Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to madbomber's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Friday, July 15, 2016

An army group in Turkey says it has taken control of the country, with bridges closed in Istanbul and aircraft flying low over Ankara. read more


"No, a woman's premium is the same as a man on the same plan."

Not according to real life.


"You think people are trying to get severely ill so they can extract more money from their insurance company than they paid in?"

I think that if you are forced to pay for your own healthcare, you're probably going to choose to be safer and take less risks than if it will be paid for by someone else. No, scratch that. I know if you're forced to pay for it yourself, you're going to take fewer risks.

"The problem isn't the system of Medicare, the problem is that we didn't create enough doctors so let's start importing them and letting them practice here in the U.S. You'll then see doctors competing with each other for Medicare patients. I hear Cuba is loaded with doctors, I'd be very happy to be treated by one. I love it when I can take a small government fool's own argument and turn it around on them."

My suggestion would be to increase doctors by creating a medical training track parallel to that of the uniformed services, but instead of treating troops, these providers would practice at clinics ran by the government for patients who weren't going to pay. The healthcare providers would receive tuition and a stipend while training, and upon completion of training would earn pay comparable to that of their uniformed counterpart, but at a much lower salary. After they completed their obligatory term of service, they would be free to enter private practice, where they would earn high incomes. Just like many military doctors do.

The thing you're right about though is that there is a shortage of healthcare providers. When I was in North Dakota, many of the doctors were foreign. Although they pay was very high, if you're a doctor, you're always going to have a job in the US. And not many want to brave the frozen north. This shortage is contributor to higher costs. I live in a medium-sized city, and none of the orthodontists around here take insurance. They don't need to. If you want the procedure, you'll pay for it or you won't. That'll change when you put a gun to their head.

"The good news is that Mad's opinion is not the majority in the country. The bad news is that there are enough like him to prevent the rest of us from doing what we know is right. They have a very negative view of human nature (mainly because of projection). They always assume the worst about people's motives."

That's because progressives have done everything in their power to disconnect rights from responsibilities. I would submit that the vast majority of conservatives would have little problem with government-provided housing, healthcare, etc, if in return those recipients incurred some debt to the taxpayer. But that's not the case. The case is just the opposite. More benefits with fewer requirements to get them. And it makes sense. It's difficult to buy voters if you're demanding that they do something in return for their taxpayer funded lifestyle.

"What you don't seem to realize is that I completely do understand that. But I still want a decent, basic healthcare system even the poorest can access and that you don't seem to realize all of those countries do offer. I want what they have. I want no one to be left with healthcare even if they are fat an lazy, crazy, communist, Republican, homosexual, Mexican, illegal immigrant, midgets, whatever."

Do you want to pay for it? Feel free to do so. I, however, don't.

I don't even like the two-tier system. So far as I'm concerned, if it's a waste of your time to take care of yourself, it's a waste of everyone else's time too. But since we're invoking the spirit of compromise, I'd prefer a two-tier system that preserves quality healthcare.

"Men don't get pregnant, they should be paying a lot less."

It takes a man-a biological man, for a women to get pregnant. Not that your point matters. Women pay more anyway. Although one of the provisions of ACA was intended to reduce costs for women and make them equal to what a man would pay for the same coverage.

Workers with a previous workers comp claim should pay more for workers comp insurance, or else they might deliberately injure themselves again...Yeah, no.

Yeah, yes.

"Even though it works just fine in most of the rest of the world. It's really no big deal."

Very few countries have single-payer systems. Maybe 20. And none of them approach the level of quality of US healthcare.

"Private for-profit insurance could still be made available for those who want to and can afford a "Cadillac" or "Platinum" plan that covers things like private rooms, purely elective procedures, and other luxury amenities."

Not in a single-payer system you can't. Canada used to have a completely single-payer system, until it was determined by the court to be unconstitutional based on the enormous wait times for basic procedures. The reason Canada forced it's citizens to seek treatment elsewhere was due to the fact that doctors would very likely favor those who were willing to pay over those who were not. Something that violated the system's egalitarian ethic. Consider Medicare. Many doctors don't take it. So just because the government says it will pay X amount for a procedure, that doesn't mean that a doctor is willing to do it for X amount. You have to force them to, otherwise, they'll service those patients who are willing to pay. Or go find another line of work.

"You're just describing how insurance works. We all pay a little up front as a hedge, so that if something bad but unlikely happens that we can't pay for, we'll be covered, and that money comes from the other people who hedged their bet but didn't need to use the hedge."

Except that's not exactly how it works. Insurance rates are typically determined by risk and likely cost. If I drive a prius and have never gotten a ticket, my low rates will reflect my low risk. If I drive a sports car and have lots of tickets, my rates will be much higher due to the fact that I'm a higher risk. With HS, or the progressive HS construct, that's not the case. Costs will be borne largely by those who can afford it, despite the risk, while low income earners will get the same coverage for free. Also regardless of risk.

"It's not lower quality health care. No believable measure of health care puts the USA on top."

I get you're struggling with this because it's in direct conflict with your faith, but I don't regard long wait times as being a healthy outcome. So let's agree to disagree. You're cool with it. I'm not. I'm not trying to stop you from waiting for months or years. Please don't try and stop people like me from getting the same care in days or weeks. Can we agree on that?

"And yet middle class people in those countries STILL wouldn't trade their systems for ours. What does that tell you?"


What do you think is more common? Brits and Canadians coming to the US for care, or Americans going to Canada or Britain for care? And what makes the middle class so special that they become the center of gravity?

"Should be easy to find a Canadian who'd trade in the waiting room then. But you can't. Why is that?"

Uhhh, yeah dude. You remember that article I posted? That's exactly what it was in regards to. Canadians not wanting to leave in Canada in order to receive decent health care. Wait times are still highly controversial in all national healthcare systems. In fact it's something that's common to all of them.

"Strange that you get your care for free at the VA, but have such strong opinions about the system the rest of us are stuck with."

I don't get care free at the VA. You only get that if you retire or are injured in combat. In either case, it's a function of the contract you signed to provide your labor in return for an agreed upon set of benefits.

"Or get it free within the military system ..."

Is it free?

If I stop going to work, will I still get my healthcare and other benefits?

"What bad news? I actually BUY my own health insurance from the exchange. VERY happy with it."

That's cool.

What would you say to those people who bleieved that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?" Sorry, schmucks, somethimes it'e ncessarry to lie to you proles.

"When and where does this happen?"

Um, here.

You didn't read the link to the Canadian Supreme Court case, did you?

"Healthy outcomes are not the same thing as profitable outcomes."

True, but your argument seems to be than unprofitable outcomes are healthier. In fact you've argued that lengthier, more laborious outcomes are healthier than those produced as a result of quick, timely service. Pretty stupid, don't you think.

In any case, it's an argument against single payer. The problem with single payer is it legally prohibits doctors from providing private healthcare. The result is that everyone, regardless of willingness to pay, is obligated to get the same crappy care and wait in the same over sized cues. What the doctor in Canada was advocating for was a two-tiered system where those who were willing or able to pay for quick, timely care would get it, while those who weren't would wait in line for services provided by the state. Think of the FastPass at Disney. In Canada, the government's position was that this would allow those who had money and were willing to purchase the services of doctors and reduce the availability of care for those who weren't. While that's probably true, the courts found that the extensive wait times violated the patient's rights and therefor the laws were unconstitutional. Personally, I think it also violated the rights of the doctors to treat whom they wanted when they wanted and at whatever price they were able to agree on with their patient. I'm sure you see it quite differently.

Drudge Retort

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