Creepy Old Joe wasn’t addled.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
I kept thinking he musta ripped 2 lines in the snortatorium backstage like it was the 80’s. He had to be chemically enhanced.
Creepy Old Joe wasn’t addled.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
I kept thinking he musta ripped 2 lines in the snortatorium backstage like it was the 80’s. He had to be chemically enhanced.
Joe still had his gaffs calling things the wrong name etc.
Bottom line, Bernie does NOT want to win, he has the heart of a loser, no desire to crush Joe or point out and move on his weaknesses. Trump will do so and destroy him.
The only real question is, what is Bernie's angle, save face?
The guy just doesn’t pander for votes. Take him or leave him. He doesn’t care. The guy has personal integrity in a filthy game. Gotta respect thatQuote:
Originally Posted by DonaldTrumpsHairPiece
The US oil industry and the banks that lend to them just got shook to their knees by ROPEC. He’s up there preaching green and anti-fracking at their funeral. You just shake your head. Stay pure old dude.
He will be remembered like H Ross Perot. An outsider that had a deep run.
The Kremlin will erect a statue and he will have achieved some kind of immortality. He moved the conversation a little.
I think he’s fine with that. I don’t think he wants anything more. This isn’t a pragmatic guy who is gonna swap favors.
He was interesting. Now I’m going to need to be physically threatened before I can muster the energy to vote in the general election. So bad.
Trump was frightening and scary this afternoon after the rate cut. I really can’t believe the Presidential election process. Utter collapse.
honestly its kinda fucking insane that bernie's biggest platform, free medical care for everyone, is what this country needs most right now and somehow hes still not going to win.
:no2Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
That's not at all what we need right now.
To expand upon what I posted above, socialized medicine is not known for its availability of care. In fact, it's quite the opposite. In socialized systems, everyone waits longer for care, but the entire cost is covered by the government.
The issues with coronavirus in the US were not caused by lack of ability of people to pay for care. Yes, there were a few isolated stories at the very beginning of people being unable to get tested because they had no insurance, but that was in the infancy of the whole thing, and it only applied to a very small number of people.
Socialized medicine would not have solved any of the problem. We would still have a lack of tests, still have a lack of protocol in place to deal with this unique virus, and still have a lack of coordination between state, local, and federal officials.
The truth is that we were caught with our pants down because disease threats in our lifetime hadn't amounted to any substantial threat, and it was hard to picture that a pandemic could really wreak so much havoc so quickly, nor did anyone take prepping for such a thing seriously. Credit to Bill Gates for recognizing this situation years ago and vocalizing it. Now that lightning has struck, next time we will be far more prepared -- both in terms of emergency response and economic response.
Socialized medicine has nothing to do with that. Socialized medicine is about healthcare in normal times, not times of emergency. In Italy, where they do have socialized medicine, there are complaints that there aren't enough doctors to treat people, because many of the doctors fled the country over the years because they weren't making enough money under the socialized system. Oh, the irony.
The newly unemployed will be thrilled to hear this Druff.
Tying health care to employment is an antiquated idea dating back to its start during the Great Depression. Ironic, huh?
Prior to that folks really didn’t have health insurance so maybe it all works out.
If you were sent home by your employer - are you being forced to use you personal time off?
Particularly small business
I don’t want to hear from those moving files around on their laptop.
You can get tested for free, and hospitals are required to treat people who are in need of care (that's always been the case). Nobody is being denied tests or care when they have coronavirus today because they lack insurance or can't pay. Nobody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
Those who are out of a job can get a subsidized Obamacare plan and either pay nothing or very little for it.
Socialized medicine would not help this one. Two different issues.
Sanlmar, you're an over-50 gentleman, like many of us here. I'm not there yet, but I'm close.
As the years go on, you're going to come down with lots of aches, pains, discomforts, and conditions which don't appear threatening, but definitely require tests and doctor visits.
Are you okay with changing our healthcare system to where it will take you 4+ months to see a specialist or get tests? As opposed to our current system, where you get these things done in days or at most weeks?
Because that's what we are looking at, and leftist supporters of socialized medicine don't really have an answer for that. Instead they crow about how much our system costs and how low our life expectancy is compared to the rest of the first world. The latter is especially dishonest, because our "low" life expectancy is a result of obesity, violence, and drug abuse, and not poor healthcare. If you take those behavioral factors out for every country, we actually rank #1 or #2 in life expectancy.
There's also quality of life.
Sure, you can live if you don't get your chronically aching back looked at or imaged for 4 months, but is that a pleasant way to live?
Other countries are "happy" with their healthcare because they don't know any better. If you grow up believing that it's normal to take 4 months to get tests done, you come to accept it. Until you come to the US and see how the socialized system is horrible by comparison.
The truth is your country is not united. You have 50 states with constitutional rights that work againstQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
cohesion in many aspects of government. It may not be the sole factor in this case but it has to be a
nightmare for the federal government to do it's job effectively. You're not one big team but 50 little ones.
As for getting caught with your pants down that is where the buck must stop at the highest office.
Doesn't matter whether you're under socialized medicine or not a threat to every nation was known
and not handled by some as well as others.
Yea that 4 months really isn't a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'm not sure of wait times in Europe but in Canada they are very long. My wife needs an MRI on her back, family doc referred her to a specialist, we are on week 6 waiting for a call back and after that scheduling of the MRI averages about 18 weeks. If she needs surgery there's another long wait period, usually another 16-18 weeks. A lot of people here in Alberta will choose to pay and have surgeries done in the USA to avoid the long wait times.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickYea that 4 months really isn't a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/nhs...es-in-england/Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickYea that 4 months really isn't a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Last I checked, 18 weeks is over 4 months.Quote:
The maximum waiting time for non-urgent, consultant-led treatments is 18 weeks from the day your appointment is booked through the NHS e-Referral Service, or when the hospital or service receives your referral letter.
Before you get pedantic and claim that it says "maximum" waiting time, be aware that the 18-week thing is actually being exceeded in many cases.
That same webpage says you also have to wait 2 weeks for suspected cancer, which already isn't good. In the US, you can get checked same-day for that. But wait! Turns out it's over 2 months to be checked for cancer!
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-c...-waiting-times
But yeah, that's totally the system we need in the US. What an upgrade!Quote:
Essential parts of the NHS in England are experiencing the worst performance against waiting times targets since the targets were set. This includes the highest proportion of people waiting more than four hours in A&E departments since 2004, and the highest proportion of people waiting over 18 weeks for non-urgent (but essential) hospital treatment since 2008.
The target for treating cancer patients within 62 days of urgent GP referral has not been met for over 5 years, and survey evidence suggests more people are experiencing lengthening delays in getting GP appointments.
Trust me.. I'm no young buck. If I thought socialized medicine would improve our system during my later years in life, I would be all for it, politics and taxes be damned.
But it would be a disaster, especially in a country using a system not already built for it. (That's a whole separate problem which is rarely discussed.)
It differs from country to country but usually there is a wait time for non acute tests and operations. We also have private option in Finland if you want something to happen fast. The 4 month wait really only applies to MRI type of deals. You can get blood work done in about 15mins and get results in a week. You might have to wait to see a specialist for a month or two (for the first time), but that's after a doctor has seen you.Quote:
Originally Posted by peter mcneilI'm not sure of wait times in Europe but in Canada they are very long. My wife needs an MRI on her back, family doc referred her to a specialist, we are on week 6 waiting for a call back and after that scheduling of the MRI averages about 18 weeks. If she needs surgery there's another long wait period, usually another 16-18 weeks. A lot of people here in Alberta will choose to pay and have surgeries done in the USA to avoid the long wait times.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Not sure if Druff knows, but NHS doesn't cover most of Europe.
Also while we're at it, in most parts of Europe, if you're willing to pay as much as Druff is, then you can see a doctor and whatever test you fancy just as fast.
For unknown reasons we're constantly comparing a wealthy American to whoever can only afford to use universal healthcare.
We aren't comparing wealthy Americans to typical Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
We are comparing to any American with health insurance, which is everyone who signed up for it.
The UK is the best comparison to the US. We can't compare low population countries like Finland (5.5 million) to the US, because that's apples and oranges.
The UK is a good example of a spread-out, large population country with socialized medicine, and you see the results.
Nope. You just keep equating NHS with universal healthcare and seem to be oblivious that private healthcare option is really common in countries with universal healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWe aren't comparing wealthy Americans to typical Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
We are comparing to any American with health insurance, which is everyone who signed up for it.
The UK is the best comparison to the US. We can't compare low population countries like Finland (5.5 million) to the US, because that's apples and oranges.
The UK is a good example of a spread-out, large population country with socialized medicine, and you see the results.
Oh and UK is smaller than Finland. They just have 10x the people.
If you bother looking at other countries besides UK...
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...erage-systems/
...like the study that was quoted in that article, you will find out that the whole waiting time thing isn't really real.
ps. nice of you to remove the 8-10% of American that aren't insured from this comparison btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickIt differs from country to country but usually there is a wait time for non acute tests and operations. We also have private option in Finland if you want something to happen fast. The 4 month wait really only applies to MRI type of deals. You can get blood work done in about 15mins and get results in a week. You might have to wait to see a specialist for a month or two (for the first time), but that's after a doctor has seen you.Quote:
Originally Posted by peter mcneil
mris are not a big deal at all and shouldn't take more than a week or two at most to have. they can spin those magnets 24 hours a day if they wanted.
Not if a million people try to sign up for them for every little issue because they're freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (well, free to them)Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
mris are not a big deal at all and shouldn't take more than a week or two at most to have. they can spin those magnets 24 hours a day if they wanted.
If there's any urgency it's faster. That's basically how the entire universal healthcare system works. That's how we get equal results to US with half the cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
mris are not a big deal at all and shouldn't take more than a week or two at most to have. they can spin those magnets 24 hours a day if they wanted.
Do i need to mention that no country does this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNot if a million people try to sign up for them for every little issue because they're freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (well, free to them)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
You don't get equal results, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickIf there's any urgency it's faster. That's basically how the entire universal healthcare system works. That's how we get equal results to US with half the cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
What is "urgency"? You have to do something or you're going to die or suffer severe disability?
What about something very uncomfortable and highly unpleasant? No big deal to wait 4 months, right?
Also you don't realize that a lot of the "reduced cost" would be lost if we tried to convert our existing system to socialized medicine without a severe alteration of the billing structure. Which even Bernie isn't planning to do.
I just went through something in 2018 which was very unpleasant and uncomfortable, but not life threatening.
People in the Facebook groups for LPR/GERD from other countries were super frustrated that us Yankees get to see ENT specialists and get tests quicky, while they had to wait 4+ months.
This wasn't just people in England, either. It was pretty much everywhere.
These weren't political discussions. These were people who just wanted to see a doctor, get tested, and get better. It was very eye-opening.
Also a bunch of them were getting denied endoscopies, whereas everyone in the US was getting them without issue (and quickly).
Half da cost tho!!!
I was being nice when i said equal results. We get far better results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYou don't get equal results, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
What is "urgency"? You have to do something or you're going to die or suffer severe disability?
What about something very uncomfortable and highly unpleasant? No big deal to wait 4 months, right?
Also you don't realize that a lot of the "reduced cost" would be lost if we tried to convert our existing system to socialized medicine without a severe alteration of the billing structure. Which even Bernie isn't planning to do.
In what world does your experience have anything to do with what average American has access to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
From the article i linked earlier...
"nearly 30 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients have difficulty getting a specialized test, compared with only 11 percent and 15 percent of doctors in Australia and Sweden, respectively"...and....
"in the United States, 4 percent of patients reported waiting four months or longer for nonemergency surgery, compared with only 2 percent of French patients and 0 percent of German patients".
And then the specialists...
"For specialist appointments, the situation is even worse: 6 percent of U.S. patients reported waiting two months or longer for an appointment, compared with only 4 percent of French patients and 3 percent of German patients"
This is one aspect overlooked/ignored by many Americans. Universal is the otherQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmickIf there's any urgency it's faster. That's basically how the entire universal healthcare system works. That's how we get equal results to US with half the cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
I don't have any special access.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickIn what world does your experience have anything to do with what average American has access to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Any American who has insurance has no worse healthcare access than I do -- in fact, they have much better access if they're not on an individual plan like I am.
That article is full of shit, and probably manipulating statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
I have lived in the US all my life, and this absolutely isn't a problem for me or anyone else I've known, especially regarding getting specialized tests.
If anything, people are getting tested too often, because that's a big moneymaker for doctors here -- often far more lucrative than the office visit itself.
But let's say those above stats are right. Are you trying to say that converting the system here to a socialized system would INCREASE access to tests? How? Wouldn't demand go way up if everything is "free"?
Oh, and that article you posted is from a highly partisan source, to the point where it doesn't even pretend to be nonpartisan.
Are you aware how many garbage articles there are on the internet from partisan sources which manipulate or cherry-pick stats in order to justify their point of view?
Rapid access to care has never been a hallmark of socialized medicine. It defies logic that it would, because the cost barrier is completely removed.
If McDonald's handed out free food all day instead of charging for it, do you think it would be easier or harder to get a burger there without waiting?
gimmick is a euro trash sand n-word who has been getting destroyed in every argument he gets in here for years, he tends to type a lot of words but doesn't really get anything across. When he's proven wrong he'll just keep being contrarian until you get sick of arguing with him.
It quotes one of many similar studies on the issue. Didn't realize someone that links videos from Project Veritas has any standards regarding journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Could it possibly be that there are other barriers besides cost? That there isn't just a sign-up sheet where every citizen can as for whatever tests they feel like taking on any given week.
If you had to first see a general practitioner that assessed your need of burger, would be the start of your mildly retarded analogy, if it tried to be at all accurate.
No i'm saying it's not exactly an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThat article is full of shit, and probably manipulating statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
I have lived in the US all my life, and this absolutely isn't a problem for me or anyone else I've known, especially regarding getting specialized tests.
If anything, people are getting tested too often, because that's a big moneymaker for doctors here -- often far more lucrative than the office visit itself.
But let's say those above stats are right. Are you trying to say that converting the system here to a socialized system would INCREASE access to tests? How? Wouldn't demand go way up if everything is "free"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickIt quotes one of many similar studies on the issue. Didn't realize someone that links videos from Project Veritas has any standards regarding journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Could it possibly be that there are other barriers besides cost? That there isn't just a sign-up sheet where every citizen can as for whatever tests they feel like taking on any given week.
If you had to first see a general practitioner that assessed your need of burger, would be the start of your mildly retarded analogy, if it tried to be at all accurate.
The US had that general practitioner referral BS going on in the '90s, and then wisely abandoned it (mostly), to where we can go directly to specialists now.
Why? Because it's not a socialized system with highly rationed care. The GP visit was a huge pain in the ass, even without the long wait seen in socialized systems.
Let's say I have a foot-related concern. I call an area podiatrist, get a quick appointment (usually same week), and he/she not only examines me, but also does whatever imaging or tests are necessary to diagnose the problem. I don't need GP visits or any of that nonsense. I don't have to suffer as I wait for a podiatrist to see me 4 months later. I get it done quickly.
This exact thing happened about 3 years ago. I developed a problem with my foot where it was painful to walk. It wasn't a simple thing to diagnose. A GP would have failed. It even took 2 visits to the podiatrist to fully figure it out and correct it. But I got both appointments quickly, and the problem was fixed. This wasn't due to any kind of wealth or privilege I have. The same could have been done by any American with health insurance.
I don't want to give that up. I like this. So do most Americans. And if most Americans realized the BS going on in the UK and elsewhere, they would be MUCH less supportive of a socialized system. At the moment, most Americans believe it's only a matter of cost, not a matter of timely care. They're in for a rude surprise if we go that way.
You can keep cherry-picking misleading left-wing articles which claim it's not a problem, yet we have a Canadian explaining his own personal experience, and we have the UK's NHS site admitting that waits are an issue
So average American spends 10k a year where rest of the first world gets by with 5k. In most of those countries it costs less than 5k a year to see a private doctor, if you don't want to wait. Tadaa, problem solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
The US had that general practitioner referral BS going on in the '90s, and then wisely abandoned it (mostly), to where we can go directly to specialists now.
Why? Because it's not a socialized system with highly rationed care. The GP visit was a huge pain in the ass, even without the long wait seen in socialized systems.
Let's say I have a foot-related concern. I call an area podiatrist, get a quick appointment (usually same week), and he/she not only examines me, but also does whatever imaging or tests are necessary to diagnose the problem. I don't need GP visits or any of that nonsense. I don't have to suffer as I wait for a podiatrist to see me 4 months later. I get it done quickly.
This exact thing happened about 3 years ago. I developed a problem with my foot where it was painful to walk. It wasn't a simple thing to diagnose. A GP would have failed. It even took 2 visits to the podiatrist to fully figure it out and correct it. But I got both appointments quickly, and the problem was fixed. This wasn't due to any kind of wealth or privilege I have. The same could have been done by any American with health insurance.
I don't want to give that up. I like this. So do most Americans. And if most Americans realized the BS going on in the UK and elsewhere, they would be MUCH less supportive of a socialized system. At the moment, most Americans believe it's only a matter of cost, not a matter of timely care. They're in for a rude surprise if we go that way.
You can keep cherry-picking misleading left-wing articles which claim it's not a problem, yet we have a Canadian explaining his own personal experience, and we have the UK's NHS site admitting that waits are an issue
Oh and do you still have problem understanding how something being "free" doesn't mean people will spend all their weekends and vacation time in hospitals?