Why does socialized medicine suck again?

[Palmatum]

Because they have the potential to contribute.

Nevermind. Read that wrong Morn- I just woke up coffee needed.

[Roose]

How so?

Were they refused schooling?

Equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

Again, reforms need to be made. But really, what would you do? Would you go out and put everyone on welfare on the streets? Do you realize the consequences?

Or would you prefer that we just round them all up and exterminate them? They are obvious leaches and will never be productive members of society, right.

[Laize]

Didnt you just point out that you started 2 stupid wars and then say you are the reason its peaceful

Peaceful as a relative term. Confining conflicts to a single area (usually a country) is a superior solution to allowing them to spill over into other nations (as happens in Africa on a regular basis).

[ripponesan]

I think this has quite a bit more to do with our obesity demographics than our healthcare system. It's also worth noting that we have high rates of death from non-natural causes relative to other first world countries, particularly auto deaths.

You mean auto guns, dont you?

[Cjeska]

If you want to know why socialized medicine sucks, you might want to do some research on the web (I would recommend multiple sources). Asking such a question on a gaming forum where the average poster has only little life experience or knowledge about economics or the healthcare system won't give you the answer you are looking for, only repeated propaganda with no actual knowledge behind it. Most younger people tend to be more on the (political) left and become more conservative or libertarian when they get older. Don't trust the charlatans just because their story is convincing and their solution logical.

[Roose]

Peaceful as a relative term. Confining conflicts to a single area (usually a country) is a superior solution to allowing them to spill over into other nations (as happens in Africa on a regular basis).

Then why are we not in Africa too?

[Endus]

Really?

Ask yourself what happened every time there wasn't a global superpower playing "world police"?

A better question is, has it ever been of benefit to the world for superpowers to do so? If there's only one, it's usually okay, but once there's two, it turns into a giant dick-swinging contest. See the Cold War. See WWI and WWII. See the entire period from the dawn of the age of exploration in the 1500s straight through to the Napoleonic Wars.

Superpowers don't lead to peace, dude. They lead to conflict. In every single case, even today.

Facts speak of the alternatives being worse. Throughout all of human history it has been nothing but international war after international war. And not relatively isolated conflicts like we saw in Afghanistan or Iraq. Violence that spilled across borders and caused wars in completely unrelated countries.

Because of the superpowers of those eras. You're providing evidence that your entire premise is false.

When England stepped back from their role as a superpower for the first time in hundreds of years what did we get? WWI and WWII.

And what did we get while they'd maintained their strength?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Great_Britain

Seriously, were you under the impression that the world was relatively peaceful prior to WWI? It wasn't. The big difference was the strength of the weapons involved, and how widespread the devastation caused would be, particularly during WWII.

Nor is the world under a single superpower some bastion of peace. North Korea continues to beat drums. Iraq is just ending, Afghanistan is still ongoing. There's other issues rising up, like Syria right now, and Libya a while back.

There's a lot of unrest. The world is not "safe" because the US spends a lot of money on a military they use to protect the US' interests.

[Laize]

Wow. Up until just then I paid attention to you.

I do not understand the argument that science is entirely motivated by money therefore no new innovation results in socialized healthcare.

In fact, many of our great scientists that have come up with radical advances are not motivated by greed. They are motivated intrinsically. Greed is a horrible motive to rely on for advances in healthcare. That is how we get penis pill research pushed ahead of cancer research.

Actually Viagra was Pfizer's attempt at creating new medications for hypertension which is a leading cause of death in America. Just because it turned out to be a medication for treating ED doesn't mean that's what the money was spent on originally.

[Dezerte]

I often hear people praise this guy called Jesus, and then only to find out they actually don't show the same empathy and solidarity as this guy supposedly did.

We are civilized human begins, therefore we take care of ourselves and our neighbors. We have empathy, so therefore we care about others. We believe in the goodness of humans and we try to encourage and work towards that as a reality for everyone. There is no "us vs. them" mentality, there is just "us".

[Kujako]

Well a person on welfare contributes nothing to society and only leeches from it. Why do they deserve anything?

And yet, I was on welfare, medicare, food-stamps etc growing up and have since payed back way more into the system then I ever took out. My mother was able to put herself through medical school due to such programs and has likewise done far more then the comparative cost to society. So while I appreciate that you wish I had just died rather then become successful, I must with all respect say "no you".

[Glorious Leader]

In general it doesn't. The key is that you have to recognize a principle other than total self interest. You have to recognize the value in a principle called "SOLIDARITY" caring about another person. It's strange I know but for a supposedly christian nation you'd think it would be more prevalent.

[Roose]

If you want to know why socialized medicine sucks, you might want to do some research on the web (I would recommend multiple sources). Asking such a question on a gaming forum where the average poster has only little life experience or knowledge about economics or the healthcare system won't give you the answer you are looking for, only repeated propaganda with no actual knowledge behind it. Most younger people tend to be more on the (political) left and become more conservative or libertarian when they get older. Don't trust the charlatans just because their story is convincing and their solution logical.

Pretty sure Bill Hicks would be all for socialized medicine.

[Glorious Leader]

I often hear people praise this guy called Jesus, and then only to find out they actually don't show the same empathy and solidarity as this guy supposedly did.

We are civilized human begins, therefore we take care of ourselves and our neighbors. We have empathy, so therefore we care about others. We believe in the goodness of humans and we try to encourage and work towards that as a reality for everyone. There is no "us vs. them" mentality, there is just "us".

That's a BINGO. The sad reality to is that solidarity is in the interest of everyone. This constant quest for self gain and self aggrandizement will doom the species. The vile maxim will consign this species to oblivion. All for ourselves and nothing for other people...

---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 05:06 PM ----------

Pretty sure Bill Hicks would be all for socialized medicine.

Bill Hicks recognized the fascist corporate state in america was the single biggest threat to liberty and freedom. He would indeed welcome socialized medicine as a means to overcome the massive healthcare industry.

[Catta]

And yet, I was on welfare, medicare, food-stamps etc growing up and have since payed back way more into the system then I ever took out. My mother was able to put herself through medical school due to such programs and has likewise done far more then the comparative cost to society. So while I appreciate that you wish I had just died rather then become successful, I must with all respect say "no you".

I was on welfare, for 2 months, and now i am in Medical School as well... Dem moochers!

[Endus]

No. Strength in negotiation is good for everyone. But if you think a monopoly is bad, I'm not sure how you can approve of a monopsony.

Because it's not a monopsony. You're trying to apply that term, but it doesn't fit, since Canada (as an example) isn't the entire market. We're a single nation, and the market is international.

We're a strong customer, with a lot of buying power, but we are by no means the only one. If that's your claim, then you're basing your entire argument on a lie.

Really? Then why don't you point out to me how much better things were during the times when there was no global superpower? How were things back when the UK stepped back from colonialism and before the US ended its isolationism? Must've been pretty spectacular with no power grabs whatsoever, right?

I'm pointing out that nothing's really changed between now and then. I'm not saying it was better, then, I'm saying it's no better, today. Edit: Speaking with regards to military conflict; the world's improved overall in other ways, of course.

For most people, the wars don't really matter that much to the people in general. WWI/II and the Cold War were the exceptions, not the rule, since those were the first times the world itself seemed to be at risk, rather than wars being relatively regional and in limited battlefields. And those three wars were because of superpowers, not despite them.

[Catta]

That's a BINGO. The sad reality to is that solidarity is in the interest of everyone. This constant quest for self gain and self aggrandizement will doom the species. The vile maxim will consign this species to oblivion. All for ourselves and nothing for other people...

We just say bingo...

Anyway, I dont think there is anything wrong to work to better one's own situation but it shouldnt be to the detriment to the rest of society.

[Laize]

Then why are we not in Africa too?

Because Africa is largely comprised of countries that have only been independent nations since 1960. In addition, these nations weren't set on training wheels and let go (as India) nor were they fully colonized by Europeans (as The US and Canada). They were primitive nations who had first world civilization forced upon them. Then the European nations just said "see ya!" and left them to their own with all the technology in the world to kill each other with.

African instability is one of the few things the United States didn't really have a hand in.

[Glorious Leader]

We just say bingo...

Anyway, I dont think there is anything wrong to work to better one's own situation but it shouldnt be to the detriment to the rest of society.

BINGO! HOW FUN!

I agree but in terms of healthcare I think you want to give people some reassurance that they won't be left to die in the streets. Now the law is such that that won't happen. In principle and in law the united states already recognizes that they won't let this happen so were not really having a question of taking care of your fellow man, were in actuality having a conversation of the most effecient way to do it. Having people spam the emergency room is not the best way.

[Orlong]

Just to add to this Canada's national debt is about 1/3rd that of the US per capita. Socialized Health Care isn't the issue.

Canada also has to pay very little if any for national defense since the US pretty much protects Canada with their defense

[Glorious Leader]

Because Africa is largely comprised of countries that have only been independent nations since 1960. In addition, these nations weren't set on training wheels and let go (as India) nor were they fully colonized by Europeans (as The US and Canada). They were primitive nations who had first world civilization forced upon them. Then the European nations just said "see ya!" and left them to their own with all the technology in the world to kill each other with.

African instability is one of the few things the United States didn't really have a hand in.

Largely because the instability in africa is a result of the former imperialist powers leaving and creating power vaccuums. If the united states had been a larger imperial power 100 years or so ago it would be a different story. The united states is a relative new comer to the empire scene. Actually that's not even entirely true. The united states does maintain military bases in Africa.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...r-bases-sahara