize that some people are lazy, manipulative, dishonest, and just a drain on society in general.

Nothing in life is a right. You have to struggle and fight tooth and nail for every inch you get.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Well you certainly lost this argument, buddy.

Let me see....a ER resident, or some snot nosed pre-med/med student. I think the guy who actually works in the hospital might know just a little bit more on the subject matter.

Why don't you go through medical school and then we'll see how much nonsense you keep spewing.

Ooooh, wow. I completely forgot that until I have my doctorate, there is no way possible I could be capable of observing society. I also can't POSSIBLY understand ecnomics or health policy until I have an MD. Man, thank you. Really.

Most people are hard working and want better for themselves. But not all people. Someday, you'll realize that some people are lazy, manipulative, dishonest, and just a drain on society in general.

Well, thank god we have people like you to decide who is worth helping. What would we ever do without you? And here I thought all people should be treated like human beings, and then you come along and point out only those deemed worth by our man-made society norms should be treated with compassion.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Also a chance != essentially finding them guilty


Strike 2. We'll see if you can get it this last time. It's really not that hard.

Why bring it up, though? If that child has shown 0% chance of being a criminal to date, why would the thought even enter the decision-making process when it comes to providing them with healthcarE?

 

[bcat85]

But the argument isn't that people shouldn't pay for health care. It's that we should treat health care the same way that we treat public education (we do pay for that).

And this is the reason that teachers are SO easy to find and recruit.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

And this is the reason that teachers are SO easy to find and recruit.

Yeah, it couldn't have to do with the ease of getting a teaching degree coupled with a job that guarantees summer off...

 

[DarknightX]

Ooooh, wow. I completely forgot that until I have my doctorate, there is no way possible I could be capable of observing society. I also can't POSSIBLY understand ecnomics or health policy until I have an MD. Man, thank you. Really.


Well, thank god we have people like you to decide who is worth helping. What would we ever do without you? And here I thought all people should be treated like human beings, and then you come along and point out only those deemed worth by our man-made society norms should be treated with compassion.

Why stop at health care? Let's make sure everyone in this country has food, shelter, and clothing too. Can't afford to buy food? Well, then your neighbors should be responsible for feeding and clothing you.

This is a capitalist society, not a socialist/communist one. Our economic model is set up on free-market competition. You aren't entitled to something just because you want it or need it. Under our system, you have rights, as long as you work for them. You have the right to have a home, as long as you can pay the rent/mortgage. You have the right to eat, as long as you can pay for your food.

What makes healthcare any different? It's a service, just like any other service out there.

A nationalized, universal, socialized, or whatever you want to call it type of health care is a great idea, in theory. But then again, so is Communism.

Ask Russia/Eastern Europe how that worked out.

 

[duckhunter25]

So if healthcare is a "right" and the govt must provide for it, then when am I going to be seeing my AR-15, M-16 shipped to me from the govt? According to the Bill of Rights I have the right to bear arms, so when is the govt going to provide me with this right?


What about my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? To me happiness is measured with a $6million dollar house in the Hamptons, will the govt provide this for me?


A right is something the govt does not have to provide it, but it cannot prevent you from obtaining it in your own efforts.


BTW i love the proverbial "the govt will pay for it" as if the govt has an unlimited amount of money that we should be so grateful to get a piece of. This money is based off of the service and produce(money) generated by the citizens.

 

[PreMedPrincess]

mdmarty and venzonydestupa are quite possibly two of the most dillusional posters on this board.

 

[duckhunter25]

If we are going to provide healthcare will we also provide food to everyone, a nutritionist to ensure we are eating well? Nutrition is a major aspect of healthy living. Will we provide gym memberships? Exercise is another major aspect of healthy living and prevention? If we provide healthcare does this not include preventative healthcare?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Why stop at health care? Let's make sure everyone in this country has food, shelter, and clothing too. Can't afford to buy food? Well, then your neighbors should be responsible for feeding and clothing you.

We actually already have these programs at the state level. Where have you been for the past few decades?

This is a capitalist society, not a socialist/communist one.

Why can't things change? Is that what you're so afraid of? Change?

Our economic model is set up on free-market competition.

Hahahahahaha...haha...hahahaha...wow, if our current system is a free-market, then I'm a magical unicorn named Steve. Why do you think people like Ron Paul and Bob Barr are screaming about the free-market economic plan? Because we don't follow it! Our government intervenes in corporate affairs like you wouldn't believe, man.

Under our system, you have rights, as long as you work for them.

Where is that clause in the Constitution? I only have the right to free speech if I pay taxes? So, the homeless have no rights under "our system"?

You have the right to have a home, as long as you can pay the rent/mortgage. You have the right to eat, as long as you can pay for your food. What makes healthcare any different? It's a service, just like any other service out there.

You have options for food and shelter, allowing you to find resources that fit your income. If you need an MRI, you can't "shop around". If you are like me and can't afford private insurance and must take what your employer offers, your insurer tells you where you can get it, and what percent they will pay.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the number one cause of bankruptcy in the country is health care costs? Why should someone have to take out another mortgage on their house and run up credit card debt because they are unfortunate enough to contract a cancer that their insurer deems a pre-existing condition?

A nationalized, universal, socialized, or whatever you want to call it type of health care is a great idea, in theory. But then again, so is Communism.

Ask Russia/Eastern Europe how that worked out.

And ask Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdo how that worked out, too.

 

[T12]

Yeah, it couldn't have to do with the ease of getting a teaching degree coupled with a job that guarantees summer off...

You might've misinterpreted this one. Either that or you're utilizing a ridiculous amount of sarcasm.

In any case, I've a question to ask: If you find a non-socialized healthcare system to be so inherently flawed that you would not stand for it, then why pursue a medical degree and practice here in the United States? We are by our initial and timeless nature capitalists. We (and not just the conservatives) put our faith in the free-market that allowed us to rise to be the most prominent nation in the world in the shortest amount of time. While liberals may not sing the praises of the free-market like certain conservatives do, they still build their wealth and wellfare around, in, and through it. They implicitly champion it simply by living their lives and pursuing their goals.

If you consider this system so flawed, why not pursue a degree and practice in a country with which your political ideals are in tune?

The only way socialized medicine can infiltrate the superior free-market system is through the back door. It's done well in doing just that, but coincidentally proved its own futility (see Medicare/Medicaid).

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

You might've misinterpreted this one. Either that or you're utilizing a ridiculous amount of sarcasm.

The latter.

In any case, I've a question to ask: If you find a non-socialized healthcare system to be so inherently flawed that you would not stand for it, then why pursue a medical degree and practice here in the United States? We are by our initial and timeless nature capitalists. We (and not just the conservatives) put our faith in the free-market that allowed us to rise to be the most prominent nation in the world in the shortest amount of time. While liberals may not sing the praises of the free-market like certain conservatives do, they still build their wealth and wellfare around, in, and through it. They implicitly champion it simply by living their lives and pursuing their goals.

If you consider this system so flawed, why not pursue a degree and practice in a country with which your political ideals are in tune?

Simple. Our medical education system is awesome, and it's actually not that hard to get an EU license to practice medicine. I want to practice international medicine with relief groups, the CDC, WHO, etc., so naturally, I'll work in a lot of different systems.

The only way socialized medicine can infiltrate the superior free-market system is through the back door. It's done well in doing just that, but coincidentally proved its own futility (see Medicare/Medicaid).

So, being voted in by members of Congress who were voted in by a majority of Americans is "taking the back door"? I thought that was kinda, ya know, the "front door" of our democratic system.

 

[T12]

We actually already have these programs at the state level. Where have you been for the past few decades?



Why can't things change? Is that what you're so afraid of? Change?



Hahahahahaha...haha...hahahaha...wow, if our current system is a free-market, then I'm a magical unicorn named Steve. Why do you think people like Ron Paul and Bob Barr are screaming about the free-market economic plan? Because we don't follow it! Our government intervenes in corporate affairs like you wouldn't believe, man.



Where is that clause in the Constitution? I only have the right to free speech if I pay taxes? So, the homeless have no rights under "our system"?



You have options for food and shelter, allowing you to find resources that fit your income. If you need an MRI, you can't "shop around". If you are like me and can't afford private insurance and must take what your employer offers, your insurer tells you where you can get it, and what percent they will pay.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the number one cause of bankruptcy in the country is health care costs? Why should someone have to take out another mortgage on their house and run up credit card debt because they are unfortunate enough to contract a cancer that their insurer deems a pre-existing condition?



And ask Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdo how that worked out, too.

And I must say, up until this post, you seemed rational, although a little condescending.

However, you're now coming off as a little TOO radical to take seriously. And by the way, none of the countries you listed are communist states. IF you meant to imply that, I don't know why. I assume you meant to say that they have socialized healthcare systems, but re-read your quotee's post and your reply.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

And I must say, up until this post, you seemed rational, although a little condescending.

However, you're now coming off as a little TOO radical to take seriously.

How so? I'm really curious, not trying to be a jerk or anything.

And by the way, none of the countries you listed are communist states. IF you meant to imply that, I don't know why. I assume you meant to say that they have socialized healthcare systems, but re-read your quotee's post and your reply.

You're right, I misread it in my half-alseep state. I missed the word "communism" and thought he was referring to Russia/CIS health care.

 

[T12]

So, being voted in by members of Congress who were voted in by a majority of Americans is "taking the back door"? I thought that was kinda, ya know, the "front door" of our democratic system.

I suppose calling it a trojan horse of sorts would've been more appropriate. Packaged and presented as a solution when, in actuality, it is just nugget-sized socialism.

Regardless of my verbiage, did I miss the part where you addressed the two programs' massive failures? (To use a bit of your Chandler Bing-esque sarcasm)

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I suppose calling it a trojan horse of sorts would've been more appropriate. Packaged and presented as a solution when, in actuality, it is just nugget-sized socialism.

Hmm, well, I think the main difference in opinion we're having is philosophical, more than economic. I have examples of failed capitalism, you have examples of failed socialism, and we'll just do this dance forever, heh.

Regardless of my verbiage, did I miss the part where you addressed the two programs' massive failures? (To use a bit of your Chandler Bing-esque sarcasm)

Funny reference, hehe, and you're right, I forgot to address those. The main problem with those two programs is exactly the problem with Canada's health system, which is in shambles. They are incredibly underfunded. It seems our wonderful capitalist government doesn't like to fund things that don't have lobbyists.

 

[T12]

How so? I'm really curious, not trying to be a jerk or anything.

In that you explicitly supported converting our country's core ideals to that of another model's....and for a moment I thought you thought all those countries ere communist...