BUT
BUT IM THIRSTY!
What is happening in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
Picture by: LA Times. Caption by: Tanner Hadley via Our LOL Builder
You May Like:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous SOUTHWEST AIRLINES | FETISH Next »
» 96 Comments
-
Recent Comments
Fez on Urge to join Army… wicket on TIANANMEN SQUARE wicket on You’re wrong about … wicket on You’re wrong about … viking gal on SCIENCE wicket on SCIENCE Danbala on Urge to join Army… bitter charro Suprem… on Gay or straight… Will on Urge to join Army… wicket on SCIENCE 
Cheezburger Network Blog
WHARRGARBL
Yeah, I like that one! heh.
Hey, did you all hear Sarah Palin is stepping down from governing Alaska to run for pres in 2012? I’m not making that up.
Oh pleeeeeeeease let her win the nomination. I’d love an easy win for the Democrats in 2012!
I wouldn’t count my votes before they’re in the box. As polarizing as Palin is, it might be a closer race than you think, especially if she can keep herself clean for the next three years. And if Obama keeps spending us into poverty for the next three hundred years, and she actually comes off as credible with her Regan-style Conservatism, she might actually win.
Let me take that back. She WILL win if that stuff happens. You have to look at the election returns from the last race. McCain was a terrible, horrible, awful candidate, but he lost by like 2%. That’s hardly a mandate for Obama. So if we lost by so little with such a sucky candidate, what happens if we get a person (Palin or otherwise) who actually embodies Conservative principles (lower taxes, less government, less meddling with people’s lives), the Republicans will be back in power with a bullet. I’m interested to see what happens in 2010 with the Congressional elections. I have a feeling that there will be a major shift in power, especially considering that the approval numbers for Congress are almost negative numbers.
This is usually where I wake up from the dream in a cold sweat. What you described is my worst nightmare. And I’m not even on a “Palin iz to stoopid too be prezident” kick. I’m more worried that she’s not stupid. Because she represents a lot of what I don’t believe in, and I don’t want to see an even more conservative administration than the one we just had.
What we had before wasn’t a conservative administration, especially there at the end. It was a lip service Conservatism that only served to push people to the left as it betrayed its core principles of less spending, smaller government, and lower taxes. True Conservatism, held through even when the going gets tough, would be a nice breath of fresh air, but sadly, we haven’t had that. Ever. Even during Regan, who is the one person we can hold up as the closest we’ve ever come.
-
I was just talking to a friend who said that she feels that Palin’s career in the public sector is over, and that she’s going on to write books and be a “kingmaker”. I guess we’ll see. From the stories I’ve read the stepping down was kind of a shock to everyone.
Okay, seriously, your first part is making me even more scared. Taxes don’t bother me, as long as they are put to good use. My problem with conservatism is that it wants to put a lot of the things that government currently handles into the hands of the people. I don’t really see the people doing it. What don’t I see the people doing? You name it, I don’t see the people doing it. Ideally, the “big government” would be looking out for the people with all of its big programs and big spending that conservatives don’t think anyone should be forced to pay for. I also don’t think it’s practical to go from what we have now to “true conservatism.” I think that would have an immediate negative effect once said government was in place.
My, what an egalitarian sentiment. How long, I wonder, will it be until accountability, oversight, and self-governance itself become things that the people can’t be trusted to do? And once we make that logical leap, for the greater good of course, how do we select our leaders — by taking the best and brightest from the Ivy League, from the business world, or do we simply fall back to skin color and external genitalia?
“I don’t really see the people doing it.” — Government, is people… Big government will look out for big government, which is what it’s doing now. Look at the border policy for example, do you think it benefits the American people to let anyone come over here whenever they want and then give them amnesty for doing it? No, but it does translate into more votes, for someone.
Froo, if you’re correct, we’ve *never* had a conservative administration; 9.5 trillion of our 12+ trillion dollar debt was rung up under Republican administrations!
I’m going to go further: to the extent that government does *not* work, it is largely because of Republicans. Democrats at least believe that the government can do good things, and some try to embody that. Republicans believe that all government is parasitic and evil; why would they ever try to prove differently once in office?
To quote Jonathant Alder (sp?) “Conservatives believe government is evil, and once elected, endeavor to prove it.”
Yes, for we have always been at war with Oceania, they stand for everything we stand against, and so on and so forth. Here’s your $12 for the week, you obedient foot soldier; go buy a couple of cookies and say your daily devotions to the glorious and noble Party.
So, you don’t have an intelligent answer to my point, just abuse? Wow, am I surprised.
I’m sorry, did you make a point? I must have missed it amid all the party propaganda.
You’d think that, but it’s interesting that so many people feel compelled to loudly point that out. And I saw that the DNC has already issued a statement slamming her for it. Shouldn’t that all be unnecessary?
Your point?
It’s a classic already!
No, I didn’t hear that. I guess it’s not big enough news internationally at this time to make it to the local media.
You’re back!
Or front?
I am momentarily here, at least, while the warm weather renders me semi-unconscious.
(Yes, our current 28-30 degrees Celsius (in the shade, ofc) is waaaay too warm for me. If you come from places that regularly hit the 45-50’s – don’t try to tease me about it, I think you are probably devil-spawns to deal with that hellish heat. (I confess – I wish I was one. If nothing else, at least for the nice rotties and the tricycle.))
Here, have some tyranny. Tyranny >for you<
Why not use the drinking founten
The picture is funny, but the caption doesn’t do it for me.
Little did he know that the water was from the suwer
When a normal water fountain just won’t get it, one must improvise.
LOL
Yeah isn’t a good LOL
I’m a happy athest
That’s why they’re wearing life jackets.
Chinese fire-drill?
THIS – IS – WAAAATEEEEER!
lol
Heh, I have to say I like Geekgirl’s caption better:
“Trying to research on the Internet…”
Wooo Shooced
WHARRRGARRRBL
Man, I’ve actually been hit with one of those before….That guy has my super serial sympathies! But, what the Hell, man? You need to be more careful. XD
-Grumble Grumble-
Wow! Freaky.
Hey, tell me, do old creepy men call you “Tyler, Tyler Texas” as a lame-ass joke and weezily laugh at themselves, causing rancid cigarette smoke to be blown all in your face, too? XD
sure its water?
self opression
LOL!
He was ordered to water-board himself.
bwahahaha!
I’m never drinking from the water fountain at work ever again. A few days ago there was a plumbing problem, and when they put pressure up a certain pipe, it backed up our store’s sewer drain…and for some reason it decided to flow like a waterfall out of the drinking fountain. From what I heard the store smelled like poo for hours. Today, the fountain is back in working order. You couldn’t pay me to use it.
Why the heck is Sarah Palin resigning?
She hasn’t said it yet, but you can probably guess.
Rick Sanchez says it’s ‘cuz she’s pregnant. I don’t know why that would stop her.
I don’t buy it. But I didn’t really buy it last time she was pregnant either. :-X
Her long press conference listed:
1) She doesn’t want to be a lame duck for a year and a half.
2) She doesn’t like spending government money.
3) Her family wants her to quit.
4) Umm, something about the “politics of personal destruction” (from someone who accused Obama of “palling around” with terrorists, this is rich)
5) A convoluted sports metaphor about how “she drives down the court against a full court press, but keeps her head up… umm, because she has her eye on the basket, but she keeps her eye on the ball, driving against a full court press… and she knows when to pass the ball” (I see now why her career at ESPN didn’t get off the ground)
That’s all I can remember off the top of my head. The press conference went on for a very long time, and she had new reasons every minute or so.
My guess is she needs time to promote her upcoming book, and probably has a deal in the works for a TV show. I wouldn’t look too seriously for her to run in 2012; although there are those who love her, the Republican party decision makers are criticizing her pretty strongly atm for being a quitter.
I’ve been wrong before, of course.
Some rag called the “Post Chronicle” (never heard of them; don’t know their political affiliation or reliability) is reporting Palin quit ahead of a federal indictment for embezzlement. (link)
Yay scandal!
*gets popcorn*
You know what would be cool, is if they found out that Sarah Palin was responsible for Michael Jackson’s death.
I like the cut of your jib!
if he stayed there long enough, would his eyes burst? i only ask out of morbid curiosity
is it bad that I too want to know that now?
“and if Obama keeps spending us into poverty for the next three hundred years, and she actually comes off as credible with her Regan-style Conservatism”
That would work if only Reagan hadn’t run up an unprecedented deficit and turned the US from the worlds largest creditor nation into it’s largest debtor, while at the same time average wages remained static or even fell.
That’s a very small picture of the whole, and isn’t accurate. Regan put a lot of money into national defense, and the country was extremely prosperous as a whole all through the 80’s. A lot of the deficit and other economic problems had to do with a LOT of bad choices made by Carter, including deficit spending and cutting defense. Oh, and throwing the country into a jobs crisis and gas lines and misery index…..well, you get my point.
-
Regan wasn’t god, but he did a lot of good for the country, which was continued (in a fashion) by Clinton. Neither man spent the crap out of money we don’t have and won’t have for many decades. At least Clinton did his best to balance the budget that had been thrown out of whack by a war. Obama hasn’t even attempted that. He’s in the process of devaluing the dollar by printing what he doesn’t have, and throwing money at problems that are obviously not being helped by the money he’s thrown. A second stimulus, when the first is only 6% used with no results? Are you kidding me?
Then what should he be doing to fix this mess?
If I knew that, I’d own the world
I just know that continuing to deficit spend isn’t the way to jump-start anything other than a bigger government that will eventually crumble under its own weight. It sucks for the government at first, but lower taxes always jump-start the private sector, as consumers have more of their own money to spend, which enriches small and large businesses, which can then increase payrolls, which then gives more money to the consumer to buy things, which keeps the cycle going. Throwing money down a black hole, as we’ve done with TARP, GM, the banks, and everything else is just bankrupting an already bankrupt government, and Obama wanting to take over health care (which we can talk about in another post, if you’re wanting to know my scares behind that) is just going to overburden an already frail and dying economy.
Let’s start off with what he shouldn’t be doing:
- $1T “victory lap”
- Highly regressive cap-and-trade tax
- Attempting to effectively nationalize 1/5 of the economy
What he should be doing right now is cutting taxes, slashing government spending as soon as possible, and worrying about reinforcing safety net programs (like unemployment, the FDIC, and certain Treasury funds) rather than individual companies with significant clout.
Personally, I think California had it right (Did I just say that??????) when the measure passed to restrict government paychecks while in a deficit. The state congress and gov can’t get a pay increase until the budget is balanced. I think that should go for the federal government, and we ought to look at what we’re getting for our money. Most of these guys are independently wealthy or are living off campaign contributions, why are we paying them several hundred thousands of dollars a year to screw up our lives even more?
Wait a second — are you and I agreeing on something? Spooky. (And if we can agree, hopefully that’ll give even Eric pause.)
Personally, I’d like to see them go a step farther: if the government is running a deficit (and not by usual government “accounting”, but by GAAP rules, taking all its obligations into account), every additional dollar spent has to be matched with, say, $2 or $3 or $5 in existing spending cut.
While salaries are always a political hot-button, let’s face it — most of the guys in charge, especially the lifers, are millionaire lawyers who’ve milked their political connections enough that they don’t need their salary. (Unless that rule applies to *all* government pay, in which case the legions of government workers not getting their yearly raises would be a pretty powerful motivator.)
Considering that the people in Congress aren’t paying for things like the rest of us (health care springs painfully to mind), they shouldn’t need as much to live on.
-
And speaking of Congressional health care, everyone in Congress wants to give us “what they have” and take care of us. I don’t like that idea. I like the idea of free health care, but free isn’t free in terms of the government. Of course it’s possible for those old guys and gals up on the Hill to go to the doctor for free……they have several million (what is the latest US Census?) paying for them to go. We can’t conceivably do that with the rest of the nation. I say make these old guys and gals pay for their own health care, or have it be employer-supplied just like the rest of us. These people have been out of the loop for so long (40 years in Congress? Really??) that they have no clue what hardships the average man and woman in America face. I say they need to get a taste of co-pays, deductables, over-priced medical procedures that are over-priced to cover malpractice insurance because of stupid lawsuits against doctors. They need to really see what we all go through, not just hear it through the rose colored hearing aids that they all seem to be wearing.
I’m sorry. /rant.
Do they have good insurance? ‘Cos my insurance is crap and I’m already paying 1/3 of my paycheck for it.
They don’t have insurance in the sense that we have insurance. They go to a doctor, flash a “Congress Card”, and get out for free. Meanwhile, that 1/3 of your paycheck is partly going for their free healthcare. It’s completely unsustainable on a national level.
So is it possible for everyone to get healthcare? Or do we just have to say f-you to people who can’t afford it? And if so, how is that fair?
I don’t know or know of anyone wh has ever been denied healthcare. I know people who don’t have health insurance, which isntthe same thing. Right now in america no one who show up at a hospital can be or will be turned away. For those too poor to afford health insurance, we havemedicare and medicaid. Illegal immigrants get healthcare all the time. The solution is not to nationalize healthcare, it’s to make the insurance more affordable. To understand why it’s so expensive you have to look at what you’re paying for. Most of thecost is malpractice insurance for doctors that jacks up the cost for a proceedure and forces insurance companies to charge more for the premiums. Caps on lawsuits would be a good place to start.
Honestly though, America has kick ass medical care. We just need to take steps to help out those in he medical fields so they can take care o us wihout fearing for their jobs and lives if they get sued. More later because there is a lot more to this
Let me apologize for all of the misspellings in that post. I was typing it on my phone
Let me expand a little on my thoughts about Medicaid and Medicare. Those two programs, while not perfect, do take care of the vast majority of uninsured people in this country. Those too old or sick to work, those who for some reason can’t get traditional medical insurance, that sort of thing. At this point, they are about to go bankrupt. Social Security is about to go bankrupt. Adding another government program that is supposed to do the job of Medicare and Medicaid plus more is a surefire way for the government to go completely bankrupt while stripping the average American (you’ll notice I didn’t say rich American) of any hope of paying less than 50% taxes. Or more. The funds are completely mismanaged now, why do we think that nationalized healthcare will be managed any better on a much grander scale?
Now, as far as Obama saying that we can keep our private medical insurance, I believe him. The problem with private insurance competing with the government insurance is that there is no way that a private entity will be able to offer the same type of “cheap” insurance that the government will be able to offer, mainly because we are using public funds for the government side. The government won’t be subject to the same type of competition laws that a private entity is subject to. Also, the government will ALWAYS be able to underbid a private insurance company. Now, if your healthcare is subsidized by your employer (like mine is), and they pay the bulk of the premiums, why would they keep paying when the government can take over the healthcare and they aren’t out a dime? So this will cause companies to ditch their healthcare and tell their employees to look somewhere else for their healthcare. This forces them to look to the government, which will underbid all of the other guys, driving them out of business. Then, years down the road, even though we were promised that we could all keep our private health care, we will all be relying on the government for our healthcare. We will end up with a single-payer system like Great Britain and Canada, and there will be a much higher rate of death in the elderly, cancer patients, and other high risk patients because either the care isn’t worth it (in the case of the cancer patient who is over 70), or cost prohibitive for the drugs (there are lots of drugs (especially cancer drugs) banned in Canada because they are too expensive). They are actually thinking about euthanizing elderly dementia patients in GB because the care is so expensive. That is very, very scary to me.
We have a good system here. It’s not perfect, but if you need care, you get it one way or another. Why are we not trying to fix the cracks in what we already have (Medicare and Medicaid) instead of creating something entirely new that will probably be a bigger disaster than anything we can come up with?
You can show up at a hospital for an emergency without getting turned away, but if you can’t pay a hospital or doctor, that’s about it. Medicaid helps only the poorest families. The lower middle class very often gets the shaft on health insurance because they either can’t afford health insurance offered from work, aren’t offered insurance from work, or are offered really crappy insurance from work. I’ve had insurance so bad that I still couldn’t afford to go to the doctor even with it.
Reducing the cost of health care in America is still going to require a fair amount of government intervention and/or regulation. The health care industry isn’t going to drop prices on its own. The malpractice insurance is a good example of exploiting the health care industry. The lawsuits aren’t the entire problem here. The insurance companies jacking up costs is a big problem too.
The insurance companies jacking up the rates is what scares me about things like pet health care. If you’ll indulge me for a minute, let me take you through what I see happening with pet health insurance, and what I feel has happened with people insurance.
Right now you can take your pet to the vet for a somewhat reasonable price. I had an emergency with my pet lovebird (she ended up losing a foot over it) and I was honestly expecting to pay several hundred dollars for her care. I left for under $50. The reason I got away so cheaply is because I was paying out of pocket. Most consumers are going to pay that way for pet care (let’s assume 90% of pet owners dont’ have the insurance, as it’s still relatively new). Now, what happens if I have insurance on my pets and pay a premium of $50 a month for it. I may not use it but two or three times a year at most, and mostly for check ups. Nothing major. Now, when I go in for that same emergency with my lovebird and they see I have insurance, suddenly the vet clinic CAN charge me more for her care because they know they will be paid. By the insurance company. So they pad their costs. When they do that, they have more disposable income for expensive equipment that might or might not be necessary for regular pet care. This creates a demand for the expensive equipment, which drives the prices up further. Now the vet clinics charge a little more to take up for the extra cost because of the demand, knowing they will be paid by insurance. The pet owners who don’t have insurance can no longer pay out of pocket, and therefore aren’t able to pay for the same type of care as insured patients. They either get reduced or free care for emergencies, because, after all, it’s an emergency. THe insurance companies are now getting billed by the vets to help cover the care of the uninsured, and they jack up their rates to compensate. It’s a vicious cycle, and ends up screwing the honest consumer by pricing pet care out of their hands. THe government takes over, all pets then die because they can’t afford the care on all of them outside of rabies shots, which are mandated by law.
Ok, the last part was an exaggeration
This is why pet insurance scares me, because one day before too long I won’t be able to pay for my dog’s care out of pocket because it will be too expensive, and I’ll be forced to buy healthcare.
On the people front, insurance companies coming on the scene is what caused the rates to go up in the first place. This was compounded by the legal aspect of it, which Obama has promised to do nothing about, and the fact that there are some seriously expensive diseases out there. As of right now, you can get whatever care you feel you need. If your insurance company won’t pay, there are still ways around that. Or you can pay out of pocket. I know there are glowing stories out of Canada and GB about the health care, and yes, there are some really good things about it. The parts that worry me is that anything elective and you’re waiting for years. If you’re too old to make it worthwhile, you’re waiting for years, even if it’s an organ transplant. If you’re outside of a certain age group, outside of a certain treatment, or are just considered a high risk that might not make it, there is a really good chance that your care will either be put off until you die or you will be sent somewhere with better health care. You know, like the United States.
I don’t believe all the doom and gloom from the right about “socialized” medicine. Nor do I believe all of the glowing stories from the left about how much better a one-payer or government health care for those who don’t want private or who can’t afford private will be. You only have to look at other things that the government has complete control over to see how that works out.
Medicare and Medicaid cover only the most destitute, you’re right. So if a new type of healthcare is needed to take care of those uninsured (which, by the way, the number being bandied about by the Left includes illegal aliens and people who are wealthy enough to opt out of purchasing health insurance), why are we not putting them under Medicaid and Medicare? Why do we need a new system? Why do we need to revamp the entire thing to fix what amounts to be a tiny problem?
Let me amend the “waiting for years” part to “waiting for months at the least”. That’s too much of an exaggeration, and I really want to have an honest debate on this without people getting pissed about me exaggerating for the shock factor.
I’m always going to come down on the side of public healthcare. I see the whole problem in very simple terms.
There is X demand for healthcare. There is Y supply. X>Y. How can we decide how to distribute Y?
Private healtcare says ‘by who can pay’ (look at your own statement: you can find ways around / pay out of pocket). What qualifies as an emergency will be decided, the bare minumum that is available free to all. Then your ability to be healthy will be dictated by how much you can afford to spend.
Public healtcare says by need. You have a body, here in the UK the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), who decide where money must be spent. Study of expert opinion, the public will and a cost/benefit analysis is performed. Available funds are spent in the ways judged to offer the best return on that investment.
This does mean that high-risk and elderly patients are a lower priority than cheap procedures that give a substantial boost to quality of life. You can swing it both ways, and be emotive for either side – poor kids dying of preventable diseases because it’s not an ‘emergency’ 24 hours after their admission.
You can’t get away from the fact that both systems will have to struggle with X being greater than Y. Some needed care will not be given, beause there isn’t the funding for it. I prefer to have that decision made by panels of experts, publicly funded, informed by the will of the people.
Beyond that, the idea of being unwell but not seeking care just sends a shiver down my spine. I am lucky enough to enjoy robust good health, and rely on it more than I like to admit. The idea that my health could be endangered and I couldn’t get care scares me silly. If a government’s responsibility is the welfare of its people, then their health seems like a pretty basic first step.
Purple, the idea of government bureaucrats performing that “cost/benefit analysis” scares the hell out of me, because it’s designed to eliminate the innate dignity of human life for political purposes.
I’d much rather live in a system in which the healthcare sector is incentivized to provide as much care as possible, rather than one where my treatment options are dictated, AND I have no recourse because so much of my income is going to support it.
Groups like NICE are not ‘government bureaucrats’. They are recognised experts, paid for by public money but not under government control. They will often make politically unpopular suggestions (see: breast cancer medication) if they make professional sense.
It’s about valuing all human life equally, and society exercising a responsibility toward it’s members. To me, that’s a responsible and respectful thing to do. And there’s plenty of opportunity to get private healthcare if you want, it’s not like we’re taxed all that much.
If a privatized healtcare system actually incentivized good treatment, I’d agree with you. Sadly, as froo has pointed out, it incentivizes acting like a jackass and screwing over everyone else for personal gain (insuarance scams etc.)
There are flaws in both systems, I just prefer putting the power in the hands of people who are (at least in theory) having open informed debates based on expert opinion and the will of the people, who can be held accountable if necessary. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but it’s done a pretty good job this far.
Purple, I suspect our different backgrounds give us somewhat different vocabulary on the issue — but fundamentally, government money implies government control. That’s not pessimistic or cynical, but simply the way government works.
You can’t both value human life and ration a limited supply of health care at the same time. A single organization charged with doing so will, by definition, do the second to the exclusion of the first.
I’ll be curious to see if your views change should you become ill — particularly once your treatment expenses exceed the median.
Government money doesn’t necessarially imply government control – see the BBC leading the charge in holding my government to account for mistakes made over Iraq. Before the DG was fired over it, he gave them a good hard kicking.
He who holds the purse strings does ultimately have the power to hire and fire. Some people will not be bought, though, especially when the income isn’t all that important and their professional reputation is at stake. And sometimes using that power carries a higher price in public disapproval than it is worth paying.
To me, providing as best as possible is valuing human life. The goal is to get the highest quality of life possible for the greatest number, informed by a scientific understanding of medicine and people’s notions of ‘quality of life’. I guess that boils down to how you define ‘value human life’, so it’s a matter of opinion.
I’ve been hurt pretty bad a few times. I broke my arm when I was a little, which I got treated free. I had stitches in my head when I was ten or so, again free. I’ve been on persciption medications a couple times. The charges were actually hard to come by for that, as I was pretty much destitute at the time.
If I lived in the US, all of that would have been hard if not impossible for my family, or myself, to pay for. I’d have had to have my arm and head fixed, and likely bumped up premiums and felt shitty over it. I wouldn’t have been able to afford medication, which would have been a big problem.
Maybe my views are informed by my circumstances, we are all masters of rationalization to ourselves. I like to think that the reasoning behind them hangs together, and is of a piece with a coherent view of the wider world.
Purple, I wouldn’t say it took a lot of courage for the BBC to go after a war that never was popular, particularly when popular and political opinion was on its side. Besides, we know the Beeb has no qualms about lying outright when it comes to its own funding — or have they finally admitted that TV detector vans are a fraud?
I think your understanding of health care in the US is incomplete, particularly the low- and no-cost options in place for the poor and for children. You certainly could have received care for your childhood injuries for free, or nearly so, and if your later prescriptions could be satisfied by a generic drug, you’d be paying at most a few dollars a month out of pocket. (If not, there are still options.)
Again, under “the greatest good for the greatest number”, patching up a kid and treating a young adult make financial sense. I certainly hope you never have to experience this, but should you find yourself needing an elective procedure, or life-sustaining treatment when your earning years are behind you, I’ll be curious to see if your thoughts are the same.
It got the man ultimately responsible fired, in a high-profile and public fashion. I’d say that takes a fair dose of courage, even if he was never in much danger financially. There are plenty other things wrong with the organisation, but I’m still a fan of Mr. Dyke’s decision to go after what he saw as the truth despite the personal consequences.
I know very little about US healthcare policies. I understand that they are based on a private, insuarance-based model with free care in the case of emergencies. There are also government-run bodies in place to help out needy folks, but I have no idea how they’re organised.
I think you might have a bit of misunderstanding about the NHS’s funding policies. Care isn’t distributed based on ‘the good of society’. That is, a person who will earn and contribute isn’t valued over anyone else. Care is prioritised based on survival rates, impact on quality of life and longevity (in cases of care as opposed to cure) set against cost. Sometimes this does mean that risky operations, and the elderly, can get less care, but it’s not arbitrary.
I know it is deeply unpopular, but I stand by the concept of distribution by need and cost effectivness. Some people find it distasteful, but I’d rather have the tough choices about who misses out on expensive treatment made with the good of all in mind rather than based on how much someone earns.
Maybe that’s just a fundamental difference in outlook. I just don’t see financial success as all that important. So long as I have enough to cover my needs and wants, I’m not all that bothered. So I find it hard to justify basing decisions as weighty as healthcare priorities on it. I’m also a lot more comfortable with government intervention than you seem to be, so I see it as a viable alternative. Maybe I have too much faith in my fellow man, to act responsibly and hold others accountable when they don’t.
I’d like to think that I have the courage of my convictions. If I come down with cancer in my old age, and the care isn’t covered on the NHS and I can’t afford it, I wouldn’t rail at the system. It’s the same principle as being happy to be taxed to help out others in need, which I’ve never had issues with.
Just to clarify: older people don’t get less care because they’ll likely die sooner. They just tend to have lower survival rates. A young person with a low survival rate for a given operation will also be less likely to receive it.
How long someone will live is only taken into account if they can’t be cured, and it’s a case of giving someone more time. In an oversimplified and absurd hypothetical to illustrate the point: We can spend our money here, and give this man another month of life. Or we can save fifty lives with that same money here. We can’t afford both.
Purple, where did I say, or even imply, that I supported distributing health care based on wealth or income? You’re attempting to assign me a position that not only goes well beyond my own ideology (which, had you asked, you would have realized), but would also put me against the entire concept of private insurance, which is an obvious tautology.
I am forced to assume that your attempt to force such an extreme position on me is an attempt to derail the debate by claiming the “moral high ground”. Is it because, as you admitted, you’re unfamiliar with the details of the American system? If so, I’d encourage you to take the opportunity to educate yourself, because you otherwise struck me as intelligent and thoughtful.
I’m just tired and not putting my point across very well. I assume that, in a system where some procedures must be paid for, those who need them wil get them based on their ability to pay.
Basic care might well be free to all, but for complicated, expensive, life-saving procedures, what’s the case? Is it always available if it’s needed (in which case why pay for insurance?), or will some people go without because they can’t pay (which is what I was saying?). I genuinely don’t know, and assumed the latter.
To be honest the specifics don’t interest me that much. I’m unlikely ever to need healthcare in the sates, and I’m (mostly) past the youthful fervor of trying to change the world. The theory is what I’m interested in, rather than specifics, which is why I was trying, unsuccessfully, to boil private healthcare down to the basics.
I don’t for a second think that you would advocate a brutal and uncaring system, and I’m sorry if I implied that. I’m just trying to see how the system the US has, and whatever system you might advocate, would deal with the excess of demand for medical care. Beyond a UK-style system, and a pay-per-use system, I’m not seeing many alternatives.
Fair enough. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
You can provide more care by either (a) raising prices or (b) cutting costs. The benefit I see in private insurance is that it’s incented to cut costs, because more care provided == more profit, or at least the same amount of profit, depending on how procedures’ margins drop.
But to do that, I think we need some structural changes:
- Primary payment by individuals, not insurance or corporations: I think that health costs have exploded primarily because we’ve pushed payments to those with deep pockets. Over here, high-deductible plans with individual, pre-tax health savings accounts are growing in popularity; I think that’s a good model.
- Mandatory participation: a significant number of the uninsured are young, employed people who don’t see the benefit. We need them on board to make the numbers work, especially with our current top-heavy demographics.
- Tort and malpractice reform, and other institutional cost-cutting measures
Man, there’s some serious novel writing going on here. Congratulations, you all exceeded the minimum word count requirement!
“most of the guys in charge, especially the lifers, are millionaire lawyers who’ve milked their political connections enough ”
Or Republican actors who’ve done the same
Well, you’ve proven again you’re capable of criticizing. Now, do you have any actual ideas, or are you just going to sit there and say “That’s not how I would have done it.”
I assume that you saw the blank line in the middle of my response and couldn’t contain your urge to respond, nonsensical and vitriolic as it may have been. That’s understandable, I suppose, but you appear to have completely missed the second paragraph.
Instead, how about this:
- Take a deep breath
- Fix yourself a little hair of the dog (one can, maybe two)
- Go back and read the second paragraph
- Think (this may require another can or two)
- Submit a reasonable, thought-out response that addresses the salient points of the actual conversation
Yeah, poor caption. It needs either “WHARRGARBL” or “I came!”
“Mmmm… next year’s fireman calendar has its money shot.”
How about “The Tibetean Navy practice their manouvers”?
Reminds me of the trick you play on kids where to fold the hose in half and ask them to look in it to see where the water is, and just as they look, you let go so they get sprayed in the face. Only this is a bigger, more powerful hose.
ugh, I wanted to click the notify box. Grrr.
I lol’d hard at this
Publically funded medicine provides better coverage and better value for money.
However, the US spends over 2x as much per person on health as the even the highest spending comprehensive systems e.g. France.
The US spends over 3x as much on health per person as Britain’s national health service.
French health care is as good as if not better than the majority of insurance provided health care in the US. Britains is mostly inferior.
Which seems to indicate that comprehensive (covering the entire population) health care to the standard of current insurance funded healthcare in the US would be possible at half the price america spends through that private insurance system.
Note: Most Doctors and other professional medical staff are paid on average more in European countries than in the US. It’s not cheaper over there because of lower salaries. The exisiting insurance system in the US is just horrifibly inefficient (unless your idead of efficiency is maximising profit for HMOs et al).
THANK YOU!!! It’s embarassing that 28% of Americans believe we shouldn’t get a single payer or public option health plan going, and that they don’t care how low we rank internationally (37th in the world according to the World Health Organization) (link), even compared to poor nations.
Remarkably, more than 70% of Americans want a public option according to recent polls, and yet our legislators are dragging their feet about giving it to us.
BTW: if one has adequate insurance, we do have the best medical care in the world. It’s just that a shrinking number of people actually have that kind of coverage any more.
Mark, that poll number is skewed by thefollow up question of “do you yourself want a single payer system or gov healthacre?” (if we read the same story. The answer to that is almost always no, but um sure my neighbor down the street does.
(link)
One of the worst canards of those who don’t support universal health care is that somehow, the guys at the DMV will be running your health care system. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Under legislation currently being crafted, we would be offering a public option to compete with private insurers. This would be a good opportunity for the private sector to prove they do *everything* better than the government will. Personally, I think a lot of insurance companies will have to reduce the rate of profit they are making (up to 30% of your health care dollar) in order to compete, and I think that is a good thing. Medicare spends about 2% to 3% of your health care dollar on administrative expenses; if a private company can’t compete with that, they don’t deserve to exist.
It’s a good thing to reduce costs, but in the grand scheme of things, the government will ALWAYS be able to underbid because they essentially have an unlimited supply of (our) money to throw at it. So there is no real competition.