Originally posted by KidRock
But..the government IS letting him die..I thought socialized government care was suppose to prevent all this?
19 deaths at VA traced to substandard care
Two federal reports find fault with 6 doctors at Ill. hospital
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22896435/
Lawmakers Want Answers to Reports of Poor Conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253154,00.html
Quality government health care. Coming soon to a hospital near you!
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Come down to Rose Hospital in Colorado. Check out the awesome private run conditions that have resulted in over 300 cases of Hepatitis C and hundredes of deaths from MSRA infections, including my friend's sister.
Your point?
Terrible private health care = bad
Terrible government health care = good
Right?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No... absolutely no-one is saying that kidrock. Everyone, in fact, has agreed that terrible care is terrible no matter what the source.Don't get into trolling territory.
And so I asked him, "your point?"
He is completely against private healthcare, which he finds to be substandard.
Yet he is completely for a public option, which has shown to be just as substandard in quality.
So what exactly is he saying?
Originally posted by KidRock
Your point?Terrible private health care = bad
Terrible government health care = good
Right?
Originally posted by KidRock
So what is the difference between an insurance company in a Private health care society that denies someone coverage and the government in a public style that denies people life saving operations?
I'm waiting for the punch line...
like, seriously?
you think a single instance of someone being f'ed around by the system is a sign that the entire enterprise is defunct? like, people in this thread have talked about diabetics being hassled about test strips and insulin. There are some much more basic issues in the American style system than in any public system at this point. That single individuals are dying in any system is wrong, but like, again, do you really want to start a tally of the poor who die in America because they can't afford it, or of people with coverage who are f'ed around?
I've said many times that the whole public v private debate to me is academic and for people more interested in being morally right than in any pragmatic solutions to medical care. If America can make a private system that covers all its people better than a public one, I would sing its praises, but as it stands, it doesn't. Even its supposed benefits are not mutually exclusive with public system.
In my opinion, devotion to private medicine is a philosophical position, and really shouldn't be a basis of political debate until there are some solid numbers about how a private system could meet the needs of a population.
Anything that has money to be made in it cannot be working in the favour of people of whom their profits depend.
That is JUST a fact.
I worked in banking - believe me - when we tell you invest, invest, get an overdraft, get a loan, we're not saying that so we can provide you with assets, but so that my portfolio value will grow calculated on how much interest you'll pay me back, and if you don't how much of your property bank will repossess.
I win anyway.
Health care that profits will be looking to profit not to make you healthy.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm waiting for the punch line...like, seriously?
you think a single instance of someone being f'ed around by the system is a sign that the entire enterprise is defunct?
Yeah, because this is the only instance of how substandard and terrible a public health system is, right.
Originally posted by inimalist
individuals are dying in any system is wrong, but like, again, do you really want to start a tally of the poor who die in America because they can't afford it
Millions of people have health insurance and get treatment..these people brought it upon themselves by not getting adequate insurance.
On the other hand the Government just let this person die in the NHS system.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Anything that has money to be made in it cannot be working in the favour of people of whom their profits depend.
That is JUST a fact.
I disagree. Profit is a powerful motivator, if you hurt the people you make money from or drive them away you lose profit. That's the heart of capitalism at any level.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, but it is equally within their interests to keep them sick to make more money out of them. People being well make them no money at all, whilst in social care that is the objective.I have no issue with the profit motive; it is simply entirely inappropriate for health care.
It's within whose interest to keep people sick to keep making money off them?