|
Post by Runa on Sept 13, 2011 21:34:21 GMT -5
I am never, ever, ever, ever complaining about Australia's healthcare system again...
|
|
|
Post by dharmicdalek on Sept 13, 2011 23:36:44 GMT -5
You know. I am used to the Republican Greedy/Evil shit so I have no reaction to most things any more other then a dull depression. This made me fucking rage so hard I could not tell you in words. I remember the fool who said "DEATH TO INTELLIGENCE. LONG LIVE DEATH." Thankfully for us, an intelligent and ethical person was there debating him en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mill%C3%A1n_Astray#Confrontation_with_UnamunoWe need to all be Unamuno. "Sometimes, to remain silent is to lie, since silence can be interpreted as assent."
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 14, 2011 0:29:55 GMT -5
I could have toldja many of the fucknuts that call themselves a part of the Tea Party would be all in favor of letting a person die through no fault of their own.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Sept 14, 2011 1:05:33 GMT -5
Well, they must love stories like this, where a 10 year old dies after getting the flu because her parents don't have health insurance despite both of them working. linkSilent RAGE.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Sept 14, 2011 1:08:42 GMT -5
Kick the sons of bitches out. Give them their wish on a tropical island somewhere where there's no healthcare to be had. Honestly, they have admitted to as much, and you're meaning to tell me the Dems aren't parading this all over the airwaves?
Idiots. Excuse me, my angry plane awaits (Ahhh, the wonders of the demiplane seed).
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 14, 2011 1:13:19 GMT -5
I could have toldja many of the fucknuts that call themselves a part of the Tea Party would be all in favor of letting a person die through no fault of their own. It's not so much the mentality itself -- we all know that this is ultimately what their rhetoric boiled down to. The thing that makes it so disturbing is just how shameless they are, not even trying to hide their lack of compassion behind any sort of smokescreen, even the near-transparent ones they normally put up. To me, it suggests that society has been too accommodating of their bullshit -- and like someone else said, being too accommodating of immoral fuckwits by failing to confront them only reaffirms their beliefs, and makes the problem worse. I am never, ever, ever, ever complaining about Australia's healthcare system again... Yeah, it kinda makes me feel guilty for all the times I've bitched about minor inconveniences in Canada's health care system. It's really weird, feeling something akin to first world guilt over the fact that numerous people in the god damn US -- a rich, technologically advanced, first world nation itself, and arguably the single most prominent country on the planet -- don't have access to basic elements of survival that I can get for free at any given time. Not that I'm comparing the situation down there to the horrors in many third world countries (when it comes to not having health care versus having to live with genocide, starvation, lack of clean water, etc., it's obvious that the latter is worse by countless orders of magnitude), and I do realize that the majority of Americans do have access to health care, I just think it's fucked up that citizens of the US, of all people, are being denied something that is standard amongst the first world.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Sept 14, 2011 4:21:28 GMT -5
He should have asked if the dying person was pregnant, then watched them squirm.
|
|
|
Post by MiriamM on Sept 14, 2011 5:34:53 GMT -5
While I understand that the question was more about whether a person has the right to any publicly funded healthcare, and less about the extent of the coverage, the reaction of some members of this board strikes me as quite naïve. If it was ever possible it is no longer: "Tax-funded best possible care for everyone" cannot be. "Best care" is too damn expensive. Priorization needs to happen, and terminal coma would be at the top of my cut list.
"Insurance-funded best possible care for every insured person" can't happen either, since nobody would be willing to pay those insurance rates. I wouldn't be surprised if most insurance companies stopped paying for the care of a coma patient at some point, too; or maybe those cases are so rare that infinite coverage is good PR. In any case, insurance companies are quite happy to not cover needed treatments based on any possible loophole. But priorization isn't controversial when a business does it.
Disclaimer: The author is from socialist Scandinavia and does not want to dismantle public healthcare; they do, however, want a realistic discussion of its development. And no, the author would not yell "yeah" to that question, simply think it quietly to themselves and hope that the answerer had the balls to say "yes, in cases of X, and this is why".
Does this make me a sociopath bent on destroying lives, wanting the poor to go off and die, a greedy barbarian and an idiot deserving banishment from all civilized societies?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 14, 2011 6:24:17 GMT -5
While I understand that the question was more about whether a person has the right to any publicly funded healthcare, and less about the extent of the coverage, the reaction of some members of this board strikes me as quite naïve. If it was ever possible it is no longer: "Tax-funded best possible care for everyone" cannot be. "Best care" is too damn expensive. Priorization needs to happen, and terminal coma would be at the top of my cut list. "Insurance-funded best possible care for every insured person" can't happen either, since nobody would be willing to pay those insurance rates. I wouldn't be surprised if most insurance companies stopped paying for the care of a coma patient at some point, too; or maybe those cases are so rare that infinite coverage is good PR. In any case, insurance companies are quite happy to not cover needed treatments based on any possible loophole. But priorization isn't controversial when a business does it. Disclaimer: The author is from socialist Scandinavia and does not want to dismantle public healthcare; they do, however, want a realistic discussion of its development. And no, the author would not yell "yeah" to that question, simply think it quietly to themselves and hope that the answerer had the balls to say "yes, in cases of X, and this is why". Does this make me a sociopath bent on destroying lives, wanting the poor to go off and die, a greedy barbarian and an idiot deserving banishment from all civilized societies? No one is saying that prioritization isn't necessary -- the point is that a person's economic status shouldn't be the basis for whether or not they get treatment, which is precisely what these people are advocating.
|
|
servo
Full Member
Posts: 137
|
Post by servo on Sept 14, 2011 6:48:38 GMT -5
I am never, ever, ever, ever complaining about Australia's healthcare system again... Same. Not only that, I'll never, ever, move to the US.
|
|
|
Post by MiriamM on Sept 14, 2011 7:47:11 GMT -5
No one is saying that prioritization isn't necessary -- the point is that a person's economic status shouldn't be the basis for whether or not they get treatment, which is precisely what these people are advocating. But if we prioritize treatment X outside public healthcare, people will still be able to purchase X from private providers. So economic status effects whether a person receives treatment X. Like I said, I understand that the question was intended to be about public healthcare existing at all, but the example was poorly chosen and made it a prioritization issue as well.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Sept 14, 2011 8:41:55 GMT -5
Before I begin this thread I will have to stress that Ron Paul never explicitly agreed with the idiot Teabaggers. He did however say churches and charities can take over, and he was speaking from experience. Because his 2008 campaign manager was indeed a otherwise healthy man who died, penniless and uninsured (the charity in question was started by his mother, but whether it covered his $400,000 bill or not it didn't say). gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 14, 2011 9:41:25 GMT -5
But if we prioritize treatment X outside public healthcare, people will still be able to purchase X from private providers. So economic status effects whether a person receives treatment X. Like I said, I understand that the question was intended to be about public healthcare existing at all, but the example was poorly chosen and made it a prioritization issue as well. That would be the case if he had stated that it was a terminal coma, which he didn't. He meaning was clear: Should society let people die just because they're poor? To be frank, I think it's a hell of a lot more naive to believe that the audience had prioritization in mind when they responded to the question.
|
|
|
Post by MiriamM on Sept 14, 2011 10:33:14 GMT -5
That would be the case if he had stated that it was a terminal coma, which he didn't. He meaning was clear: Should society let people die just because they're poor? To be frank, I think it's a hell of a lot more naive to believe that the audience had prioritization in mind when they responded to the question. Agreed with the probable intention of the audience, and that the likelihood of coming to was not specified, one way or the other. I was more reacting to the posters in this thread, many whom have pretty much responded with "if you agree with this, you are a monster". Since healthcare efficiency is a pet interest of mine, and I do agree with the "yes" (in some cases; exact situation not specified in the question) if not the probable sentiment behind it, I felt the urge to reply. Apologies if I have not made myself clear.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Sept 14, 2011 10:51:52 GMT -5
So....they should let people die because the system is inefficient? That doesn't make sense either. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, but....
|
|