Presidential Election

[CG031]

The health care system in the United States is terrible. When you look at some other countries around the world, their health care is much better than ours.

O'Bama for president for me.

[Shindig]

I would love to see some facts to back up these assertions. Some numbers, a little anecdotal evidence something. Maybe even number of charity hospitals vs. non-charity hospitals. Is the disparity bigger than some care vs. no care?

I don't have the numbers with me at the moment, but you've never heard of Shriners hospitals?

By the way, number of charity vs. non-charity hospitals is irrelevant. It's how many people they cover.

FACT: Grady Hospital in Atlanta Charity hospital. 30% are uninsured. So that means what 70% are insured, doesn't seem like people are being turned away for having insurance.

Way to mis-read what I said. This must be a political discussion. I said that some hospitals will turn away non-emergencies with insurance, sending them to for-profit hospitals. You come back with that there exists a charity hospital that accepts people with insurance.

FACT: The United States ranked 37th in overall performance for its healthcare system according to the World Health Organization.

The U.N. runs the WHO, so I'd be interested in what they grade on. Maybe "is socialist" counts for a large number of points. I'm not claiming it does, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see something like that on their count.

Also, I'll bet that not every country reports their numbers honestly, so even a good metric is suspect if we're being honest and trying to compete with Cuba.

FACT: We are the only "industrialized" country without a universal health care platform. (If our current system IS the best way, why aren't more people following us? And consequently why are we ranked so low by the WHO?)

In most countries, socialist ideas are more popular than they are here. People see their mediocre system and compare it to some imagined nightmare of the free-market and decide to stick with mediocrity.

I've already addressed the low ranking by WHO.

FACT: Over 40 million people are uninsured.

Assuming this number to be correct, how many of those are healthy people in their early 20s with other priorities for their money? Just because you choose to spend your money on insurance doesn't mean it has to be a priority for everyone.

Now I am aware of the cons against it (eg. having to pay for smokers if you don't smoke, increased doctors visits for less serious issues, etc...) but the biggest one seems to be cost. Well I hate to break it to you but in some form or another you are paying for the uninsured. Money is a pretty closed system, you can't print more of it and you can't write off debt without it coming from someplace.

You're treating the entire country as one mass group. Yes, "we" have to pay for the uninsured. Currently, this is done by freely-done charitable giving. Just because someone has to pay doesn't mean the government should.

[Rusty2228]

I don't have the numbers with me at the moment, but you've never heard of Shriners hospitals?

You mean Shriner's PEDIATRIC hospital? I am familiar with them because there is one in my city/state. However, since there are only 22 in the country I am sure that most people are not. You're right I AM astounded, because as irrelevant as you may think actual numbers are, if you have more hospitals you can serve more people? Or if you have less hospitals you can't serve the same number as effectively. I think you better reread your initial post before you accuse me of misreading. You may have meant what you just said but you did not say that in your original post. You even added italics to emphasize your point. The socialist is a great argument. You are throwing words and statements out with zero background information and then hide behind a vague term that you probably heard on the radio. The standards for grading are available online, and yes there is a consideration for care availability. However, the ranking is more of a reflection of our citizens living in impoverished areas, especially the "deep south" and the illnesses they have and LACK OF CARE they receive. Please find me information that supports the claim that countries do not report accurately. There is a pink elephant with golden tusks that pees scotch in the room. That claim is as equally true as yours. I could continue to debunk your terrible arguments. That lack both substance and effect. However, I feel it would be talking to a brick wall. What I do suggest is that you turn off the talk radio and you do some research. All of the numbers and information that I mentioned is easily available and quickly found. You should take off the blinders and see there is more to the world than Rush Limbaugh. Heck you may even find information that proves some of your points and affirms that you are right. In which case I would applaud you for being informed. But right now you are terrible combination of outspoken and ignorant. PS- YOU and the government ARE paying for the uninsured right now. Because people can't afford the care they are racking up debt that can't be paid off. What happens to debt that gets written off? Money is a closed system...you can't rob peter to pay paul.

[crawf061]

But right now you are terrible combination of outspoken and ignorant.

Couldn't even make it 4 pages before the personal attacks surfaced. This is why politics and the internet should not mix.

[ERC7.5]

Couldn't even make it 4 pages before the personal attacks surfaced. This is why politics and the internet should not mix.

Politics in general conversation becomes a problem because it is so deeply based in opinion and the scope of political discussion is so broad.

[crawf061]

Politics in general conversation becomes a problem because it is so deeply based in opinion and the scope of political discussion is so broad.

I agree with you. However, I think political discussions in person are

less likely to result in flame wars. I know that many of them still do, but almost every political discussion that I have seen on the internet has resulted in mud slinging.

[ERC7.5]

I agree with you. However, I think political discussions in person are

Agreed. I'd say this has to do with the anonymity that the internet provides.

[Rusty2228]

My calling him "ignorant" wasn't a general attack on him or his views. I realize that ignorant is almost synonymous with "dumb" or "stupid." However my use of it wasn't in calling him names, it was to point out that he doesn't have or is ignoring (a derivative of ignorant)information that is out there. This coupled with the fact that he is posting on the topic creates the combination I spoke of.

It is politics. There are numbers and viewpoints to match seemingly every point and counterpoint. And had he said "Rusty2228 (Ken Henry, to avoid anonymity) you are wrong because of x, y, or z." And had information that was factual or at least able to be supported by something his arguments would have been well received. As it is I am more arguing with his style than substance. (But I do disagree with his substance)

Obviously I am a bleeding heart liberal, and very proud of it. But I like to think that I form my opinions based on some sort of facts and information not a general notion that liberals are preaching communism and I want to take people's money to pay for lazy S.O.Bs who don't want to get a job.

I apologize if shindig took/takes offense to my comment. But the notions expressed in his posts are part of the rhetoric this country has fallen victim too. (BEWARE sweeping generalization ahead) Republicans tend to throw accusations at democrats that we have to defend and it generally isnt generally recipricated. It wouldn't be a problem if the american news cycle wasn't boiled down to 30 second soundbytes and the average viewer had an attention span longer than one minute. If you could have a discussion with Joe Six-Pack about why taxes are necessary I am pretty sure that he would at least see some valid points in our tax code. But it gets boiled down to "They want to raise taxes" and you can't defend that in 30 seconds. So what you get is the general public seeing the democrat try to cram a rushed response to a complicated question and then they are accused of hedging and the worst term ever "flip flopping."

At the core I respect the Republican values of fiscal conservatism and less government interference. I think in a perfect world this would be ideal. However, I am a realist who lives in the real world. Trickle down economics doesn't work, look at our gas prices. The patriot act (and in some cases rightfully so) has been the biggest act of government interference ever. So even republicans don't believe their own rhetoric.

[crawf061]

Obviously I am a bleeding heart liberal, and very proud of it. But I like to think that I form my opinions based on some sort of facts and information not a general notion that liberals are preaching communism and I want to take people's money to pay for lazy S.O.Bs who don't want to get a job.

I don't know where you stand, but I know many "liberals" that think if someone is a Republican then they have to be one of those people that lives their life in 30 second sound bites. Far too often we all fall victim to letting stereotypes define people/things that we don't understand. All I'm saying is just please try not to accuse someone of being ignorant just because their political beliefs do not align with your own. (I'm not necessarily referring to the discussion in this thread, just discussions I have seen all over).

Now, in an effort to get this thread back on topic, I feel like the upcoming presidential election is far too divisive. You have one guy who is way to the right and one who is way to the left and the third (who likely won't make it much longer) seems to have taken the worst of both worlds (in my opinion). As I've mentioned before, I'm a conservative, but I do not like to be called a Republican. I think that many of the big name Republicans have lost sight of their conservative values (introducing the term Neo-con). There are no candidates that really come close to matching my values, so I'm going to be forced to choose based on how I weigh specific issues against each other (War in Iraq vs. Universal Health Care as an example because I am not a fan of either).

[immts007]

Couldn't even make it 4 pages before the personal attacks surfaced. This is why politics and the internet should not mix.

Too be fair, Shindig's reply had some subtle insults and accusations of it's own.

He implied that Rusty was either being a lazy reader or intellectually dishonest and then proceeded to heap on loaded language meant to tie the political wish for a better healthcare system to the likes of Stalin/Lenin/Castro. This can have the effect of appearing to be a tactic intimidate or silence those who thinks our taxes can be used in ways that "Promote the General Welfare" for fear of being branded un-American. But the response was combatative, yes - and a discussion can go quickly downhill from there.

[Shindig]

I apologize if shindig took/takes offense to my comment.

I should have expected it when I entered the discussion. I should also apologize : some of my comments were combative too. When I re-read what I wrote a few moments ago, I was wondering what posessed me to phrase it that way. I certainly accept your apology (although I don't feel you need to apologize), and I would like to offer mine to you as well (and I feel I do need to apologize).

Republicans tend to throw accusations at democrats that we have to defend and it generally isnt generally recipricated.

Actually, this happens on both sides.

Too be fair, Shindig's reply had some subtle insults and accusations of it's own.

I don't think I went as far as implying Stalin or Lenin, but Castro's healthcare is frequently mentioned in these conversations - from those advocating for the change.

But the response was combatative, yes - and a discussion can go quickly downhill from there.

Yes. And I'm bowing out of the conversation at this point for this reason.

[ChiChiIsMe]

It all comes down to the Supremes for me....... IMHO BO or HC will not nominate the kind of Supremes that will stick to the constitution.

[ettsn]

It all comes down to the Supremes for me...

Really?

[ettsn]

On a much more serious note, by far the biggest danger in Socialized Medicine (universal healthcare, whatever you choose to call it) is that we will never cure another disease . Ever again. Quick, since the advent of socialized medicine in European countries, name a disease, or just plain old uncomfortable ailment for that matter, cured by someone living in Europe. Name just one please, preferably one not funded by a US-based pharmacorp. Try to keep it in the last 50 years or so if you could.

Private healthcare in the US means that the healthcare industry is profitable and will remain so to some extent. The reason people want to find a cure for cancer, altruism and idealism aside, is that whoever figures it out will make Billions. Maybe Trillions. The financial incentive is what causes drug companies to invent Billions into research. Take away the financial incentives for doing so, and they invest those dollars into telecoms or casinos or something else. There is a finite amount of investment capital in the world. People will put it where the returns work. That's why they call it investing and not donating. If we disincent research, it will only continue under raised gift funding (putting dimes into the little plastic boxes at the 7-11 counter). The gifted researchers, without strong financial incentive, will work on things like the next Viagra or yet another heartburn pill. We've already seen it begin, and we're FAR from socialization.

Want to cure AIDS, cancer, MD or something equally grave? Better make it worth their while. You don't do your job everyday for altruistic reasons, why should you expect someone else to?

[JYB]

Well, i don't care about Hil's win in WV today...Obama's got it locked.

[Big_M]

It all comes down to the Supremes for me....... IMHO BO or HC will not nominate the kind of Supremes that will stick to the constitution.

indeed... I am with you 100%. I don't really like any of my choices, but would hate to see the justices that might be nominated by some candidates. If the next Pres only serves one term he may not have to nominate any, but that is a big maybe.