Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to Madbomber's blog Subscribe


Special Features


"Do you think that's how it's gone where single-payer is already working? If so, how do you explain that per capita the U.S. spends more that twice as much as so many other modern countries for worse healthcare outcomes?"

Medical Research for one...the US is footing the bill for the rest of the planet. Another area is in pharmaceuticals. Virtually all "blockbuster" drugs are developed by US firms, who charge more to American patients as a way of offsetting the cost of providing those drugs through indigent drug programs outside the US. Another contributing factor is that we have surplus capacity. While this may sound like a bad thing, it's exactly why care in the US is so much more responsive than in other countries. Consider the MRI. Getting an MRI in the US is almost always a same-day procedure because the equipment isn't programmed for continuous use. In other countries, they run at capacity, and depending on environmental factors, you may have a long wait. Such as three weeks in Canada. Another factor is competition. Under single payer, doctors are restricted from operating in a competitive market. They are obligated to accept what the government pays. There may be others as well...

The other thing-not sure how you're making the claim that the US provides worse healthcare outcomes. The US has some of the highest quality healthcare in the world.

"You mean like the Military Health System? health.mil Sounds good to me."

I get AMAZING healthcare. I have a Flight Doc who's also my buddy, and pretty much a phone call away for whatever I need. For my family though, that's a different story. They're basically on Medicare. And it's not bad, but some doctors don't take it. And dental, while being better than nothing, is not very good. They'll pay about $300 of any procedure I need done. The reason is that they will only pay up to $750, and I have to pay 40% of that. So I'll be out of pocket for quite a bit if my kids need braces. I have one who needs a root canal, and it's going to set me back quite a bit. I've gotten estimates of $1500, and read it can be even more. So my out of pocket cost will be around $1200.

Still sound good?

"Wrong. He's blaming the system that is set up to pit unsuccessful Americans against successful Americans."

Hell no. Bernie is specifically pitting unsuccessful Americans against those who have succeeded by suggesting that those who do succeed should pick up the tab for those who haven't. Here's the thing: If Bernie was offering to provide additional benefits in return for an obligated return for the taxpayers, I wouldn't be that put off. But that's not the case. Bernie's whole shtick is that the taxpayers, those who have succeeded, owe something to those who haven't, while those who haven't bear no responsibility in return. I'd be amongst the first to support an initiative where the government became the employer of last resort, but from a progressive standpoint that would be a failure, as it would require those who receive benefits to contribute time and energy in return. And making demands of recipients is a sure way to lose votes.

"Free stuff (i.e., higher education) is aimed at upending the system's inequality."

Another thing. If you look at the countries that produce the most college graduates, the number is consistently between 30-40%, regardless of whether the student pays for it or the state. Having the student incur a cost, be it in time, service, or money, ensures that they are not there to waste time. I don't think the taxpayers need to fund a student to earn a degree that provides no return in value to the taxpayer.

"His general gist seems to be, screw the American worker. Because he feels poor/homeless people in America somehow have it good."

They most certainly do, but that's neither here nor there. Like I said, I'd have no problem supporting a CCC-type program where the government was the employer of last resort. Would progressives support it? I don't think so. We saw in Maine what happened when people capable of working were deprived of cost-free benefits made available without working. The rolls decreased by 80%. Did they all just decide they would rather starve? Maybe. I suppose we could determine that pretty easily if the number of deaths from starvation went up dramatically in Maine, but more than likely they went out and got jobs. For the simple fact that if they have to work, they may as well get a job that pays more than what they would get meeting the requirements for food stamps.

"So you're saying you have to be rich to have savings? What's your definition of rich?"

Making/earning more money than what it takes to satisfy your material desires.

"Most of the loudest conservatives have never truly been in need."

That's not even remotely the case. I grew up in a household that would have qualified for public assistance, had my father been willing to allow my mother to enroll. He did not. And somehow I didn't starve to death. We didn't have cable TV, or Air Conditioning, or take vacations, and we didn't get much in the way of toys or goodies. But we were never anywhere near as close to poverty as those in the developing world.

In fact I can easily see how I could have been poor, if not for the outside influence of role models I happened to come into contact with as I entered into adulthood. It wouldn't have been becasue society made me poor-I had set started down that path on my own. The bad decisions were mine. And the me today would have no interest in supporting the me of 1993 becasue I wasn't willing to take those steps that were necessary to succeed.

"If you were full time in the military you were never truly in need."

Neither are the poor in America.

A junior enlisted troop accepts a standard of living that most progressives would consider absolutely intolerable for non-working poor. You live where they tell you to live. When I was enlisted it was in open bay barracks that had been divided up into cubicles. There was one bathroom for the 20-30 people that lived on each floor. Food was what they gave you. Or what you were willing to spend your own money on. And the

Here's the thing guys. DISA, the government agency tasked with managing USG information systems is concerned about security. They have two ----- to give about usability. I can't count the times where a required patch destroyed my ability to do what I needed to do on a system. As far as the administrators were concerned, they were good to go. The required patches or software were installed, and that's all that mattered to them. If anything, to me, this lends credibility to Clinton's case.

As someone who has had access to classified info, security protocols are only meaningful in stopping unintended disclosure. I could have easily walked out of my office with the information I had access to, and no one would have stopped me. Why? Because I was an authorized user. It was mine to use. To deny me access would have been to prevent me from doing the job I was hired to do. In fact the only way to prevent the theft of highly classified material is to eliminate it altogether. And the plans and programs I was read into will remain in my head until the day I die or lose them to age or disease.The non-disclosure agreement only works if I remain agreeable to not talking about that stuff.

I'm not a fan of HRC, but more and more this seems like a case of her telling her people to circumvent DISA (or other gov't agency) regs that would have restricted her access to information she needed access to. If you think she went rouge with this info, that's one thing. But I have yet to hear that she misused the info available, even if it didn't adhere to established security standards.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable