Do you support universal health care? Why or why not?

[BeepBoo]

If you're standing there watching that puppy drown, saying "why should I save the puppy?", then yes. You lack empathy, and don't really feel anything for the puppy.

Feeling something for the puppy and understanding how the puppy feels are two entirely different things. If I've ever felt desperate before, I know how the puppy is feeling. If the puppy is drowning and unable to save itself, it's pretty fucking easy to see that, yep, it would probably be feeling pretty desperate. Asking me to feel something FOR the puppy itself is an extra step empathy itself doesn't necessitate by definition.

One more time. I can know how a homeless man feels without feeling the slightest bit of sympathy or compassion. Empathy is strictly the ability to place yourself in someone else's shoes to understand why and what they're feeling. Not feeling anything as a result of knowing those two things.

The USA isn't doing "fine" by a whole wide range of metrics. Including health care.

Metrics only tell part of the story, and methinks your metrics include dumb stuff like "per capita" that I'm not concerned with. A country isn't measured by the state of its weakest link to me, it's measured by it's strongest. I wouldn't care if the population of the US had an average 100 meter dash time faster than the rest of the world's average populations. BUT I definitely take pride if the US has the single fastest human alive.

[AeneasBK]

Justs as the case in the US, the UK should be able to provide a better quality of both Health and Education. in the US, our issues are at the state level when it comes to education. There is way too much financial waste, and too little financial support makes its way to the students and teachers. I don't know anything about the financial support of education in the UK, but i'd expect that the money exists, it is just being mishandled and wasted.

Yeah but as pointed out in the first response to this thread, you can't touch the NHS in the UK it's political suicide so we're just gonna have this bloated waste of money forever until a government can sneak in a sell off (as they've been doing piecemeal since the 90s). I'd rather turn around to a 40 year old and say "Sorry you're on your own at this stage, pay for your own insulin" and afford children a proper future than to turn our backs on kids and say "You're on your own, we've got to get Fatty McDrinksAllDay a new liver".

Yes idealy the money would exist for both. But at the moment we're spending 3x as much on the one than the other and I think that's fucking mental.

[Endus]

Feeling something for the puppy and understanding how the puppy feels are two entirely different things. If I've ever felt desperate before, I know how the puppy is feeling. If the puppy is drowning and unable to save itself, it's pretty fucking easy to see that, yep, it would probably be feeling pretty desperate. Asking me to feel something FOR the puppy itself is an extra step empathy itself doesn't necessitate by definition.

It literally does. Your own definition did exactly that.

Not only do you lack empathy, you don't even know what the word means, when it's written out for you.

[BeepBoo]

It literally does. Your own definition did exactly that.

Not only do you lack empathy, you don't even know what the word means, when it's written out for you.

"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." Sharing in their feelings doesn't mean I'm concerned about them or have any desire to change them. I've been sad when a death has occurred, but that doesn't mean I'd reverse that death even if I had the power to. It's perfectly fine to be left sad and not want to change the situation at all. Stop trying to tie emotional responses to reactions or actions.

[Endus]

"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." Sharing in their feelings doesn't mean I'm concerned about them or have any desire to change them.

That's literally what it means. That's why it's separate from "understand". Because an intellectual understanding of what they're feeling is not sufficient for empathy to exist.

[BeepBoo]

That's literally what it means. That's why it's separate from "understand". Because an intellectual understanding of what they're feeling is not sufficient for empathy to exist.

*citation needed*

You need to look up the definitions of the distinctly different concepts of sympathy, empathy, and compassion.

[Endus]

*citation needed*

Literally your own definition, which you clearly can not parse properly.

You keep talking about your intellectual understanding of how another entity feels, when your definition is clear that you must also share that feeling. That doesn't mean you're sad that the puppy is dying. It means you are panicking and wanting the puppy to live, like the puppy is feeling. You share in that same feeling. Literally right there, in a single sentence format, and you can't figure out what it means.

[BeepBoo]

Literally your own definition, which you clearly can not parse properly.

You keep talking about your intellectual understanding of how another entity feels, when your definition is clear that you must also share that feeling. That doesn't mean you're sad that the puppy is dying. It means you are panicking and wanting the puppy to live, like the puppy is feeling. You share in that same feeling. Literally right there, in a single sentence format, and you can't figure out what it means.

https://miro.medium.com/max/3200/1*O...dXvIpaJd-Q.png

Also, feeling as the puppy does would be saying "I'm drowning, I don't want to drown!" Well good news, I'm not actually drowning. It's strictly the ability for me to put myself in someone else's shoes and feel as if it were happening to me.

I in no way empathize though and am finding it funny.

Yes, and if I've been through that I clearly know how they feel and can also empathize while ALSO finding it funny. If I'm not some pathetic excuse for a human I can also theorize what it feels like without having to have experienced something directly myself and still manage to empathize.

[Endus]

https://miro.medium.com/max/3200/1*O...dXvIpaJd-Q.png

And? You've clearly been putting your personal perspective at the level of "pity", in your own words.

[BeepBoo]

And? You've clearly been putting your personal perspective at the level of "pity", in your own words.

Again, remind me where feeling suffering compels a person to want to change it. I've felt suffering and had absolutely no desire to do anything about it. It's really easy to compartmentalize this stuff. You're after compassion. Period. And I decline to be compassionate unless I feel like it.

[Endus]

Again, remind me where feeling suffering compels a person to want to change it. I've felt suffering and had absolutely no desire to do anything about it. It's really easy to compartmentalize this stuff.

If you don't want to end someone else's suffering, you're not feeling that suffering yourself.

That's the entire point. You have a solely intellectual understanding of their suffering. That's been the point the entire time. I would venture that the reason you can't grasp this is because you literally do not have the capacity to feel empathy, and thus have no frame of reference for understanding what the word means.

[BeepBoo]

If you don't want to end someone else's suffering, you're not feeling that suffering yourself.

I've felt suffering and had absolutely no desire to do anything about it.

Plz explain how this is possible, then? "Oh, you haven't experienced TRUE suffering if you don't want to change it!" Mhmm.

Empathy does not necessitate compassion no matter what you say. They are two entirely separate things.

[Endus]

Plz explain how this is possible, then? "Oh, you haven't experienced TRUE suffering if you don't want to change it!" Mhmm.

It isn't.

You didn't feel that suffering. That's the point. You just had an intellectual grasp that the other person/creature must be suffering.

Your entire position here is about defending your opposition to universal healthcare, because you support the maintenance of a certain level of human suffering so that you can, in theory, have a little bit more spending money. That you lack empathy is pretty goddamned clear.

[BeepBoo]

You just had an intellectual grasp that the other person/creature must be suffering.

Nope, I've balled my eyes out for DAYS and felt as sad as anyone ever has in life due to death, and I still never once wished "Just please make them come back."

[draynay]

I voted but didn't post, yes I support it, why? Because I'm not a sociopath.

[shimerra]

Fair enough. Wasn't trying to particularly promote the current USA system as being good. I'm from the UK and it's how I feel about the NHS, it's a big waste of money that could be better spent on schools and education. I've waxed on the topic before here and can't really be arsed to go into it more I'll just accept other people think "it's pretty dumb".

It's mostly because I went to public school and also to my local state school and was made painfully aware of the dearth of opportunity* offered state students (and I was attending a well rated state school at that). If we took the 200b we waste keeping fat smokers and pensioners alive another year and spent it on kids education we'd have a utopia in a few generations.

But I guess we better keep 90 year olds alive on life support instead. Go figure.

*Disregarding the Old Boys network type of opportunities.

I'd rather turn around to a 40 year old and say "Sorry you're on your own at this stage, pay for your own insulin" and afford children a proper future than to turn our backs on kids and say "You're on your own, we've got to get Fatty McDrinksAllDay a new liver".

My bad. Wasn't thinking about the opinions being from folks who live in countries with the system already given all the talk about the US. But I can tell you your "bloated NHS budget" is much preferable to the alternative.

Not all diabetics are that way because of eating. My uncle is diabetic because of a particularly rare auto immune disorder. Nothing in his diet caused it or would have changed that.

Looking at the fat 40 year old diabetic you deem unworthy and saying no isn't what actually happens in that situation. While I can't speak to the UK as well your systems are generally more generous than ours so you can take this example and make it worse cost wise for the UK. That 40 year old you decided you'd rather not pay for who gets his foot lopped off and a few fingers because insulin was too much for now goes on disability/unemployment. Now he's less productive as he's lost a limb and nerve damage is starting to make the ones he has less useful. Which means they pay less taxes and he's draining more money from welfare/jobless claims than he was needing insulin to manage the condition.

Do you have any idea how long you could pay for someone's insulin for just the cost of one amputation? Average cost for UK is $532.00 a year. And based on the info I saw the UK does overpay a bit. Amputation surgeries in the US, couldn't find the UK, are anywhere between $30,000-$60,000 for the initial hospital cost and then that cost again for follow up care. And we still have the chance they'd need more surgery because you still don't want to pay for their insulin and cutting off their foot didn't get rid of the diabetes. You could've paid for 30 years of a person's insulin and had a more economically useful person vs the massive waste by denying him care and then having to provide emergency care when their limb is rotting. That's a terrible fucking plan and unless you also propose 100% denying anyone who doesn't pass your healthy/fitness worthiness test any medical treatment fixes nothing and makes things worse.

I'll use the same example I use for anti-vaxxers. Which do you think big pharma prefers, using the American system which is for profit: you paying once a handful of bucks for a vaccine or you paying thousands in drugs, doctors, and medical supplies when you're hospitalized because you got measles? Paying for the 40 year old's insulin is the same as vaccinating. Not paying for the insulin is the same as just letting body parts fall off and paying a shit ton more for welfare/hospitalization, except in your system you're not even padding profit. Just causing costs to go up even more than the high level you feel they're at. You "fixed" one problem by making a bigger one.

This isn't just you don't like that some people get medical care and get to decide who you think is deserving to cut costs. It's a straight up bad way to address the problem you claim to want to solve. All you did was move the bloat from the NHS to whoever handles your unemployment/disability claims. Not to mention those children you mentioned can also get diabetes and you're basically arguing against them getting care too if they need care for something you deem unworthy.


My Grandma was also a smoker who died of cancer. Started basically before it was widespread/known the health dangers, which seem obvious now but weren't then, and during a time where Tabaco companies were doing their best to suppress the info it was bad. She quit decades before she got cancer/die and was otherwise quite healthy. Nice to know you think she should've been denied care as well. Sure hope that the people in charge don't feel the same way you do when you get old and almost definitely need some type of care that you're currently deeming wasteful.


I'm not saying there aren't waste/issues with universal system or the NHS. But your solution creates more problems than it fixes. You're saving money in one area only to pay more in another. The reality is that people are living longer. And basic logic, and available evidence, shows us that young people generally get away with relatively little medical care. Old people have issues galore. So unless you think that we should just stop trying to keep people alive after a certain age your actual issue appears to be with just the simple biological reality that older animals tend to get sicker/need more medical care and will take up a bigger share of the costs.


Your fatty McDrinksAllDay guy would also be basically 100% denied that new liver. Alcoholism is one of many factors that puts you at the very bottom of a transplant list. The only alcoholic getting a liver transplant is basically getting it because the liver would have to be thrown in the bin because no one else who needs a liver can accept it because there are time limits to when organs can be transplanted. And just like when government agencies spend money they don't need just to make sure funding isn't cut next year or other forms of waste I don't see that as the best option.

[shimerra]

This doesn't actually exist, tbf.

While I agree that's what the facts indicate I generally take the approach with people of accepting some parts of their premise as true and showing that they'd still be wrong. I'll also admit I don't know the UK's systems/realities as well as the US so I'd prefer to not speak to things I don't know as best I can.

In this case the NHS being bloated isn't the issue for the point I was trying to make, so I just accepted/ignored it to address the bigger issue which was cutting costs by denying care to those he deemed not worthy of said care because accepting or denying his claims of NHS bloat is irrelevant. If it is like he claims and the NHS budget is bloated and wasteful then his "solutions" fix nothing and make the problem worse. If it isn't then he's fixing nothing and just making things worse.

[Zan15]

"The south has solved the "labor" problem we have in the north. It's actually a very simple solution."

Wait are you really trying to...i mean really?

Just because we know how to forcefully solve a problem doesn't make the solution good. I'd rather we tackle it in another way (one that plagues all markets, not just medical) and remove IP laws altogether. Ideas are not physical goods. They should not be ownable.

.

no it doesn't but in this case the solution has already been proven to be "good" if not great.
Done the right way it benefits the whole economy more than it plagues. Like any action there are winners and losers, but that is why universal healthcare in combination with work programs, unemployment benefits, universal income, etc would limit the fallout and lessen the pain

"

Same thing above. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Why should I care about someone else to the point where I shoulder their burden or shortcoming? Leave that to themselves or people who know and love them. I'll resort to the same for myself. I refuse to burden other people with my problems, especially when I know they have no good reason to care about me. What is wrong with lifestyle disparity within a country? I see nothing wrong. The quality of humans has no artificial floor on it (meaning you can have people who are completely and wholly incapable to the point they can only be a burden) so why should lifestyle have an artificial floor?


"Wanting to live AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLE BEING FORCED TO HELP THEM" Fixed. Why can't I turn my nose up and acknowledge the reality of the situation which is that my life won't be noticeably, appreciably, or actually impacted at all if someone on the other side of the country dies? I'm happy to extend the same courtesy to everyone else in regards to myself.

there are always people above you who are burdened with "you and your family" but they support supporting you guys.

People have already been over this with you a hundred times so I won't bother in this thread how much you benefit from other people shouldering part of your burden.

Let me know the next time we are at "war" that your whole family, including the kids have enlisted and are directly fighting in the war. You don't want those enlisted men in the army fighting on your behalf. You don't want to be a burden to anyone!!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah but as pointed out in the first response to this thread, you can't touch the NHS in the UK it's political suicide so we're just gonna have this bloated waste of money forever until a government can sneak in a sell off (as they've been doing piecemeal since the 90s). I'd rather turn around to a 40 year old and say "Sorry you're on your own at this stage, pay for your own insulin" and afford children a proper future than to turn our backs on kids and say "You're on your own, we've got to get Fatty McDrinksAllDay a new liver".

Yes idealy the money would exist for both. But at the moment we're spending 3x as much on the one than the other and I think that's fucking mental.

3x as much because the population difference between the two buckets???

Also did you factor in those 40 year old's are basically paying for both systems with their taxes while the bucket of people in school are not paying shit. Subtract out their tax payments i am sure that 3x becomes something entirely lower.

- - - Updated - - -

its sweet that you all think that drastically changing the laws in this country is not as difficult as I think it is. given our history... given how some people are still surprised that Trump won at all and the only reason they can think of is racism (its not the only reason, its the reason for some, but NOT for half the country)

Again no one said it would be easy. ACA was supposed to be an impossibility too.

on triage. I cannot be triaged if i cannot get in to be seen in a first place.

Yes you can.

i

. if there is a wait list for an appointment, I'm not getting in beforehand. currently, my one recourse if something worsens is emergency room. not every change in condition is WORTH going to emergency room. so its a catch 22. do you go to an emergency room for non emergency. do you wait until it becomes an emergency?

No you can go to a clinic, urgent care facility, your primary care doctor/specialist can bump you up and see you sooner, etc etc. that is the point of Triage. Its not a one and done process.

i



on infrastructure. I have a feeling that a lot of you live in larger cities. places that do have more infrastructure and because there are more people in smaller space - you end up with more choices. I missed that thing from Endus yesterday, where he just changed his doctor. I. don't have. that option. if I want to stay covered. that doctor? is it.

Lived in upstate new york where our local "hospital" did not even have a cardiac care unit. They had to fly you over to Vermont if you had a heart attack.
Ever see Canada on a map where it shows where the population is in the country?

i

Again, from my research, the quality and acess to healthcare in Canada varies quite a bit, depending on a province and even which part of the province. now take that and apply it to US and its going to be much worse, because YES our infrastructure in some areas is worse then a third world country. take high speed internet and its availability and costs and how much they vary depending on locations. and internet is a small thing compared to healthcare.

No offence but its already been proven your research is lacking in many ways. If you really want to know you should throw out what you think you have learned as facts and read up on the system(s).

i


and I mean... guy like above? is not special, unique or uncommon. a LOT of people believe that way. now go ahead, try to convince them to vote otherwise, to act otherwise. still think its going to be easy to pass those sweeping laws.

Almost every poll has the majority of the country supporting universal healthcare.
We already have massive support for Medicare, VA and Medicaid...you know....universal care lite.

It wasn't easy giving women the right to vote either....

I. WANT. universal healthcare. I actualy grew up with one, and I did NOT and still do not enjoy the uncertainty, or outright dread of living with the system we have right now. what I do NOT believe is that it can be accomplished in this country in a way that you all think it can be, or as quickly as you all think it can be. this country needs major changes AND consistent leadership at all levels of the government - not just in oval office - for longer then 4, or even 8 years, to not only make the changes, but make those changes STICK. and that's not going to happen until you stop looking at everyone not voting the way you do an instead of trying to figure out why or what would convince them to change their stance, you just dismiss them as racists. (and yeah, sure, some are. some. not even remotely all)

Don't disagree at all but that would not stop me from pushing it to happen just because its going to be hard. Just like i don't want to give up on the ACA just because an entire party decided to blow off its own foot when it comes to the ACA. When the majority of people who benefit from the ACA happen to also be part of that party.

[BeepBoo]

Let me know the next time we are at "war" that your whole family, including the kids have enlisted and are directly fighting in the war. You don't want those enlisted men in the army fighting on your behalf. You don't want to be a burden to anyone!!

The hope is those people are doing those things of their own volition and not because the government is pointing a gun at them telling them "do this, or jail."

[Elegiac]

The hope is those people are doing those things of their own volition and not because the government is pointing a gun at them telling them "do this, or jail."

Nah they just do it with the threat of poverty rather than guns, which is totally different to you people for reasons.