Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Bull ****ing ****! What do you think the mandate is for, or the statements of those same liberal politicians saying that this bill was the "first step" to UHC.
With what? You got owned.For health care reform. Not socialism. Keep up.
With what? You got owned.
Whatever. 10 Characters.So, this is where you pronounce your own victory as if that means something?
Look, good people are working for comprehensive reform, needed reform. It will be a long process, and we need more than the mess we got so far, but a first step has to be taken before you can have a second step. What are you not getting?
Whatever. 10 Characters.
Nah. I'm pretty much done with you.Well, I would love to continue with that stellar rebuttal, but it's later. Perhaps we'll chat tomorrow.
You're just dodging the question Boo. Would the industry itself be socialized or would it not?
Sure, if you call a direct answer dodging. :lamo
You still have not answered whether or not European health care is a socialized industry or not. It's a simple yes or no answer.
I don't know how to get more specific than no. I even explained why.
For the future, understand that yes and no questions are not good questions. Mostly dishonest people who are trying to skew a debate ask such questions. So, while I clearly gave you that simpliton answer, you should seek explaination, if your honest that is.
Industry isn't controlled by the government. The first one has to be true before you can move on. Regualtions and limited involvement does not equal control. Socialism isn't socialism until all or most of industry is controlled by te government.Then tell me what is wrong with my logic.
The industry is controlled by the government.
The government is controlled by the people.
Therefore the industry is controlled by the people.
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option"
For all the talk about how his GOP Candidate says some wild things... where is the accountability for old Harry
Yup, crazy old Harry Reid. And guess what? I actually agree that he is crazy. So why in the hell did the GOP run someone against him who is so nutty that she actually makes him look sane?
Industry isn't controlled by the government. The first one has to be true before you can move on. Regualtions and limited involvement does not equal control. Socialism isn't socialism until all or most of industry is controlled by te government.
Yup, crazy old Harry Reid. And guess what? I actually agree that he is crazy. So why in the hell did the GOP run someone against him who is so nutty that she actually makes him look sane?
So then what is it? Half socialism? 3/4? What's the percentage?
Something different. Not prue capitalsim and not prue socialism. Calling it socialism is lying. And calling it prue capitalism is lying. But it isn't new. We haven't had prue capitalism since the great depression. Even beforethat actually.
You're right, we've never had capitalism in this country. Say Boo, have you looked at my thread in the health care forum? You might find it interesting. Maybe UHC isn't the answer to skyrocketing prices. Maybe the problem is too much government intervention. Also, the European healthcare industry is much more socialized than our own.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/health-care/77819-did-healthcare-problems-start.html - Read that first post thoroughly.
How would it mean far less health care for many if we had more doctors?
1 issue at a time here. Would getting rid of the restrictions put in place on the advice of the Flexner Report lead to more doctors and hence lower prices?
Well, they all work together, but in a word, . . . NO.
As the artcile back then showed, many areas were saturated with doctors, and yet costs went up, not down.
Part of that articel, not all of it, was showing that medicince simply didn't respond the way other parts of the market place did. I was younger then, working as a nurse (LPN / EMT), and very interested in this subject. I later worked in medical sales and other related areas. I have seen nothing to make me doubt this claim.
Doctors are a small part of the cost. We need more doctors now, and efforts are in the bill to get more. But you will not see costs go down due to there being more doctors.
The article never said that.
The article never said that either.
More supply does not lead to lower costs? I need an amazing explanation for this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?