Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for actually answering the question.In other words, ESB's pretend problem with UHC is just stupid fear-mongering at best.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Is it simply fear-mongering though? That's a sincere question because I don't have an in depth knowledge on the policies of countries with true UHC. Are doctors/hospitals in those countries allowed to refuse the insurance?
Private doctors, yes. And that's the same in the US: private doctors can pretty much refuse any patient, carte blanche.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I would assume no. Surely they are not allowed to turn away patients? It would be weird if the US had stricter laws on this.
Originally posted by darthgoober
As far as I know, they're not allowed to turn away emergency patients, but they are allowed to refuse insurance policies and turn away non emergency cases who can't pay.
Wow, so European UHC systems (in general) are more relaxed than the US when it comes to refusing patient care? Do you know why this might be the case? I know that UHC general means "you have insurance for medical care" but it doesn't mean every licensed healthcare professional has to see you.
I know some French people look down on NHS in the UK (they believe theirs is superior because they have choices and options).
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow, so European UHC systems (in general) are more relaxed than the US when it comes to refusing patient care? Do you know why this might be the case? I know that UHC general means "you have insurance for medical care" but it doesn't mean every licensed healthcare professional has to see you.I know some French people look down on NHS in the UK (they believe theirs is superior because they have choices and options).
Cool, so you are all just going to pretend you did not see this post by this degenerate:
Originally posted by JMANGO
Any sort of referendum on guns would drive up the crime rates of inner cities very bigly. As prohibition does. The reason these shitholes will reamain shitholes is simply the great mistake of America. Taking blacks outside of Africa. Look at all the beautiful places they’ve utterly ruined. just picture Haiti, Chicago even Brazil nog free. Whitie can take a stone cold volcanic hell such as Iceland and make it a nice place to live. Think about what they could do with absolute control of the luscious tropics and legendary cities of generations past.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cool, so you are all just going to pretend you did not see this post by this degenerate:
I have never see the word "nog" before. And I don't like it used that way. I love Eggnog. People taking something dear to me and repurposing it into something racist, rustles my jimmies.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have never see the word "nog" before. And I don't like it used that way. I love Eggnog. People taking something dear to me and repurposing it into something racist, rustles my jimmies.
It's a spin of "nig-nog" which is a British racial slang towards a black person; he's used it before.
Originally posted by Surtur
7 Dead in Australia’s Worst Mass Shooting Since 1996Awful.
Ok, Surtur, I'll take the bait:
I have a few ideas about why this happened.
This situation could have been avoided if they had stricter gun laws. And if they implemented a gun buy-back program to help remove some guns from circulation, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
Don't Australians know about what Australia did in 1996 after that horrific mass shooting? They made very strict gun laws to make it harder for bad guys to do this kind of thing. And they started a gun buy back program that quickly got many guns removed from circulation. If only Australians knew what Australians did to prevent mass shootings.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ok, Surtur, I'll take the bait:I have a few ideas about why this happened.
This situation could have been avoided if they had stricter gun laws. And if they implemented a gun buy-back program to help remove some guns from circulation, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
Don't Australians know about what Australia did in 1996 after that horrific mass shooting? They made very strict gun laws to make it harder for bad guys to do this kind of thing. And they started a gun buy back program that quickly got many guns removed from circulation. If only Australians knew what Australians did to prevent mass shootings.
I feel like if they adopted a program like Australia did they could prevent this from ever happening. The place this happened should just enact whatever measures Australia took so it never happens again. Like in Australia.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This situation could have been avoided if they had stricter gun laws. And if they implemented a gun buy-back program to help remove some guns from circulation, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.Don't Australians know about what Australia did in 1996 after that horrific mass shooting? They made very strict gun laws to make it harder for bad guys to do this kind of thing. And they started a gun buy back program that quickly got many guns removed from circulation. If only Australians knew what Australians did to prevent mass shootings.
Well the issue in determining whether a buyback program was effect in Australia to begin with was the fact that Australia had so few mass shootings to begin with. So after the buyback when the number dropped to zero (prior to this latest one) it was within the margin of error. And also, the Australian buyback program confiscated around 650,000 guns or about 1/3-1/5 of the guns in Australia. Even though that by 2010, the gun levels in Australia rose to the point where they were as many guns in circulation as there were before the gun buyback:
If that helped then guns death would have increased as guns came back into circulation. That didn't happen.
Also, a study from the University of Melbourne in 2008 says that the 1996 buyback program has, "not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths." A 2007 from the British Journal of Criminology also came to such conclusions. The study did say that the buyback resulted in lower firearm suicides (though it did see an initial spike in non-firearm suicides for the next couple of years with a decline after).
And John Lott (president of the Crime Prevention Research Center) has wrote that buyback programs simply don't work for several reasons.
Then you'll have to explain why a country like Switzerland with 2 million privately owned guns in a population of 8.3 million, has an overall murder rate that is nearly zero with just 47 homicides by firearms in the past two decades. Their deadliest mass shooting was in 2001 with resulted in 14 dead and that was the last mass shooting that country has had. The overall homicide rate in Australia is 0.98 per 100,000 people against Switzerland with 0.69 per 100,000.
So you can point to Australia all day but I can just point to Switzerland.
And finally there's just the difficulty of comparing these types of things across nations for several reasons. One if that the population of Australia is less than 10% that of the United States and Australia is a much more homogeneous society (very much like Switzerland) than the United States is.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Well the issue in determining whether a buyback program was effect in Australia to begin with was the fact that Australia had so few mass shootings to begin with. So after the buyback when the number dropped to zero (prior to this latest one) it was within the margin of error. And also, the Australian buyback program confiscated around 650,000 guns or about 1/3-1/5 of the guns in Australia. Even though that by 2010, the gun levels in Australia rose to the point where they were as many guns in circulation as there were before the gun buyback:If that helped then guns death would have increased as guns came back into circulation. That didn't happen.
Also, a study from the University of Melbourne in 2008 says that the 1996 buyback program has, "not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths." A 2007 from the British Journal of Criminology also came to such conclusions. The study did say that the buyback resulted in lower firearm suicides (though it did see an initial spike in non-firearm suicides for the next couple of years with a decline after).
And John Lott (president of the Crime Prevention Research Center) has wrote that buyback programs simply don't work for several reasons.
Then you'll have to explain why a country like Switzerland with 2 million privately owned guns in a population of 8.3 million, has an overall murder rate that is nearly zero with just 47 homicides by firearms in the past two decades. Their deadliest mass shooting was in 2001 with resulted in 14 dead and that was the last mass shooting that country has had. The overall homicide rate in Australia is 0.98 per 100,000 people against Switzerland with 0.69 per 100,000.
So you can point to Australia all day but I can just point to Switzerland.
And finally there's just the difficulty of comparing these types of things across nations for several reasons. One if that the population of Australia is less than 10% that of the United States and Australia is a much more homogeneous society (very much like Switzerland) than the United States is.
Not sure if serious...
Guys, someone...someone help ESB. He needs lots of help. Someone explain to him the point of my obvious joke post...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cool, so you are all just going to pretend you did not see this post by this degenerate:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have never see the word "nog" before. And I don't like it used that way. I love Eggnog. People taking something dear to me and repurposing it into something racist, rustles my jimmies.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
I wasn't interested in replying to someone who is just so obviously racist. I try not to give them the acknowledgement they so desperately want.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's a spin of "nig-nog" which is a British racial slang towards a black person; he's used it before.
I know. F*ck me for never wanting the Atlantic Slave Trade to happen, right?