Tom Van Steenbergen Breaks Femur, Rib & Punctures Lung

Nov 13, 2020
by Sarah Moore  


Tom Van Steenbergen announced today that he had a nasty crash guinea pigging a road gap on Monday, resulting in a broken femur, broken rib and punctured lung.

bigquotesOn Monday I went up to guinea pig my road gap before it snowed. The run in and landing were frozen solid but I went for it anyways. I broke my femur, a rib and punctured my lung. All these injuries have been super manageable, but there were some other complications that made my first two days hell. I lost a lot of blood, but I’m so damn stoked to be home now. Can’t thank @basvsteenbergen @vaeaverbeeck enough for dealing with this shitty situation so well. Thanks @kiannahamilton for making me meals at the hospital and taking care of me now. I’m already putting weight on my leg, lifting and bending it on my own with no pain killers. I’ll be back soon.Tom Van Steenbergen


We're happy to hear that Tom is out of the hospital and back at home and we can't wait to see him sending it again.





369 Comments

  • 386 12
 How to tell he’s not an American pro mountain biker: no crowd funding link on injury announcement
  • 261 21
 I still can't figure out why so many Americans think socialized health care is a bad thing?
  • 5 29
flag onlyDH (Nov 13, 2020 at 12:37) (Below Threshold)
 Dang, who’s done that?
  • 16 0
 @onlyDH: surprisingly common sight
  • 22 8
 I cannot believe a pro wouldn't negotiate a health care plan. Every full time ive had since out of school offered an insane ppo plan. Crazy to ride without insurance.
  • 19 1
 @jrocksdh: Most aren't 'pros'. Those who are actually employed rather than just 'sponsored' is quite small.

Source: none, I'm just talking shit...
  • 89 5
 @ratedgg13: They've been made to think all things construed as or related to socialism are bad. Too many lobbying industries with too much to lose from it, like insurance, pharma, etc...
  • 62 5
 @ratedgg13: Its often the people who it would benefit the most from it who are also the most stubborn about it.
  • 24 0
 @ReformedRoadie: Yeah this too. "Healthcare for all" is good, "socialized healthcare" is bad.

FWIW, I am/would be all for it.
  • 10 10
 @ratedgg13: They're concerned about undue government influence and control in their personal affairs.
  • 41 8
 @ReformedRoadie: They also mistake communism with socialism as well
  • 9 19
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 13, 2020 at 13:14) (Below Threshold)
 @ReformedRoadie: Also true. The Green New Deal sought to abolish the private healthcare industry, by bringing all the private hospitals under public control, which is a remarkable powergrab when you think of the implications (property, personnel and medical records to name a few). A 2-tier system is probably preferable though- they would keep each other 'honest' so to speak.
  • 29 2
 @ratedgg13: the freedom to die broke
  • 40 14
 @SmashySmashy: The irony is that the side that propagates that fear it the one that denies a woman the right to choose. Not sure if there is a more personal affair then that.
  • 17 1
 Didn’t mean to totally hijack the comments- I hope Tom heals up quickly. X-ray made me cringe. But it couldve been worse. Be grateful you are alive and not underinsured in the USA. Stay positive. 2020 is almost over.
  • 20 2
 @SmashySmashy: Yet these same people are fine with having their employers make these decisions for them.
  • 15 1
 @ReformedRoadie: Adding to the irony is the statistical use of medicaid by that side. FREEDUMB!
  • 7 0
 @speed10: This is Pinkbike; the likelihood of a comment descending into tribalism is directly proportional to the level of wit of the initial comment.
It's astounding he's back on his feet already, that all sounds ridiculous! Heal up soon.
  • 18 78
flag Baller7756 (Nov 13, 2020 at 13:55) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13: If you're having trouble figuring out why people don't want "socialized" anything... just replace the word "socialized' with "taxed" or just understand that you're involuntarily taking money from some to give to others... known as steeling when anyone other than the government does it.
  • 40 11
 @ratedgg13: As a norwegian, I second this. Crazy yanks, but I guess that's the price of freedumb..
  • 2 0
 @ratedgg13: that's because they didn't give us socialized medicine they just made us buy a policy
  • 6 4
 @Baller7756: I'd also add to your points that bloated organisations and monopolies have terrible records when it comes to providing a cost-effective service and innovation. Too arrogant, too set in their ways (or just too incapable of adapting). It's been the case the world over, the processes of such organisations eventually stop benefitting the people they're supposed to.
  • 25 2
 @Baller7756: costs go down per household with socialized medicine. That’s a fact.
  • 48 8
 @ratedgg13: Americans have some strange ideas about the word “socialized”, most don’t realize that Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Disability, etc ... are social support programs.

There’s a difference between a political theory and an economic support program.

Sadly, Americans on the whole are not well informed beyond a simple understanding of their own political and economic system.

The problem is cultural, ie American culture is and has always been isolationist, so Americans tend to be naive as a result of poor socialization.

Even though current events has highlighted American nationalism, the reality is that America has been a fairly despotic force in the world for more than a century.

If the election had turned out differently, we were looking to change citizenship, still on the table.

Fingers crossed.
  • 21 7
 @ReformedRoadie: conservatives in the US are hypocrites in the name of some old book, what else is new
  • 1 16
flag Lhillgamer (Nov 13, 2020 at 14:21) (Below Threshold)
 Or the fact that his name is tom van steenbergen. not saying that americans can't have foreign names, but it's a good hint.
  • 13 1
 @ratedgg13: Something something Soviet Russian, something something Freedumb!
  • 22 2
 @Baller7756: For what it's worth, we don't pay much more in taxes overall but get a fair bit for our money. I'm not exactly wealthy, but I'll happily keep paying my taxes for the benefits I (and other Canadians) get.

Some data: www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/canadians-may-pay-more-taxes-than-americans-but-theres-a-catch.html
I don't know how CNBC is viewed for impartial reporting (apparently that's also a big deal down there?), but OECD tax stats tell a pretty clear story.
  • 7 23
flag PA-MTB (Nov 13, 2020 at 15:06) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13: have you ever used your socialized healthcare? Most Canadians that say stuff like this have never really needed it. I'm canadian, married to one and have dozen of family members in canada all of which complain miserably about it when they have to use it.
  • 21 0
 @Baller7756: Read this: www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019

"The U.S. spends more on health care as a share of the economy — nearly twice as much as the average OECD country — yet has the lowest life expectancy and highest suicide rates among the 11 nations"
  • 4 25
flag nickmalysh (Nov 13, 2020 at 16:00) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13: cause not everyone jumping from the cliff, so why someone should pay for person who is 'doing stupid shit?'

free healthcare typically tax based and and limited to essentials surgeries or ICU anyway
  • 11 2
 @Baller7756: Do you feel the same way about roads?
  • 19 4
 @PA-MTB: Bruh I use my healthcare regularly, very regularly. Whatever bullshit picture you have painted in your head of what healthcare is like up here is wrong.
  • 7 20
flag JohanG (Nov 13, 2020 at 16:26) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13: Because not all of us are ignorant of economics, history, and the actual state of medicine in socialized countries, maybe? Publik Skoolers feel free to downvote as your state programming has been challenged.
  • 17 1
 @PA-MTB: which is weird as I’ve had plenty of experience with the Canadian healthcare system before I moved here to NZ. Been excellent. If you’re feeble and think your booboo needs significant medical attention, then no. But if you’re actually sick or injured it’s been great. Triage nurses do a great job.

Between broken limbs that needed surgery, which happened immediately and family members who have had health issues, they’ve been treated well and in a timely fashion. Even then, if the option was to wait a month or two for something or be indebted for life — pretty sure I know which side I’d be on.

Our taxes between countries are pretty similar on average, except instead of funding a huge public health system for the betterment of its citizens, Yankees fund a significant military. Different strokes, I suppose and that is advantage of a free country.
  • 19 6
 @ratedgg13: seriously? did you see how many idiots voted for our temper tantrum president? there's your answer
  • 4 0
 @connorjuliusjohnson: (cough RED STATES cough)
  • 12 19
flag two2pedal (Nov 13, 2020 at 16:52) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13: because government control sucks. how bout the rare concept of personal responsibility.
  • 17 5
 @Baller7756: dude you are as deluded as Trump! We call "taking from some and giving to others ", 'caring about others'. Taking from some and giving to yourself is 'stealing'. So not paying taxes is 'stealing ' from others - you know, society, all of us. Or do you live in the White House too?
  • 11 2
 @PA-MTB: I’m a health care provider as is my wife, and all four of our kids.

We see every insurance under the sun, and everyone complains about the care they receive regardless of insurance type. Everyone complains, apparently it’s human nature.

And of course only sick people use their health insurances, saying someone doesn’t use their health insurance is really a dumb comment: it’s “in case“ of illness.

In time we all get old, we all get sick, try not to be so shortsighted, even if you are.
  • 14 3
 @two2pedal: is crashing on your mountain bike a responsible act?

Think about what personal responsibility really means, it’s not just the things you cherry pick when judging others,
  • 12 3
 @ratedgg13: honestly, you won’t find many people to argue with on your facts, we all know what you’re saying, unfortunately the best we have done to date was nearly struck down by our president and Congress.

Being an American can be embarrassing, changing “teams” is harder than it looks.
  • 8 15
flag hamncheez (Nov 13, 2020 at 17:36) (Below Threshold)
 Instead of straw manning, mocking, and expending 0 effort into trying to understand why in the USA we don't want socialized, or government provided healthcare, why not actually listen to us?

If its such a good idea, make it voluntary. Problem solved. If I want to opt out, let me. Or even better, structure it to be opt in. Good ideas don't require force.

You do what you want, and allow me the same courtesy.
  • 7 8
 @hamncheez: Interesting... so you're saying those who chose to be personally responsible for themselves (choosing to work, managing income and debt, buying different insurances according their own risk tolerance, saving and investing for their own retirement)… those people should not have to contribute or partake in the socialist programs?

But then who would pay for these programs... certainly not the irresponsible folks... perhaps the government... no, the government doesn't have money... only those responsible people have money. Its just not going to work... we've got to force them to participate.
  • 16 2
 @Baller7756: I’m sure you build the finest roads and provide the cleanest water all for your own private use. MUST BE NICE!

Yer spare parts bud.
  • 6 5
 @ratedgg13: “why is socialized healthcare a bad thing?” Ha! You think you’re so smart, don’t you guys? It’s because, well...you see...uhhh. There are many reasons. I don’t know what those reasons are and how many in number there are. But, there are. Many reasons. And that, my friends, is how I’d explain it.
  • 7 4
 @Arepiscopo: I’m in a red state and we is smart folk! You city slickerin’ blue states think y’all know best. We know healthcare bayest.
  • 15 0
 @SmashySmashy: right but in the US we have just traded a bloated bureaucracy for a bloated insurance industry and for profit healthcare system and guess what, we have higher healthcare costs than any developed country in the world without having superior services to many.
@Baller7756 whether you pay for it in taxes or pay for it in overinflated insurance premiums you are getting money taken out of your pocket. We are paying extra for the illusion of personal freedom while lining the pockets of insurance CEOs.
  • 7 1
 @nurseben: the ACA is only considered best because it’s the only. It’s shit legislation that was largely written by the heritage foundation is practically an insurance scam
  • 1 0
 @ceecee: in more ways than one
  • 3 4
 @shami: You are right and wrong... yes we are paying higher premiums, but its because we are subsidizing for others who are less responsible and "cant afford" to pay for themselves... not necessarily for massive profits.

The insurance company is a business, and the market will bear whatever profit can be made... in the current case... subsidizing through higher premiums for those that pay.
  • 16 2
 For those arguing against socialized healthcare: You take for granted socialized services like Medicare, fire fighting, ROADS, police service, social security, schools, etc, etc, etc. Why would healthcare be any different? You don't always use those services, but it's critical that they're available because anything can happen in life.

This isn't rocket science. Healthcare is cheaper, functions more efficiently, and has better health outcomes everywhere else in the developed world. It would literally be CHEAPER, per person, for the US to transition to a single payer system, and everyone would be covered.

Stop making this a political issue. It's not.
  • 3 0
 @Baller7756: Hmmm, almost sounds like socialism with higher prices.
  • 4 25
flag Baller7756 (Nov 13, 2020 at 21:54) (Below Threshold)
 @jayacheess: All of those countries benefit from US healthcare innovation and development. The US companies engage in progress for profit... they risk massive money in development to ultimately make it back with a breakthrough product. If the government dictates their profits, they will stop innovating. In that case the whole world suffers. COVID vaccine in less than a year! Where are these other countries with socialized medicine... waiting on US profiteers to solve the problem.
  • 20 2
 @Baller7756: If you think the only innovations in healthcare and pharmaceuticals are happening in the US, you're very, very mistaken.

And even in the US, many of the innovations in healthcare and pharmaceuticals come from university based research, which is then licensed and marketed by providers. Your vaccine example is doubly funny since it was jointly funded by the German government, using German taxpayer money, with the understanding that the Vaccine would be provided to Germans by the government under socialized medicine.

Honestly, this is an absurdly weak argument for continuing to brutalize your population.
  • 1 1
 @ratedgg13: trust me when I say Cali thinks it’d be amazing
  • 6 1
 @jayacheess: Perhaps missing in your/Ballers posts: substantial US government grants to both universities and independent research facilities coming from.... yep, taxpayers.
  • 5 2
 @Baller7756: That’s just plain untrue. There is no made in the US vaccine that’s gonna go to the world. The only vaccine that an American company produces is in Germany in a shared operation. Other vaccines come from the UK, the Netherlands and China.
  • 2 0
 @Lhillgamer: OMG. Sitting bull just talked. Go back less than 4 generations in your family....surprise!
  • 6 10
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 0:22) (Below Threshold)
 @pcledrew: I grew up in a country with socialized healthcare. It's no cake walk. When it works well, it's great. But almost always, it doesn't. The people on the front-line couldn't be nicer, but eventually the bureaucracy and higher-ups become impediments to, rather than enablers of quality service. And I know for a fact Canada is no role model for socialized healthcare- your government has probably shut own as many hospitals as it's built in the last 50 years, and the consequences of those policies walk the streets of Vancouver every day screaming at themselves, and everyone else.
@Ryanrobinson1984: Everyone has to pay into a socialized healthcare system under penalty of law, even though they may never need to use it. That's a lot of money, for zero benefit. Add to that, a lot of people abuse such systems, or demand extra services- politicians especially love it because they get to pay for their good press using other people's money. And since socialized healthcare becomes a political issue, could you imagine if some radical group started agitating for reduced services to some racial/ minority group based on their self-serving criteria? Socialized anything eventually becomes top heavy and bureaucratic,which leads to diminished services to customers. Without competition, complacency sets in and organisations are content to provide the same basic service; no innovation.
@shami: Same points above. We're better served by 5 large-ish organisations competing for our hard-earned cash, than one massive one which gets our money irrespective of whether they earned it or not.
@jayacheess: We're well aware those are socialized programs. And not surprisingly- we're against them on principle too. It is not the job of the government to redistribute wealth as they see fit, especially as they have skin in the game (I.e. they can allocate our money to benefit them by garnering votes, which the democrats in the US have done with great effect, but also destructive results for those they claim to be 'helping'). Many of the services you list have no private counterpart, which means the government has a monopoly on it. But citizens should have the right to opt-out and put their money into an alternative, whether they purchase insurance, or invest it as part of a rainy day fund etc. It's their money, and their decision after all.
Always remember kids- if you socialize a service, (especially with no ability to opt-out) you relinquish control over that facet of your life and it becomes the property of the political class to exploit as they see fit. So you, by extension, become their property too (in part). They have leverage over you. That is the single biggest problem with programs such as these.
  • 11 2
 @makkelijk: as if the vocal majority in the US believed in "truth". Heck, millions of people over there still believe that the election was heavily rigged, despite overwhelming evidence that the exact opposite is the case.
No, arguing with a "freedom"-person is a complete and utter waste of time.
  • 9 0
 @Baller7756: you do know that things like schools, libraries, police, roads, garbage collection, fire service, military, water supply and court services are all examples of socialized services right? do you use or have you ever used any of these? what do you think pays for these services, that would be taxes, would you rather not have any of these services available to you?
  • 6 8
 @roguecheddar: Every socialized service has it's pros and cons; Balancing the risks with the societal benefits they bring is always a fine line. Socialized schools can lead to indoctrination, police & military which defend or uphold the law today may become tyrannical tomorrow. Even libraries can be corrupted by not stocking books some consider offensive. One thing all of these services have in common- there are private counterpart which offer alternative service.
Socialized healthcare has been good for a lot of people in a lot of countries. But private healthcare also has a place. It isn't just a case of socialized healthcare bad, it's that those that want to implement it want it in the US to be the only option available. Even Kamala Harris wants to get rid of private healthcare.
Why does a government require a monopoly on healthcare?
  • 9 0
 @SmashySmashy: health care in the UK is paid for through general taxation. This provides free care at point of use, so poor people who don't/can't pay taxes can still use.
We also have private, insurance based health care if we want it. And can mix and match.

As someone who has used the NHS regularly it on the whole provides a good service. And been reliant on long term medication I'm grateful for ut.
  • 1 8
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 1:34) (Below Threshold)
 @jonathansixtysix: "health care in the UK is paid for through general taxation". This isn't strictly true. Many trusts in the NHS are semi-private or private. Also, the NHS has become a source of national shame for many in the UK, as it's become inefficient and politicized in precisely the ways I've described. In a way, it makes my case far more than it makes yours.
  • 1 5
flag truehipster (Nov 14, 2020 at 2:21) (Below Threshold)
 @roguecheddar: you are wrong on half of your comment. Typical socialist!
  • 3 3
 @SmashySmashy: sources please. If you're going to claim many Trusts are private, and many people feel the NHS is a source of national shame, I'd like to see where your information comes from.
  • 5 1
 @SmashySmashy: You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The NHS is far from perfect but any society without socialized healthcare fares worse, and countries with zero social programs are basically screwed.
  • 2 6
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 3:16) (Below Threshold)
 @sargey2003: Pish. No country ever became a superpower by instigating socialist policies. But there are plenty of examples of those that buckled under the financial burdens they imposed. It's not a matter of if, but when.
  • 1 5
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 4:59) (Below Threshold)
 @malv173: I've made a point to decline to provide references unless those requesting them supply their own first. We all equally capable of googling afterall.
Nevertheless, I need to clarify when I said the trusts are private, and not that they offer private services which is what I meant. Their funds come from sources other than general taxation.
www.england.nhs.uk/nhsidentity/examples/private-healthcare-delivered-by-an-nhs-trust-foundation-trust
  • 1 4
 @ratedgg13: being as I work in healthcare... Simple, I have no obligation to treat people who do not have the insurance and or demographic that I deem necessary to run a business.
  • 1 5
flag JustAnotherRiderHere (Nov 14, 2020 at 5:03) (Below Threshold)
 @DaFreerider44: you are absolutely correct. Hitler for instance was a socialist.
  • 1 4
 @two2pedal: noooooooooo...........where is my safe space??????
  • 1 4
 @SmashySmashy: oh, you think just because you experienced it firsthand and have facts on your side that makes you right? Please, we have emotions to worry about
  • 8 0
 @SmashySmashy:
1. You really do not understand what Socialism really is.
2. Being a superpower is irrelevant to most countries that have happy, healthy populations - just check out Scandanivia; they may not want to rule the world but they aim to be happy.
3. Answer me this - how do you think countries get to be superpowers (clue: it's nothing to do with their healthcare systems)
  • 2 0
 @ratedgg13: I know, right?
  • 2 7
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 5:55) (Below Threshold)
 @sargey2003:
1. On the contrary, I understand it better than most people, because I recognise that there are pros and cons. And in the current political climate the cons loom far larger than the pros, believe me. You do not want to be in a situation where a vocal, vengeful minority could potentially determine your future access to healthcare, while you're made pay for theirs (and have done so for decades) under penalty of incarceration.
2. My point was that countries don't typically advance under socialist policies in general. There's a reason a country has to be economically stable before it can implement socialist policies, and why so many subsequently falter under the strain.
3. I'm not playing your little game; Stay on point or stay away. Your choice sunshine.
  • 4 1
 @SmashySmashy: Define advance - if it's about the enrichment of the top 5% then you will be happy with your thinking, if it's about the benefit of an entire society then pure capitalism will never get you there.

Google where the happiest people are and tell me if you think those are what you would term a socialist country.

Clearly you wish to play your own game, to your own rules with no reference to the real world and actual facts.
  • 5 3
 Dick move turning this thread to politics. I really hope Tom is feeling better today.
I've seen 2 people break a femur & it's stunning how utterly calm they were. Something about that particular break triggers such an adrenaline & endorphin rush in them.

It was utterly sickening to watch both guys sitting there, leg flush with the ground and they try to "pick it up" and their upper thigh moves but the lower half of their thigh doesn't
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: Big name health insurance companies made 35.7 billion in profits in 2019. To some degree we are paying higher premiums to balance out those who pay less but even prior to the ACA premiums weren't much less. We are basically paying more so that the corporations can make the same massive profits off of us and we are still paying for other people's health insurance. This is why we have the most expensive health care system in the world.
  • 1 3
 @sargey2003: 3....Win wars....KILL the enemies and, when feasible drink wine from their skulls :-)
  • 4 2
 @SmashySmashy: we are not better served by "5 largish organizations" the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and it's just ok, sometimes it works well and sometimes it totally fails people. The issues you list off above about the problems of socialized healthcare: good frontline workers but higher ups being impedants to quality service sounds remarkably similar to problems in the for profit healthcare system too. Guess what bureaucracy exists in the for profit system just as much and on top of that many extra billions of dollars leave the system to go into insurance industry profits and overpaid CEOs.
Your assertions about democrats allocating money to garner votes at the detriment of their constituents is pure political drivel, as if the republicans don't allocate money in a way that benefits themselves in elections often at the detriment of their constituents.
  • 6 3
 I regret ever commenting in this thread
  • 3 8
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 7:01) (Below Threshold)
 @sargey2003:
1) Higher standard of living, fully-accountable government, individual autonomy is respected, the rule of law is upheld, civilized citizenry. No country has ever achieved all those characteristics under socialist rule. Socialism takes hold in countries that already exhibit those attributes (In fact I would say they're a prerequisite to implementing them) and the decline begins shortly after. Typically the 1st or 2nd slips, maybe bit by bit at first but eventually one or both drop in a free-fall. The third is lost to the ensuing blame games, while those at the top look for a way to maintain their control. At that point the fourth is on life support, preserved only at the end of a gun. Once that milestone is reached the collapse of the fifth isn't far behind. It may take years to reach that point, decades even, but it's inevitable.

2) The Scandinavian countries are not socialist. In many ways they're more capitalist than even the US; The government interferes relatively little in matters of commerce. Just look at their Covid response. It's things such as their social cohesion that contribute so much to their life satisfaction, something the US is very far from attaining; The US isn't ready for socialized healthcare. It's too fragmented politically and the low level of societal and institutional trust means shoe-horning it in would only exasperate existing tensions and divisions.

3) I fail to see how asking me about how countries have ascended is relevant. But if you're accusing me of being some fervent, free-market capitalist imperialist then you're a mile off.

@blowmyfuse: As frustrating as it is to have the discussion hijacked, no one died. While his injuries are horrific, the news is good and TVS is on the mend. So less of the morality policing.

@shami: Mathematically speaking, you are far better served; 5 organisations competing for optional custom will provide better service than one massive organisation that gets your money whether it provides you with a service or not.
  • 10 3
 @pcledrew: The bullsh*t picture in his head was likely put there by Fox News and the manipulative right wing media in the US.

The fact that right wing freedumbers have now rejected Fox News for the fake hair, fake tan con man simply cause they called Arizona for Biden shows how their dear leader has turned them into a bunch of whiny, childish idiots who simply cannot handle any semblance of truth.

Now the freedumbers are running off and hiding in their Parler and WeMe bubbles cause Facebook and Twitter aren't allowing ridiculous conspiracy theories anymore.
  • 2 3
 @DoubleCrownAddict: And, in the mean time I took 12 staff members from full time to part time (under 29 hours) and hired five new part time staff.....plus, two less front desk staff thanks to remote and kiosk check in....Win!
  • 24 5
 @SmashySmashy: Do you consider all this "undue government influence and covertly in personal affairs?"

A Day in the Life of Joe Republican
Joe gets up at 6:00 am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good, clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and efficacy. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance. Now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. Joe takes his morning shower, reaching for his shampoo; his bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know the amount and identity of the substances he was putting on his body.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor to society. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer upholds these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed hell get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work, and he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to his dad's; his car is among the safest in the world be cause some wacko liberal (Ralph Nader!) fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmer's Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefi that Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees. "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives", he says. "After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".
  • 5 0
 @JustAnotherRiderHere: weird flex but ok, your life must be pretty sad if that’s all you got to show for yourself
  • 7 10
 @DoubleCrownAddict: It is an utter fallacy that we have clean drinking water, clean air, or safe food because of Government. It is because we are rich enough to afford these things. The same regulations exist in Mexico, but they don't have clean air, water, or safe food. Hong Kong has safer air, water, and food than we do in the USA despite having nearly no regulations.

Please, learn a little history or economics before commenting.
  • 1 5
flag JustAnotherRiderHere (Nov 14, 2020 at 8:11) (Below Threshold)
 @Upduro: Owning a successful business and replying from 5 star hotel in the Florida Keys....yes, it's a win. Poverty is for fools....curious, how many bikes for the indigent could we purchase for the price of yours?

Oh, and Part Time is all many staff members deserve (if they work). In the USA FTEs cost too much....the higher legislative minimum wage goes, the less full time jobs there will be.
  • 5 2
 @SmashySmashy: You can argue your libertarian bullshit forever, but the fact is that for all the freemarket freedoms you're advocating for, you accept that the health outcomes and general societal outcomes are worse for most of your population. You're arguing for a tiered/stratified system, which fundamentally crushes economic mobility because it ignores the effects of systemic problems like racism, greed, commercial monopolies, etc. It also ignores the effects of pure, dumb-luck.

So yes, if you want to fight for a country that's a worse place to live in for the majority of the population, but is good for YOU because you're one of the privileged 'haves', go right ahead. It's not the moral choice, but it's a choice.
  • 1 0
 deleted before PB freezes it as permanent
  • 6 0
 @JustAnotherRiderHere: 90% Chance you’re just a troll account or RoadStain trying to trigger people again. If not, why do you even bother trying to flex your life in a mountainbike website comment section? I couldn’t care less where in the US some fat old boomer is lying in the sun, I’m just here to read about bikes and stuff.
  • 3 0
 @SmashySmashy: ok, that's all good. But the major source of NHS funding is general taxation, then the next largest contribution is National Insurance, and a small percentage comes from patient charges. The Trusts are allowed to raise additional income via outsourcing some services (which is increasing, sadly) to the private sector.
  • 3 0
 @ratedgg13: our government doesn’t have a great reputation with money management or even corruption and increasing taxes exacerbated this fear. Funny thing is that crowdfunding is a privatized way to do the same thing socialized health care does.
  • 2 6
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 9:43) (Below Threshold)
 @DoubleCrownAddict: I commend the effort. Not many would go to so much trouble, nor make their point so eloquently. I think though, as an exercise you might try doing the same from the perspective of a free-market advocate. You might be surprised how many things Joe needs originate from there.
malv173: The cost of the NHS has risen considerably higher in the last two decades when compared with the GDP or population of the UK. They've exhausted their ability to pay for it through taxes, so they've brought on additional avenues for revenue. It could be the beginning of the end for it, because if it fails the social currency it required to get it off the ground just isn't there anymore to bring it back.
@Jayacheess: Doesn't it strike you as strange that society's greatest sins can only be cured by socialism and enforced equity? And yet, it's never managed to sustain (if you could call the descent into anarchy 'sustain') a society for any considerable amount of time without murderous tyranny. I think you need to re-evaluate what you think you know about the systems we use to run the world.
  • 4 3
 @SmashySmashy: To do the same from perspective of a free market economy just look at Somalia, Burundi, or the Central African Republic. Countries that don't strive for strong education and economic, social, and environmental protection/regulation/ culture usually inevitably fail because of corruption which leads to tyranny/ authoritarian leaders/ dictators.
  • 5 2
 @SmashySmashy: No one is advocating for pure socialism. What most progressives want is a balanced system of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is a central part of rewarding merit and hard work, but the US has blown way past the balance point that other developed countries have found. Again, there is evidence all around you of developed countries with better quality of life, health, and even manufacturing and employment, but you refuse to acknowledge their examples.
  • 4 6
 @jayacheess: I have yet to encounter a progressive who says that the solution to a particular societal problem is less socialism.
  • 6 0
 @SmashySmashy: You just have.

Socialism isn't the only piece of the puzzle. It's just that as an American, you're usually running in to progressives that can see the US has swung too far towards pure capitalism.
  • 6 2
 @hamncheez: You're off your rocker if you think no regulations would net better air, water, food in the unchecked capitalist utopia you've created in your mind.

Please, learn the many examples in modern history where the many various US government regulatory agencies have promoted your well being before commenting.
  • 1 0
 @truehipster: feel free to enlighten me on which half. a typical socialist I am not.
  • 2 6
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 11:09) (Below Threshold)
 @jayacheess: You'll forgive me if I dismiss your claim that you think there are certain things which require less socialism after a) Your little tirade earlier and b) you don't provide an example.

The claim the US has swung too far towards capitalism is a bit dubious when you consider the basis for their criticism. In their view anything more profitable than a monastery is evidence of too much capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't claim to make all people wealthy, only that the supply of goods will be done at a fair price. How it has become the boogeyman it is requires serious introspection on the part of those that criticise it as a social theory.
  • 4 1
 @jayacheess: I'm having difficulty distinguishing pure capitalism from theft. The CEO of United Health Group made $18,900,000--including stock options and bonuses--in 2019, all without seeing a single patient, making or fixing anything. He's a true American hero, but still small time by Wall Street standards. According to TESLA, Elon Musk made $0 in 2018. So sad for the inventor of the electric car.

As long as lawmakers can be influenced by lobbyists, these issues are severely political. Pinkbikers will continue to ape criticism of dentists beholden to 'health groups,' big men that we are.
  • 3 1
 @ratedgg13: tis madness. Seeing in an article about the autistic kid in Utah who the cops shot 13 times when his mum called him in - she had started a Kickstarter to pay for his treatment. f*cking terrifying.
  • 8 0
 @SmashySmashy: Detailed battling of ideologies is not something I'm interested in on Pinkbike. I'll just reiterate, AGAIN, that there are other countries that are better places to live for a majority of people from different socio-economic classes than the US, and they are that way because they've struck a balance that leans more heavily on socialism than what you're advocating for.
  • 3 6
 @jayacheess: And I'm sticking to my guns too. Those countries achieved a level of social cohesion that subsequently enabled them to implement socialist policies, not the other way around. Despite the cost and drawbacks, the general social unity they enjoy allows them to weather the various problems those policies present.
Implementing the same policies in the US will not work- the citizenry is much too fractured ideologically. It would fail hard and fast.
  • 2 0
 @SmashySmashy: best of luck implementing Medicare
  • 3 4
 @ceecee: Thanks for playing.

Just out of interest, does anyone have an example of a first world country, where a dictator came to power without socialism being a significant part of their ascent to power?
  • 2 1
 @SmashySmashy: USA, Harry 'S.' Truman, 1945. Haven't you heard, Democrat democratists are socialized Socialist demagogues?
  • 2 3
 @ceecee: President Truman denounced the use of "socialism" as a "scare word ... for almost anything that requires the people to sacrifice personal liberty and independence for government control and interference in those aspects of their lives"
How prescient.
  • 3 4
 @SmashySmashy: I hear you man. But this is a deaf audience.

A requirement of socialism is a strong, central government that has significant control over citizens lives. That also happens to be the most fertile soil for a Dictator, who needs a strong, central government that has significant control over peoples lives in order to Dictate his will over others.
  • 2 6
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 14, 2020 at 14:06) (Below Threshold)
 @hamncheez: It's sad but true. All the talk of Trump the dictator and they're completely ignorant of the history of marxism and it's derivatives, and how they enabled almost every major dictator of the 20th century to assume control. I often think the US is the last hold-out of true liberty, and if it capitulates to the mob the pretence will be dropped everywhere else; Without that point of reference the world would succumb completely.
  • 1 1
 @shami: Agreed... but should those insurance companies not be able profit off their risk?
  • 1 3
 @jayacheess: That's a bit too far. More people migrate to America than any other county in the world... more than most combined. Its undeniably the most desirable place to live.

Yes, we have spoiled people that like to complain and think they instantly deserve to have what others have worked lifetimes for, or have leveraged their particular skills to obtain. Not taking a moment to look around at the rest of the world and understand that the bottom 25% of Americans have it so much better than the majority of the world.

Those squeaky wheels are the ones you always hear about in your media... and that's how you are conditioned into your current opinions of the US.
  • 2 4
 @jayacheess: I was about to reply... but after reading through, that Smashy guy already destroyed you... I'll let you lick your wounds.
  • 6 2
 @SmashySmashy: It's been a while since I've witnessed someone indulge their own ignorance so publicly...
  • 5 1
 @Baller7756: " Its undeniably the most desirable place to live."

That shows how ignorant you are. Take a look at the global quality of life index for starters.
  • 7 3
 @Baller7756: You're fundamentally wrong about your immigration numbers: Canada, for example averages THREE TIMES the immigrants per capita, per year compared to the US.

About everything else - you don't appear to have been keeping up with the discussion anyway. Not really worth arguing with you.
  • 6 1
 How about you all shut the f*ck up? An injury article turns into this shit show, get a grip you all have no idea
  • 4 0
 @aussiebiker13: we're not exploiting our injuries any more than Tom is. Besides, 'the run in and landing were frozen solid, but I went for it anyways.' Adidas!
  • 4 0
 There's no free lunch and healthcare is expensive.
  • 2 1
 @anchoricex: Healthcare workers' pay goes down exponentially as well. That's a fact. Why only healthcare should be socialized? Socialize everything and "everybody" will be "happy"...
  • 1 1
 @Upduro: Really? Then why are you recruiting so many doctors and nurses from eastern Europe? Have never seen US healthcare workers on strike and they don't have to live with the "EU working time directive" either.
  • 5 2
 @SmashySmashy: I noticed that many people outside Europe don't really know what socialism actually is and use this word for everything that's not ravenous capitalism. You say that Scandinavia is not socialist - while compared to the rest of Europe it's probably deeply communist, with taxes reaching 50% and a high welfare level. Most of Europe is deeply socialist per your definition, yet most of these countries are one of the best formed democracies in the world. They have the best healthcare in the world (France and Germany are in the lead). They are also much less autocratic than the US.
The Soviet style socialism that you link with authoritarianism has absolutely nothing to do with the modern state funded healthcare. You're mixing definitions.

Also note than the US, big chunk of breakthrough research is done in taxpayer funded universities and institutions, like NASA. And without state encouragement and subventions, capitalist companies would have absolutely no interest in developing cures for rare diseases, and then these cures would be prohibitively expensive to the patients (well maybe they are in the US).

It's puzzling why people prefer to protect the interest of extremely rich CEO's of insurance companies more then their own.
  • 1 0
 @jayacheess: The statistics is skewed due to the civilisation-related diseases, like obesity. Those are lifestyle related diseases. Once you factor those out the numbers are much better. Also, the access to state-of the art and experimental treatments is best in the US. You simply can't deny that healthcare in general can't be extremely expensive. Most docs (incl. my parents) in my region are pissed off and demoralized by the socialized medicine. Why only expensive healthcare should be restricted and socialied, socialize everything incl. sports, Silicon Valley, Hollywood etc. and everybody will be "happy".
  • 2 0
 @nurseben: Really?! We have massive problems with recruiting nurses (as well as doctors) in our socialied system. No offense, but would you like to work in an ICU for less than 1000 bucks per month or +/-2000 per month in western Europe? Don't think so, because nobody really wants to...
  • 1 2
 @martin737: Then why are health outcomes so different for Canada? We're right next door and culturally and socially very similar.
  • 1 0
 @shami: Well, then deregulate the insurance market and introduce strict antitrust policies to prevent oligopolies/monopolies. Problem solved.
  • 2 0
 @onlyDH: BS. Heritage foundation has nothing to do with ACA. In fact, the conservative think thank opposes ACA. They want to deregulate the insurance market and implement strict antitrust policies to prevent isurance monopolies/oligopolies.
  • 3 0
 @ratedgg13: socialized heath care has benefits when you have a traumatic injury like this, when you have other illnesses it is not so good. have you waited for 4-8 hours in emerg? do you know a family member who needs a general surgery and is on a 1-2 year waitlist? some downfalls as well especially with how much Canadians pay in tax. hybrid heath care is the best system.
  • 3 0
 @jayacheess: Healthcare innovation comes mostly from the US and that is extremely expensive. Medicine is not only about providing healthcare, it's also about basic and clinical research and that is extremely expensive. You need massive resources for doing all this together and now you want to restrict this?!
  • 2 1
 @makkelijk: It's an international effort against the china virus, but the funding comes mostly from the US multinational pharma companies. Without Pfizer, german BionTech wouldn't be able to develop the vaccine.
  • 3 0
 @Eatsdirt: Or do what I did. After high school I spent a decade in the US and then a decade in Canada. Easier to know that Canada is the better place to live that way.
  • 3 1
 @jayacheess: Depends what outcomes and how you measure them. If you measure innovation, experimental treatments, etc. the US beats every other country single handedly. Basic and clinical research is risky and extremely expensive venture. Other countries are only following and copying the methods/treatments at almost zero cost. Socialized medicine is restricting innovation, research, etc. The high insurance cost in the US can be solved by deregulating the insurance market and by implementing strict antitrust policies against monopolies/oligopolies.
  • 3 0
 @ceecee: I don’t think Elon Musk invented the electric car...
  • 2 0
 @Slabrung: no one is trying to cure diseases, rare or otherwise.
Treat, yes.
Cure? Not as profitable
  • 2 1
 @martin737: This was already covered earlier in the discussion. A majority of healthcare and pharmaceutical innovations come from university research in the US; much of it government funded. If you want to get in to how much school costs in the US, that's an entirely different discussion.

As it stands, the US could go to socialized healthcare and it would have little effect on their healthcare innovation and research.

Also, I love this argument that a broken medical system that bankrupts people and results in lower quality of life for the majority is necessary so that the rest of the world might benefit from the medical innovations that a for-profit system produces (even though that's not what's happening). How kinda-benevolent!
  • 1 0
 @ReformedRoadie: This gets said all the time but it's not true.
  • 1 0
 @GrandMasterOrge: which comment are you responding to?
  • 1 0
 @ReformedRoadie: That nobody works towards treating disease because it isn't as profitable.
  • 1 0
 @jayacheess: I'm also enjoying the conflation of Pfizer, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company with private hospital healthcare.
  • 1 0
 You have no idea what the f*ck your talking about ignorant dumbass @DaFreerider44:
  • 3 1
 @jayacheess: Don't worry, I'm well aware of how much US universities cost and how they operate. No wonder the US university hospitals are in a league of their own. In fact, they've trained most of our top physicians, because our socialized schools have been left behind and don't have resources.

No, socialized medicine would have a massive effect on innovation and research. Medical education and training is the most expensive and the most demanding of all academic fields. Now, try to combine this with restrictions and "cost" cutting measures, which are inevitable when someone implements socialized healthcare. Nobody wants to pay +/-500K for medical education, spend years training and/or doing research only to enter the world of low cost socialized medicine. No incentives for innovation whatsoever!
  • 1 0
 @martin737: all the US has to do is get rid of the middlemen and their healthcare costs get cut in half. Canada has direct-to-consumer healthcare. US is mandating paying insurance companies, which take half the profit, then pay the rest to the hospitals who have layers of bureaucracy. I have a tonne of friends who spent $100,000/yr at med school in Cali and then moved back to BC to work in socialized medicine.
  • 1 0
 @Jvisscher: The insurance market needs deregulation, e.g. Cali residents should be able to buy insurance policy from other state. More competition (given strict antitrust oversight), lower prices, higher quality.
@/cali med friends: Whatever, that doesn't prove/disprove anything. Have relative who was educated in Slovakia (for free), trained at MGH in Boston and is now chief and professor of cardiovascular surgery in Wisconsin...
  • 4 2
 @Eatsdirt: why would you assume government agencies have my best interest at heart? They have their own best interest at heart. Public school has failed. Public utilities are failing. The court and justice system is failing. You say these things as if they are religious truth without evidence.
  • 2 0
 @PA-MTB: let them see an American medical bill. See if that shuts them up.
  • 2 1
 @martin737: It's a wonder we have a healthcare system at all with all of our Canadian trained doctors and Nurses!

I think you're conflating a poorly run socialized medical system where you live with all socialized medical systems. I can promise you, there are plenty of them that function extremely well.
  • 2 0
 @ReformedRoadie: the whole Nazi thing kinda got me to think negatively about the prospect of its “utopia”
  • 1 1
 @hamncheez: thought you regretted posting?
  • 5 5
 @jayacheess: I think we can all end it with acknowledging that jay is very happy living in Canada.

He may not be aware of the inherent protections and benefits the US provides him including the ability to run so many socialized programs by forgoing the expense of a competent military as well as allowing the US to bear the expense of medical research.

In a since... the US subsidizes the ability of many nations to offer socialist programs.

You're welcome. Call when you need us again.
  • 5 3
 @DaFreerider44:”
“The goal of socialism is communism”
-Vladimir Lenin

Of course if our public indoctrination system actually taught the history of socialism and communism and the 100million deaths its responsible for, you might know this .

You don’t have a “right” to another mans labor.
  • 2 3
 @ReformedRoadie: to choose what?
To kill an unborn human , with its own individual dna and blood type?
An actual human?
Is that weird? Why not up till their 18?
I didn’t really want to to kill my son until he was 14-17. Am I the bad guy,now?
Dead is dead, ain’t it?
  • 1 0
 @roguecheddar: schools (which suck) police (defunding) and roads (which again suck) are government services but most rural areas the rest is not. US is not socialist! But Canada is, but most of you money comes from resources! Rapping the earth!
  • 2 1
 @hamncheez: it’s just too fashionable to hate our country.
Its very sad and pathetic to watch.
  • 3 0
 @Baller7756: It's already been explained multiple times that the US could easily afford to switch to socialized medicine. It would be cheaper than your current system.

We're able to afford it in Canada not because of the US's protection and our lower spending on military.

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were just trying to win an internet argument and not actually debating in good faith.
  • 2 0
 @jayacheess: Not conflating anything. If there were patents, IP rights on medical procedures, then the payments would most likely end up in the US. But since anybody can reap benefits from US innovations for free , why bother. BTW, you've never experienced a fully fledged socialized medicine in Canada. For that, you need cheap labor. Germany, UK and other west European countries source cheap labor from Eastern Europe, we are sourcing cheap labor from Ukraine, and so on. As long as this works, the race to the bottom will continue.
  • 2 5
 @Kainerm: Judging by your shocking grasp of history I imagine you'd say the same about Einstein were you ever to hear him speak.

Socialism is like a vine growing on a wall; It seems harmless enough, and some people even encourage it because adds to the aesthetic over time. But all the while it's causing cracks to appear as it burys deeper in search of anchor points to support it's increasing mass. And before long the weight of the vine, and the structural damage it caused become too much, and the entire wall collapses. Note how the vine didn't add a single brick to the wall in all that time, nor did it build it in the first place.

As I said before, no socialist/ marxist etc. has ever said the solution to a societal problem is less centralized control. They're too invested in their (superficial) noble goals to ever contemplate the real-world consequences of what the advocating for. They're belief in such a system is more like a religious zealotry, than the result of calculated and nuanced critique and evaluation of the various options. Hence the reason they insult and deride, and not clarify and ecludiate. They simply take it on faith that it's the best way forward, and be damned anyone who doesn't agree with them.
  • 1 3
 @Slabrung: That all sounds well and good, but how do you explain the healthcare services assuming control of people's freedom of movement during the pandemic?

As for research from publically funded universities; It is the role of universities to perform research. Professors are researchers 1st, and teachers second. They're paid for by taxpayers, businesses included. And to take a 'breakthrough' and turn it into a viable product is no small matter. The majority can't be commercialized, which any 1st year finance intern will tell you. Nevertheless companies risk substantial sums of capital to try and bring these products to market knowing the majority will not succeed, but the one that does can be used to recoup the costs lost on the others.

The payout for companies has to be high because the risk:reward ratio is so unattractive. Can you understand that? We as a society benefit when these products become available to us. Maybe it takes a while after they've been developed so the company can re-coup the costs of the infastructure etc. (Which our high-paying CEOs are willing to pay because they have the bankroll) but eventually these advancements become more affordable as trickle down and become standard. For any further proof just look at the timeline for safety features in cars and the brands involved.

Socialism is the abolition of this reward structure for the risk of innovation. So without it, how does a centralized body determine which 'breakthrough' is most promising without assigning them all equal funding? And don't tell me by committee. Because some of 'the most promising' vacines for covid from just 6 months ago have ceased testing in the intervening period. Hat should tell you something about the nature of these things.

These failures are largely invisible to the public in a capitalist society. But in a socialist system they are publically funded failures, which is not a good visual for the committees tasked with apportioning out the funds. Eventually questions will be asked. And what happens then is the committee might be replaced, even though they were probably the best people for the job and technically they did nothing wrong (a net loss for society), or the citizens are brutalised until they accept that is just the way things are, and there's nothing they can do about it.
  • 1 0
 @jayacheess: The US and Canada might share a border but you guys are not culturally and socially similar. One look at your respective histories and the origins of your forebears should get you most of the way towards understanding why.
  • 1 1
 @jayacheess: Medical breakthroughs in the lab are only a small part of the development process. That breakthrough then need to be tested (which takes years to do correctly, with a high chance of failure due to the possibility of side-effects), manufactured (which often requires more research than the original breakthrough to put the required processes and machinery in place), packaged (And no, I'm not simply talking about a pretty label) and distributed.

Now, if you could miss all that in this instance, what is it you don't (or simply won't) see about socialism beyond the most simplistic aspects of it.
  • 1 1
 @Baller7756: I've never though about it that way. Excellent point.
  • 4 2
 @SmashySmashy: it is okay that you have your opinion. But I, and many, many others, strongly disagree.
Blaming Dictatorship on socialism is a gross oversimplification. Socialism is the very foundation of much of the developed world, and like it or not, most of the US as well. Socialism has replaced systems like monarchy - where a "King" or "Emperor" ruled over the people, who had no say in anything. They had no choice, other than to comply or die. There is no difference to a dictatorship from the point of the people. Then, the people overturned the kings in revolutions, and put in place a governing body that would cater to the many, not the few.
This is exactly the foundation on which the constitution of the united states resides - "We the poeple". The whole idea that the state should serve the people, not the other way around. This means that the government of the united states MUST put the benefit of the people over the benefit of an individual - it is what any US government official is sworn to - and every member of the military. "Protect and serve" is a deeply socialistic thought - you fund your police force, and they protect the integrity of society.

You have to realize that "socialism" is nothing but a label assigned to an idea. The same applies to "capitalism", "republican", "democrat", "pandemic", "crisis", etc. - labels help convey a message, but they are not exclusive. And they are almost always extremely misleading. There are huge overlaps between them, and all too often, these labels are used to infer something that isn't true. Because fear and anger are our most intense emotions, deeply rooted in our genome, they are extremely powerful - and thusly, often abused to manipulate people. Primal instincts overrule any logic or reason. Raising simple subjective labels such as "socialism" and their consequences into the rank of objective truth serves no good purpose, it is intended to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt.
  • 1 0
 @GrandMasterOrge: that’s not what I said.
If you cure the disease, you don’t have a long term pharmaceutical customer.
Plenty of companies working in therapeutics.
  • 2 0
 @martin737: but why do you need an insurance co in the first place ? Why not skip the middleman?
  • 2 0
 @scary1: practice what you preach. If i dont have a right to your labour, stop ‘protecting’ the world by paying for its police. Or interfering at all in stuff around the world. Stick to yourself for yourself and make sure any tax dollars you spend go back exactly to Americans for Americans.
  • 2 5
 @Kainerm: I expect you and those 'many, many others' all share in the same simplistic ignorance-driven, rather than knowledge-driven understanding of the subject.

I'm through arguing with someone that has only the most facile understanding of what they're espousing; Your latest nonsensical post indicates you've exhausted what you know and you're simply clutching at straws, or just making shit up. Your ignorance on the topic would be funny, were it not so sad. All you seem to know of socialism is the promise, which it has never delivered on- nor was it really designed to provide. If you know anything about the conditions which give rise to it, or the mechanisms that were exploited to maintain it, you haven't demonstrated it.

If you can take anything away from this conversation I'd like you to remember this: The worst ideas in human history were not those that were inherently bad, but those that promised so much good that no one bother to check the details.
  • 1 1
 @Jvisscher: Insurance companies are intermediaries, just like banks. If you skipped them, individuals wouldn't be able to afford expensive treatments. For instance, Chemotherapy can cost millions...
  • 1 3
 @hamncheez: You can tell the Americans by how they post: it sounds so demoralized and lost. "why would you assume government agencies have my best interest at heart? They have their own best interest at heart. Public school has failed. Public utilities are failing. The court and justice system is failing. You say these things as if they are religious truth without evidence."


While many of us in countries with functioning healthcare systems are much less tinfoil-hat/distrustful of the 'government agencies' and their heart relationships. We pay taxes to benefit ourselves. What good do your taxes do for you? Military? Police the world? That is socialism on a much grander scale where you essentially get no benefit at all anymore. They have taken it a step further and Americans let this happen to where they are brainwashed to think that using their taxes to benefit themselves again is part of a commie plan or something. Amazing.
  • 1 1
 @martin737: Why can my patients in this country (none of whom have insurance) afford Chemo and Radiation then? I had two this week who are going to start in two weeks. Poor as can be, but getting the same care as a rich person would if they don't choose to get it from Loma Linda or the Mayo Clinic or somewhere in Germany or a private clinic here in Canada?
  • 1 1
 @martin737: Chemo can cost millions, but without the middleman, it costs half that. Which is great if you want to use taxes to pay for it like in Canada. It would cost you more to get it in Canada though when you haven't paid into the tax system, like for an American politician (Rand Paul) for example.
  • 3 5
 @Jvisscher: While you have a point, it's more likely due to the vitriolic political discourse and constant nation-bashing Americans endure every day by the people who want to implement socialism. But of course a demoralized populace is a useful precursor to a socialist system.

As pointed out by @Baller7756, maybe you should be thankful to the US for having a strong military and a profitable and innovative medical industry- because your own government certain benefits directly by not having to fund either to the extent it would otherwise, thus saving itself substantial sums, and you in the bargain.
  • 3 3
 @SmashySmashy: 2 things. Strong military. medical industry.

We have our own innovative medical industry. See how they are with Covid research for a current example.

We have a military which covers our needs. We don't poke hornets nests like the US military does, so we don't have worldwide enemies. When things like the Cold War happen, we collaborate on the Dew line as needed. Americans are fed a lot of lines and are easier and easier to control without even using communism or whatever. We see you as being a controlled flock of sheep now. We would prefer to not have to deal with your 'generous' military policy. Your government needs you to believe the way it does in order to do what it wants to do with the military. It doesn't control the rest of us on the outside looking in. Full disclosure: I worked for the US military on Guam for a bit.
  • 2 3
 @Jvisscher: First off, the idea that Canada is safe because they don't make enemies is as naive as anything I've read on this thread. Canada has vast natural resources any country would kill to exploit but by sheer dumb luck, your only shared borders are with a country that has the most powerful military force in the world; Who's going to invade Canada under those circumstances? For that matter, who's crazy enough to invade any ally of the US? You should really try to be a bit more circumspect and grateful.

I don't see the point you're trying to make about how easy Americans are to control. Just how does the US government utilize the military in a way that requires their citizens to be distracted and at each other's throats? And how does that follow since Trump actively pulled out of several foreign conflicts and reduced military spending? Trust in US institutions is relatively low; Doesn't that make people more difficult to control, since they're more likely to use their own judgement and ingenuity, and do something unexpected?

Also, most (if not all) developed countries have their own innovative medical industry these days. They're all for-profit. To be a compelling argument for socialized medicine you would need to demonstrate that there are government-run labs that are readily mass-producing cost-effective medicines, and not simply developing cures in a test tube under laboratory conditions. As I explained earlier, they are very far from the same thing.
  • 3 2
 @SmashySmashy: don’t confuse making enemies with having something to protect. The US actively makes enemies.
  • 2 2
 @SmashySmashy: and you are right. Most american, like you here admitted includes you, dont get the point about being easy to control. Too blinded by fairytale idealism and tribalism.
  • 2 2
 @SmashySmashy: an American saying to a Canadian that they should be thankful for their military is the same as a Russian saying it to a Canadian. You each see it from your side of the border and we thank both of you from the bottom of our hearts that you give up your own free amazing health care so we can feel safe and sound as our mothers tuck us into bed at night. ...Maybe that isn’t totally correct. Everyone seemed to have health care when I spent that winter in the Ural Mountains.
  • 6 2
 @SmashySmashy: You claim I can't see the evils of socialism, but the fact is, you're the one living in a country with a broken medical system. The vast majority of people in the country want reforms. We can disagree about how those reforms need to happen, but there is empirical evidence all around you of systems working well under a more socialized system. But you want to reinvent the wheel using libertarian think, despite all the evidence to the contrary that that will work.

You're desperate to justify your own ideology, and not willing to implement the changes that need to happen because they clash with that ideology. You can type as many words as you want here, but you'll continue to sound foolish with your nationalizations. You're not far from a Trump supporter screaming that the election was rigged.
  • 3 0
 @Jvisscher: Mayo/Cleveland clinics are the best not because they treat the rich, but because they treat the most complicated and rare cases and they also do massive volumes of those complicated cases. Diseases don't differentiate. They treat poor drug addicts with underlying conditions (like Hepatitis/HIV) for cancer or cardiovascular diseases. You're never going to achieve a status in medicine if you're cherry picking patients. The rich are already subsidizing the poor. We also have a few solid (socialized) institutions in my region (Austria, Czech rep., etc.), but the know-how comes mostly from the US.
  • 2 6
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 15, 2020 at 9:59) (Below Threshold)
 @Jvisscher: It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

I'm not American.
I don't know where it is you think I 'admitted' as much; I made it plain when I said in an early post on this very thread that I grew up in a country with socialized healthcare. A system that has embarassingly become what a friend of mine from a soviet country predicted it would some 20 years ago; A cumbersome, monolithic burden on society with no real chance of redemption. It will simply have to be carried until the last person retires, serving no purpose but it's own existance. Were it a private company that would happen in months, not years. So at least you were correct when you said my country has a broken medical system.

By the way, you just agreed that the high cost of experimental and innovative medicine is already subsidized by the rich in the US (a point I also previously made), making your entire argument null and void. Without that income, talented would-be doctors will simply follow other career paths to realise their ambitions, which means fewer high-performing doctors that are capable of succeeding under the most challenging and complicated circumstances.

Do you see now where thinking like a socialist gets you?
  • 2 1
 @SmashySmashy: don’t confuse the mayo clinic with a functional system of hospitals taking care of the ho hum every day needs of the general population. You can’t have every clinic running at the same level nor do you want that. Your argument hinges on that argument which is where it fails. I wanted to live with a free basic coverage healthcare instead of paying into war. Everything over and above that is equal. I can choose to get additional coverage or pay cash for what I want. Or not since I don’t have the cash. But the option was better for me than what I had in the US. If it changes I can move countries. For the fourth time.
  • 2 1
 @ratedgg13: 1 year waiting list in Canada!!!
  • 2 4
 @Jvisscher: It's ok. I understand your head is still spinning, and you're hindered by an inability to take a simple concept and expand it appropriately without the aid of crayons.
Unfortunately socialism can't cure an intellectual spanking any better than it can stupidity, despite what you may have been told.
  • 2 1
 @hamncheez: FFS... you are likely a product of public schools, your utility services are likely stable and fairly affordable, and you and your property are probably fairly safe because of the "failing" justice system... yet you apparently feel the government has totally failed you? All this aside from what we were actually talking about - regulatory agencies like FDA that apparently are of no use to you... Sounds like it's time for you to pack it up and find that government free nirvana you seek
  • 3 1
 @MOLDTRUTH: 100 year waiting list in USA if you want it free too. Otherwise we both have the same waiting time.
  • 2 1
 @SmashySmashy: Im not arguing for socialism. Im arguing for getting healthcare along with policing and road building and traffic lights and all the other things that go along with civilized nations. I actually chose that when i chose to move to Canada.

I pay taxes so if my house is on fire, the firemen come and put out the fire. They dont rebuild the house. I do. And if I buy fire insurance it helps.

I pay taxes so if my body is in a car accident, the hospitals take care of me. If I want, I can pay for more than ‘putting out the fire’.
  • 3 5
 @Jvisscher: That all sounds well and good in theory, but the reality is nowhere near as rosy or simple. Just look at how politicized police forces have become in developed nations around the world. Whether it's 'redefining' justice in the US, government-sanctioned police brutality against innocent civilians in Australia, or moral policing in the UK they're operating far outside the scope of what reasonable people would consider the correct role of police in society. Do you really want your healthcare following a similar path? Already, you can be refused service in UK hospitals if it's simply alleged you said the wrong thing, even after a lifetime of contributing.

Socialized services inevitably become political entities to be exploited, manipulated or denied.
  • 6 3
 @SmashySmashy: Americans: healthcare = socialism/brutalizing citizens.

Everyone else : Healthcare = civility.



Brainwashed ????






Brainwashed
  • 2 1
 @SmashySmashy: And besides, the American government is brutalizing blacks/minorities and already denied everyone healthcare. Giving it to you isn’t going to be the catalyst that introduces police brutality to the USA.
  • 1 5
flag SmashySmashy (Nov 15, 2020 at 13:25) (Below Threshold)
 @Jvisscher: Good luck with your english comprehension exam in kindergarden tomorrow. I have a feeling you'll need it.
  • 3 1
 @Jvisscher: This would be great. Our last administration worked to keep our efforts and focus on the US, but was sadly criticized for "nationalism"... and nationalism was portrayed as something terrible.
  • 5 1
 @SmashySmashy: Sorry, where have you read that UK hospitals refuse service for saying the wrong thing?

I have family and a number of friends working in UK healthcare who have put up with quite a lot from patients but always done the best for them regardless, can you please substantiate your claim?
  • 2 1
 @SmashySmashy:

"Already, you can be refused service in UK hospitals if it's simply alleged you said the wrong thing, even after a lifetime of contributing.

Socialized services inevitably become political entities to be exploited, manipulated or denied."

I see. You're a kook.
  • 4 2
 @Jvisscher: we're not all like that. In fact a majority of Americans are not inbred morons. 47.5% though....
  • 4 3
 @fruitsd79: I know. I married an American doctor 15 years ago. We moved to Canada 10 years ago. She has since renounced her US citizenship. Yikes!
  • 1 1
 @alexhyland: A better trained police officer shoots for center of mass, and, hits it.
  • 1 3
 @Jvisscher: US should be more proactive to take and KEEP the spoils of our war victories... all of Europe and Japan. History has and always will be written by the victors. Canada has a very weak military as the ride on the. Coat tails of the US Super Power military capabilities. With out the US Canada would be a USSR province. (Yes, USSR)
  • 1 0
 @JustAnotherRiderHere:Roger that, thanks for telling me. Ill be sure to make that change for next time and to tell my Generals to do that.
  • 1 2
 @Jvisscher: seriously, it is undeniable that Canada is not a Super Power and does not have worldwide reach...with out the USA and our support. Canada, our #1 ally and trade partner, and a great nation...well, isn't a Super Power...that said, USA needs to stop playing "good cop" world police and just punish the bad actors (with devastating carpet bombing via drone)
  • 3 2
 @GrandMasterOrge: It is a thing. You could have easily substantiated it yourself by simply looking it up on google, but no. You instead chose to make your ignorance appear to be my failure. Have some cop on. Those people you know are very likely as lovely as you say, but my point throughtout all this is that socialized services inevitably become political, and when that happens their primary focus shifts away from those they're supposed to work for, costs skyrocket and the quality of serivice declines dramatically. It's not an attack on the individuals that work there, it's simply the nature of these centralized, government-controlled organisations.

@jayacheess: You're like the Ben Shapiro of the loony left. "My wife's a doctor" so I must know things by osmosis, or my opinions carry greater weight simply because of that fact. You're a hack. An inconprehensible, uncomprehending shill. I have nothing more to say to you.
  • 4 3
 @jayacheess: he or she's an alt-right troll clone spamming hate. @brianpark must still be on vacation
  • 5 3
 @SmashySmashy: Right back at you. Keep waving that 'don't tread on me' flag proudly, my boy.

@JustAnotherRiderHere: Australia exists and is extremely successful, thus rendering all your arguments moot. Without the US next door, we would still have resource wealth, but we would be trading primarily with Europe instead.
  • 5 3
 @SmashySmashy:

" but my point throughtout all this is that socialized services inevitably become political, and when that happens their primary focus shifts away from those they're supposed to work for, costs skyrocket and the quality of serivice declines dramatically."

- Makes wild claims.
- Provides no evidence of this being a systematic problem that has the potential of affecting the multitude of countries with functional socialized services.
- Ignores actual evidence of the failure of the very system he's advocating for in the US.

We've got a stable genius, here.
  • 3 1
 @jayacheess: WHYYY wont this thread die!

As long as we are keeping at it, if socialism is such a good idea then lets make it optional. No need for it to be mandatory if it works better.
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: why won't this thread die?
  • 3 1
 @ceecee: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL TOO STUBBORN AND SO SURE WE HAVE IT RIGHT
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: why are you yelling?
  • 2 2
 @ceecee: I DON'T KNOW
  • 3 1
 @hamncheez: but you're going to keep doing it
  • 2 3
 @jayacheess: Or perhaps there's just so much more to it than you seem capable of comprehending. You've had far more of my attention than your nonsense deserves, so have a play with this and be satisfied that at least you now know healthcare costs are an increasing financial burden (as a percentage of their GDP) in almost every nation in the world:
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS
  • 3 0
 @SmashySmashy: what was the question again?
  • 4 2
 @SmashySmashy: have you been hit in the head with a copy of Atlas Shrugged?
  • 5 3
 @SmashySmashy: IN EVERY NATION. Not just those using socialized healthcare. God, you're tiresome.
  • 3 1
 @jayacheess: tiresome and nauseating
  • 2 1
 @jayacheess: tiresome and nauseating
  • 3 2
 @SmashySmashy: can you explain the entire thing one more time please? I'm also still fuzzy as to how a person such as yourself has the physical capability to have his entire head up his own ass and still be able to convey your opinion with such condescension to those who have an opposing view. Impressive stuff.
  • 3 4
 @roguecheddar: I'm sure you can explain it to me. Afterall, your cucked husband @Jayacheess says that you're supposedly a doctor.

@jayacheess:
Again, totally disingenuous, and a failure on your part to consider the details. Why are prices up worldwide? What could possibly cause such sums to be required? Shouldn't governments have far higher purchasing power, and an ability to leverage economies of scale better than any normal person; Isn't that the stated reason and goal of socialized healthcare in the first place? To reduce the cost for everyone? It seems to be doing exactly the opposite!

This is no short-term trend either- Canada's future healthcare funding certainly looks rosy:
"Fiscal pressures are expected to mount over the long term. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) expects annual growth of health care spending to accelerate from 3 percent to 4½ percent within a 10-20-year time-frame. As a result, net debt to GDP ratios are expected to start accelerating by mid- 2020s."
Source: www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2018/07/16/Canada-2018-Article-IV-Consultation-Press-Release-Staff-Report-and-Statement-by-the-46084
Keep in mind GDP is also expected to increase during that time (although that was pre-covid), so your healthcare budget will certainly more than double (and could triple) from current levels in just 20 years (3.5% annual budget increase on top of a modest 1.0 - 1.5% increase in annual GDP, which is less than the average of any previous decade since the 1960s).

Population is only expected to increase 20-25% in the same period. Inflation doesn't account for the difference. All the while Canada is facing the prospect of borrowing on the international markets within 2 decades just to keep the lights on in their shiny healthcare system. And that's the projected 'Happy Path'. GDP could fall, while demand remains level, or increases. What then? And how would such systems cope with the additional burden of developing new methods, treatments and medication if private healthcare was abolished?

I'd have serious questions about all this. What are they doing with all of the money you're paying in? And why isn't it enough to provide everyone with a decent level of service? What happens when they can no longer afford to borrow more? Do you think politicians will simply put their hands up and say 'Mea Culpa'? Or will they employ strategies you seem so well versed in from your time in the US to distract and divide. What could the potential political fallout be, and the consequences for the citizens who spent a lifetime paying in? It's seems strange to me that you can be so distrustful of the government of your nearest neighbour, and yet treat your own as though they were a benevolent entity, when they are made of the same flesh and blood.
  • 4 3
 @SmashySmashy: you may want to visit a doctor, you appear to be suffering from verbal diarrhea symptomatic of grossly inflated self importance.
  • 2 0
 @jayacheess: Um, Australia is not a superpower and does not exactly wield much power over the planet...I do not trust marsupials either....
  • 2 1
 @hamncheez: Well, sir (do you identify as sir?) As soon as you come to the realization that you are wrong, the better off we will all be. As a people of "peace", we must now Dox (is that even a word?) you and destroy you...........what were we talking about?
  • 2 4
 @roguecheddar: Or perhaps (and exceedingly more likely) adult conversations require that kind of depth of discussion, and children such as yourself should remain in the corner (talking literal shit) while they're taking place.
  • 3 0
 @SmashySmashy: I am so desperately impressed by your superior intellect, you're right, I should be quiet and sit in the corner like a good boy but I'm so amazed by your ability to explain yourself into a bottomless pit of self-righteousness I can't help but to stick around and see the impeding car crash at the end. I can't deny you are great amusement.
  • 4 1
 @SmashySmashy: Now THOSE are actually good questions.

"Shouldn't governments have far higher purchasing power, and an ability to leverage economies of scale better than any normal person; Isn't that the stated reason and goal of socialized healthcare in the first place? To reduce the cost for everyone? "

I can't speak for all systems, but this is exactly what is done in Canada. Procedures here cost a small fraction of what they cost in the US. The government also negotiates on all of our behalves on drug pricing, bringing drugs to a small fraction of what they cost in the US, as well.

The current, seemingly unsustainable trend in healthcare cost has been often linked to aging baby boomers and their current healthcare needs. I'm sure that's some of, but not the entire story.

"What are they doing with all of the money you're paying in? And why isn't it enough to provide everyone with a decent level of service? "

We ARE provided cost effective, efficient service, and most people are overwhelmingly satisfied with the level of care received in Canada. It's not perfect, but then nothing is.

You raise good points about the increasing cost of healthcare, but those costs are increasing significantly, in every type of system. There's no indication that this is due to a failure of socialized medicine.

An obvious reading of this situation should be that we need to continue to evolve our healthcare systems, and find efficiencies and reasonable cost cutting measures, where applicable.

But you're advocating for an already failed system of private medicine to address these issues. It already doesn't work. It's already failing people by the 10s of millions.

You've seen the numbers: healthcare already costs double in the US compared to other OECD countries. Even if you think socialized medicine is due to fail because of cost over-runs in a few decades, the US's system is ALREADY failing. Switching to a single payer system could at least bring costs under control and keep it functional for a reasonable period of time.

Please explain in detail how you see privatized medicine as the answer to these issues.
  • 2 2
 @jayacheess: "Government should have higher purchasing power" Ok, lets use that strategy to buy houses, cars, clothes, and mountain bikes. The government buys in bulk all our mountain bikes. How would that work out in the long run?

The bottom line is that despite the USA having a near-socialist medical industry, the dying remnant of free market healthcare here attracts over 50,000 Canadians every year for non-emergency medical treatment. Virtually no Americans travel to Canada for medical treatment.


If socialized medicine was a good idea, it wouldn't need to be mandatory.
  • 4 1
 @hamncheez: What are you even trying to say, here? Wealthy people are going to do what wealthy people do and skip the line. For the vast majority of people, the triage system works. If the US went to single payer and line skipping wasn't a thing, they'd fly to wherever allows them to skip those lines.
  • 3 2
 @hamncheez: One thing I've noted about anti-socialized medicine people is that they have no solutions. 'Socialized medicine is bad because questionable-xyz-reason, but I won't acknowledge the extreme failures of privatized medicine, and I'll provide no solutions that would bridge the gap in provided care between the two systems.'

Socialized medicine isn't perfect, but the data proves that it's the best of all the imperfect solutions as far as health outcomes and even costs.

If you don't think that's the case, start providing actual solutions. The current status-quo in the US is not one of them.
  • 4 1
 @hamncheez: Socialized medicine is not mandatory - in the UK we have the NHS which will treat everything they can to the best of their ability and triage based on need and we also have access to private healthcare if you wish to use it.

On the subject of drug pricing - a quick google suggests supermarket ibuprofen costs around $13 in the USA, I don't live there so can anyone confirm? In the UK that cost is around $0.30 (well, £0.20-0.25), so what's going on there other than profiteering?

Not everything should be socialized, but in my opinion the basic structures that run a society (roads, trains, clean air/water, healthcare, police, fire brigade etc) should be paid for by general taxation and available to use by everyone either free at point of use like the NHS/police or for the cost of running the service, whichever is appropriate.

Is anyone seriously going to suggest that the police or fire service should only be available to those that can pay? If not, how is this different to healthcare?
  • 2 0
 @GrandMasterOrge:

"Is anyone seriously going to suggest that the police or fire service should only be available to those that can pay? If not, how is this different to healthcare?"

It's not, and I've pointed out that exact thing in this thread earlier. It fell on deaf ears.
  • 3 1
 @jayacheess: In all seriousness, no name calling, please take the time to read this too-long reply. I really do want to reach understanding and address your comments.

If its a good idea, it doesn't need to be mandatory.

For a while I was running my own business and had to buy Obamacare insurance completely on my own. With only two kids and a wife (more kids now) it was $1100/month. Thats more than my mortgage. So I switched to Christian Healthcare Ministries, which is a "Charity". You "donate" monthly to them, as a monthly premium, and they "donate" back to you when you incur a medical expense. Since its a charity, its 100% exempt from any insurance/medical regulation. If it was challenged in court, they probably would lose. But that hasn't happened yet. The point is that its 100% free market. its so free market that if they decided not to pay out a medical expense, I would be screwed. I couldn't sue for anything because all my premiums were "donations". But it still works. They still have a growing user base. I (my wife) had a baby on that plan. Do you what the monthly donation was? $255 for my family (it went up after the additional baby). $1100 vs $255 for BETTER coverage.

There are a few caveats. Since its Christian Healthcare Ministries, you have to "commit" to not drinking to excess (I don't drink at all), not smoking, and no sex outside of marriage (you also had to declare your loyalty to the Athanasian Creed, which was a stickler for me because I'm not a Trinitarian). This would exclude many people who are unhealthy or engage in unhealthy behavior, lowering costs, but it wasn't really enforced other than "I promise", plus the demographic who would use such a service has a much higher birth rate than the general population, perhaps offsetting the decrease in cost from committing people to not drink/smoke ( I have my undergrad in economics; this would be a fascinating thing to do a study on; this might be the single longest run on sentence too). While they couldn't "cover" preexisting conditions the traditional way (insurance shouldn't cover preexisting conditions; you can't cover something that already happened) they had alternative supplementation programs where you could do extra donations to help cover these costs by fellow members. These extra donations tallied in the millions every year. Their monthly newsletter ran stories about helping people with uncoverable expenses. Very heartwarming and community building.

Before the new Deal, over 50% of American adult men belonged to non-religious mutual aid societies, plus most people were church goers. This is how people used to take care of each other, voluntary association. By pretty much every single metric this outperforms government run programs. Nowadays its increasingly rare because 1. its hard to compete against government programs that can run at an eternal deficit and 2. it is illegal in most countries.

If its a good idea, it doesn't need to be mandatory.
  • 4 2
 @GrandMasterOrge:
"Socialized medicine is not mandatory". I think he meant paying for it is.

"ibuprofen costs around $13 in the USA". It's less than 2 bucks in Walmart. That's roughly £1.50.

Police, Fire services etc. are not personalized services, at least nowhere near the extent that healthcare requires. Nor are they as 'essential' to the individual (You don't have people that require weekly visits to their police station or the fire-service to enable them to live, for example), or have such a wide range of costs as medical care does. That's why these are always such a bad comparison to make.

@jayacheess: I appreciate the less hostile tone. Thanks.

A few clarifications/ rebuttals to your response:
"The current, seemingly unsustainable trend in healthcare cost has been often linked to aging baby boomers and their current healthcare needs. I'm sure that's some of, but not the entire story." Could this be construed as the beginnings of 'divisive rhetoric'? Certainly Trump was pilloried for less in the media.

"We ARE provided cost effective, efficient service, and most people are overwhelmingly satisfied with the level of care received in Canada." I asked why the amounts you're paying in tax are not enough to cover the healthcare expenses in Canada, not whether the service was being provided is adequate. Again, what happens when you can't go to the int'l markets to supplement the revenue from taxes?

As far as I'm aware, the US medical system has not failed. Sure it's expensive, and it doesn't provide for everyone, but it is arguably the most innovative in the world and those who can afford treatment receive world-class care. That has to count for something.
  • 1 0
 @jayacheess: In terms of privatized healthcare, here is my best take on it:

I have my issues with governments interfering or otherwise involving themselves in individual's lives by replacing aspects of their personal responsibility and independence with centralized entities. That said, governments can (and do) contribute positively when they act with the proper goals in mind, especially when they put capital to good use.

And in my mind no government does more to benefit it's citizenry than when it invests prudently in the future by building purposeful, long-lasting infrastructure. They build roads, schools, libraries etc. with great effect (albeit with inevitable cost overruns).

Anyone at this point jumping to the conclusion that schools are staffed by teachers paid for by the state, therefore: socialized healthcare forgets that schools do the same thing over and over: teach kids aged 6 - 18 the same courses, with few updates here and there. There's little in the way of unexpected costs or challenges requiring serious innovation. Hospitals are far more complex beasts that require specialist staff, equipment, etc. I couldn't possibly do justice to the differences in the challenges faced by doctors, nurses in a single day.

A system of government-built hospitals that are run by rent-paying private companies would have the flexibility missing from an entirely socialized system (and it's various vulnerabilities to political control), and it removes a significant up-front cost for companies looking to offer medical services (the cost of even a modest-sized hospital can be counted in billions of dollars) that has to be recouped in a few decades- although they could build one if they chose to. Renters could range from an individual consultant in a single office offering a niche service, to the entire hospital being run by a single company. This keeps the government from being involved in the day-to-day of the system, while giving them a very influential seat at the table (And a big stick to keep companies in line). It also reduces the opportunity for politicians to provide preferential treatment, and reduces the consequences if they do. Citizens purchase cover to attend the hospitals as they do currently, selecting the cover that best fits their needs. Any remaining funds from the rent received after loans are paid could be used to supplement healthcare for lower socio-economic groups, such as running a drop-in clinic on the premises (just 1 suggestion). The land and buildings remain the property of the state, which will likely appreciate in value with time, meaning it can be used as collateral to secure low-cost funding for future projects. And in case of future financial shocks the rent can simply be renegotiated (within reason) and the savings passed on to customers (which, assuming a healthy market should happen) ensuring as many people benefit as possible.
  • 2 0
 @SmashySmashy: For an example of the type of system you suggest in action, see the British rail network.
  • 1 0
 @GrandMasterOrge: It may be a similar system (I'm not very familiar), but they serve a very different in their purpose. Plus, rail travel has been in decline for decades. It's unlikely the bidding process and subsequent market competition provides the necessary incentives to ensure quality outcomes.
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: It sounds like you are not aware that we have private clinics and hospitals in Canada too. It isn’t all exclusively government run.
  • 2 1
 @Jvisscher: Yes, there are private clinics/hospitals, for the wealthy. Just like there are always private schools, for the wealthy.
  • 1 0
 @SmashySmashy: While not the same as your suggestion, interestingly, much of Canadian healthcare infrastructure is privately owned, with the government as the sole client. In Vancouver, for example, one of the major hospitals is government owned and managed, while the other is privately owned and managed. Both provide equivalent care.

I think your suggestion could also work, but the primary issue in US healthcare is the private insurance industry. It is fundamentally motivated to deny care, for obvious reasons. A doctor suggesting treatment or medication should never have to check with an insurance company before providing care.

There needs to be an entity advocating for patient's needs that is not profit motivated somewhere in the system, and it needs to have absolute power in following through with doctors' directions for treatment.

Assuming that exists, I think there are lots of places for private interests to help supplement public healthcare.
  • 1 1
 @hamncheez: That is the way the majority of PCP (MD.DO.ARNP) are going. Simply, none with any business sense accept any of the public exchange programs or insurance plans. It will be billed more like dentistry in the US, and, oddly, I do not hear anyone complaining about their access to dental services.

As for the private and concierge service in the Great White North...what top provider in their field would NOT go into a similar arrangement?
  • 2 0
 @jayacheess: You know of course that any CItizen, non-citizen or other random human-type creature can go to any ER and get (emergent) care in any hospital in the US, right???????

In Canada, they will straight street someone from the US who did not "buy into" the system during their stay there. Where as in the US we treat BILLIONS of dollars worth of illegals who never intended to or will pay (but, while they are here illegally and should be incarcerated and deported - can sue for MedMal - cant do that in Canada so much either)
  • 1 1
 @hamncheez: Your experience with Obamacare is not uncommon, from everything I've read. But I think it's unfair to look at Obamacare as a reason that socialized or partially socialized medicine is doomed to failure. Some of the core features of Obamacare have been neutered and stripped away for political reasons in individual states by Republican law-makers, specifically with the intention of causing cost overruns, which would essentially render the entire system non-functional. Obamacare was spectacularly popular initially, and it has been a politically expedient target for many politicians. But that's not to say that Obamacare would have been a resounding success, even without their political intervention. It was always a compromised piece of legislation.

I'm not sure if you've read the history of the Obamacare legislation, but you may have heard that it was originally a Republican designed plan that Obama picked up as bi-partisan attempt at healthcare legislation. People like Mitch McConnel - who's entire existence as a law maker revolves around political machinations and holding on to power, rather than passing legislation - made sure that no Republican would vote for it, despite its origins. Still, Obamacare needed to be a somewhat conservative plan for DINOs - and those with healthcare insurance industry lobbying dollars behind them - to back it.

Frankly, it was a half measure, and I don't think anyone was ultimately happy with how it turned out, other than legal protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

"While they couldn't "cover" preexisting conditions the traditional way (insurance shouldn't cover preexisting conditions; you can't cover something that already happened) they had alternative supplementation programs where you could do extra donations to help cover these costs by fellow members. "

But everyone needs healthcare.

And honestly, funnily enough, the system you're describing sounds like a smaller, patchwork version of socialized medicine that has decided to bypass the government.

( I should also include here: My reason for interest in this subject is because my partner is American, and her family is still living in rural Kansas. We visit periodically and get to bellyaching about US healthcare )
  • 3 0
 @JustAnotherRiderHere: You're incorrect. I'm not sure where you got this information, but I'd be curious to hear.

Reality: Canadian hospitals will treat anyone from any country, regardless of whether they've paid in to the system or not.

It's simple. They bill you, just like in a US hospital.

The difference: The bill will be a small fraction of a US hospital bill because they charge you what they would charge government insurance, which has done the hard work of negotiating procedure costs with the individual health authorities and hospitals.
  • 3 0
 @jayacheess: Your assessment of Obamacare's history is not accurate. There isn't a kind way to say it.

When Obamacare went live in August 2013, the cost for my current plan to my employer over doubled. We had to downgrade the plans offered to employees, and double their monthly contribution. From the get go it was a failure. It also was never popular, and only decreased in popularity as time went on and people experienced the stupid enrollment period, and had sticker shock at how expensive and bad the plans were on the Healthcare.gov exchanges. Those two things have nothing to do with State lawmakers.

"everyone needs healthcare" that is a moral judgement. I don't think its right to legislate morality. Its also a false dichotomy. Insurance coverage does not equal healthcare. It is not the only way to provide healthcare, and it is not the only way to reinburse people who cannot afford critical healthcare. I gave both current and historical examples of ways that society can help those who need money to pay for important medical treatment, without government intervention. Its every bit as true that "everyone needs food", but when we put government in charge of food production, like the USSR, CCP, Cuba, Vietnam, etc, there is famine and starvation. In the US when we give some food production responsibility to Government we get corn and wheat subsidies, making an entire generation eat too many carbs and therefore producing obesity, and our soda is filled with corn syrup instead of healthier sugar.

Finally, the healthcare charity can't be socialism because it does bypass government. The main, fundamental difference between Government action and Private commerce (the free market) is consent. I consented to this interaction with the healthcare charity. The healthcare charity faces competition from other organizations because they all are in a market that is consensual. Government programs enroll people without their consent, tax them without their consent, regulate the behavior of firms in a market without their consent, etc.
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: The fact is, NO medical provider is obligated to accept any insurance plan 'in-network". No medical provider is obligated to treat you (or any other person). Just as no diner has to feed you without being paid, no medical provider will ever be required to treat a PT within X or Y demographic. Even if a provider is seeing Obummer Care (or Medicaid), in general, it will be four or five a month, scheduled a few weeks to a month out and there is a side bet on if the PT does or does not pay the $1 copay.

In the US less and less folks are wanting to be an MD/DO...simply, the lives of others are in general not worth the drama - if not for the money. Take money out of the equation and suddenly healthcare is no longer a dream career.... whereas being a periodontist is (they can just about print money). People fail to take notice that MD's are just like car salesman - straight comission.
  • 4 1
 @hamncheez:

( My assessment is entirely accurate. What about it is inaccurate? ( www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742 ) )

Man, why are you so hung up these particular freedoms and consent? We live in a society. This is the social contract. We all agree to certain limitations in order to benefit the whole. It's like libertarians have completely forgotten the very basis of how society functions.

I wish people like you could live in a country with socialized medicine so you'd actually see it functioning, and understand what it is you're actually fighting against. You're just wrong that it doesn't work. There are multitude examples of it functioning. I don't know what else to say.

Edit: Additionally, you still haven't explained how you square your stance on socialized medicine with fire/police/road/school funding. If you're advocating for privatizing all those institutions as well, at least there's some ideological consistency, even if it would be disastrous.
  • 1 0
 @jayacheess: because you are describing social medicine service in top world country;

I used to leave in county with social medicine, and had private on top of it, just because social require brine to get broken bone fixed(or whatever injury) also does not have enough

FYI m.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ9QIBBpkoA
  • 2 1
 @jayacheess: I think the issue here is "culture". What makes America different than most countries is its Constitution, Bill of Rights, rule of law... and minimal government interference in an individual's pursuit of happiness. We had a rare chance to start fresh, and learn from past societies... no one can argue the results. American's believe in themselves... utilizing these individual rights and one's own talent and drive to achieve limitless levels of success.

When government attempts to limit those rights, and choice... then they impede that individuals pursuit. When you are forced to submit your hard earned money to the government for redistribution to others, Americans cry foul. Everyone has the same opportunities to become self sufficient in our Capitalist society... but many now would prefer we were all limited and reliant on the government.

It starts with social programs... but always ends in government control of much more. That is why we are resistant to these programs.

Great societies of the past were not destroyed from outside, but from within.
  • 1 1
 @Baller7756: Racist hurtful FACT MONGER!!!!!
  • 1 1
 @hamncheez: if our private ones are for the wealthy, what are the private and more expensive us ones for? And what does the US have for healthcare for the non-wealthy? Canada has the majority of the hospitals for them.
  • 2 0
 @jayacheess: That reversal of roles probably combines the worst of both worlds. A private company cannot borrow substantial sums of money at anywhere near the kind favorable rates the government of an entire country could (term, rates etc.), so the rent for such infrastructure is likely to be substantially higher than it would be under the system suggested previously. And a government-funded service will never have the imperative to be as efficient as a private, for-profit counterpart. So that's twice a net loss for taxpayers, before you even begin to consider the lost opportunity to increase the financial well-being of the state through acquiring new assets.

You may think it's good and proper that they provide the same level of healthcare, and your recognition of this fact suggests you think that the government owned and operated hospital is able to match the private one. But in reality the government hospital is setting a (lower) standard, and the private one simply has to match it, not compete with it. If they were to compete, then patients of both institutions would expect benefits such as increased innovation and decreased costs to name a few.

I'm ok with the idea of patients organizing through an entity to pressure healthcare providers to stick to the terms of a signed agreement, but Governments should only become involved if the refusal is anti-competitive/ illegal. That is it's proper place in such matters. The individual patient is supposed to be an advocate for their own needs; They're also supposed to be responsible for them, which is something we haven't touched on much here, but it's fundamental to the issues discussed. When you mandate an absolute such as 100% coverage, not only do you create an imbalanced market, you remove a core reason for people to look after themselves. It's called a perverse incentive; The government promises universal healthcare, a considerable number of people then have coverage whether they pay in or not, and a number of those will cease to value many of the benefits of good health because someone else will take care of them and they don't even have to pay for it. As a result their health declines and the cost of providing their healthcare rises. But since they're not paying in the first place the burden falls on the rest of us to pay more, with zero benefit to us having done so. In that vein insurance providers are entitled to hold their customers accountable to the conditions which they agreed to just as much as customers are entitled to expect their contracts to be honored and their coverage provided when all the criteria are met. I know it may seem callous (And in some cases it is), but there has to be personal accountability. It affects us all, because actuaries don't just base their premium calculations on their own customers- they use national statistics as well. So if the number of people with poor health increases that drives up premiums for everyone, whether their individual risk profile has changed or not.

I'm not advocating that people be left suffering in the street, but it may be the case that they are treated through another mechanism- whether it be by a charities, or pro-bono/ community services by private bodies. Sure it's risky, and the level of care probably isn't going to be as good (it could be 20 - 25 years behind contemporary hospitals) but it would also be provided at little or no cost to patients and it has minimal impact on the market mechanics; @hamncheez is able to get coverage for his entire family for $255 a month- provided they take reasonable care of themselves. Surely most adults working part-time could afford even basic healthcare under those circumstances and conditions? We're talking about a small portion of society, being unable to afford it for themselves.
  • 3 1
 @Baller7756: I can see what you are saying but one thing I don't think is always understood by US commenters is that this is often not what other countries see when looking in. When you say no one can argue the results, bear in mind a lot of us are looking at the US and thinking "well I guess my country isn't ideal but it could be worse, I could live in the US".

All capitalist countries are guilty of this to an extent but it appears you have been so frightened of any minor amount of government intervention in your lives that you've willingly ceded a huge amount of intervention by private companies in exchange. The ludicrous charges for medical care, or you can choose not to have any, being a prime example.

Many, many people in other countries are in no way jealous at all of the US, I'm not saying there are no good points but many other countries have similar benefits to life with considerable others in healthcare, lifestyle, employee protections and rights etc.
  • 3 2
 @SmashySmashy:

Perverse incentive! Exactly! Except you turned it around and blamed it on the government instead of addressing my concern about insurance companies.

Insurance companies already have perverse incented to deny medical care to paying customers in order to drive profits. This isn't just about them holding customers accountable to the terms of their contract. There are innumerable anecdotes about insurance companies denying critical service, or delaying critical service to paying customers, in contravention of doctors' treatment requirements. This happens everywhere around the country, every day. I asked before, but you just sort of glossed over it. This NEEDS to be addressed.

I already mentioned it before, but this idealized libertarian-think that you and hamncheez (and all libertarians) are guilty of is something that white men are particularly prone to (you may not be white men, but this group tends to be the worst about it). It's a type of thought that people who enjoy systemic priveledge seem to be oblivious to, at best.

Not everyone has the ability to take ideal care of themselves. Not everyone will be raised in house holds where they're able to afford healthy food. Not everyone will have a fair shot at becoming successful enough to pay for their own healthcare due to deeply rooted systemic racism, or systemic poverty of certain groups. They may also simply be born with a health condition to a poor family.

Your solution to this is to rely on charities that may or may not be available or have resources to fill the gaps? No offence, but that's laughable. This is an absurd bandaid.

You're barely providing solutions, here. You're suggesting only the tiniest, bare minimum of changes that basically maintain the current status quo. That you could possibly DEFEND the current existence and function of private insurance companies in the US makes me believe this discussion is going no where. I may just duck out here.
  • 1 1
 @GrandMasterOrge: "but it appears you have been so frightened of any minor amount of government intervention in your lives that you've willingly ceded a huge amount of intervention by private companies in exchange. "

This is what my American partner would always point out. Conservative Americans keep screaming about freedom from government tyranny, but then they gladly welcome private tyranny because they feel like they've chosen that tyranny. But you get to choose 'tyranny' of socialized medicine when you elect representatives with the mandate to implement that system. If the system doesn't work at some point, you choose more representatives to change the system. Realistically, they have no effectual choices in the US other than that.

There's no actually fully functional, affordable option that covers people in the way they should be covered or would be covered by a socialized system unless you're one of the tiny percentage of the wealthiest Americans.
  • 2 1
 @Baller7756: The primary catalyst for the downfall of great societies of the past has either been disease, environmental factors, or corruption - not too-much government control.

Now you can make the argument that certain types of governing ideologies are more prone to corruption, but I've always thought that a strong series of forward thinking rules for addressing corruption, and a robust, well funded, education system that instills critical thinking skills and a sense of civic responsibility, along with general education, is the ideal.

This US got a lot of that right. I actually think corruption - primarily money in politics, and over-zealous Christian ethno-state advocacy - has been the primary issue in the US for the last few decades. I don't see it getting better without, minimally, some kind of campaign finance reform, and something to address lobbying.
  • 1 0
 @jayacheess: "not too-much government control."

I would like "Who was not a HIstory Major for $1000 Alex....."

To your comment about X-Ians...oddly, I would FAR prefer that over the "Religion of Peace" that never, not once pretended that women are equal to men, let alone "All Man".

Unfortunately, schools stopped teaching History, so, as it always does - it will repeat. Thank god where I live we have guns. Lots and lots of guns.
  • 2 1
 @jayacheess: That's just frustrating.

The ideas I've laid out have their basis in mutual accountability. Governments are elected by the people to serve their interests. (As an aside, the bastardized notion that they are elected to lead is a nefarious distortion of the purpose of public service.) Governments are supposed to enact and uphold the law, such as ensuring the terms of contracts between individuals and insurance companies are implemented. A government that does not ensure the law is practiced is essentially useless, and will be voted out. Similarly an insurance company that does not uphold it's end of a commercial agreement should face penalties under the law, and customers should take their business elsewhere. To ensure a balanced relationship, insurance companies need a method to ensure customers don't fleece them, or have them take responsibility for something that was not agreed- healthcare is expensive after all, and they have other customers to consider, as well as their employees, shareholders etc. If you're at all familiar with Prof. John Nash's work then you'll know what I mean.

A personal digression: This idea of 'white privilege', or that such a thing exists in any real capacity simply has to die. You acknowledge that 'idealized libertarian-think ' as you put it is something white men are particularly prone to, and there is a general (and not undeserved) perception that white men occupy more than their fair share of positions of power. Have you ever considered the possibility that thinking in that way is a legitimate means to success in life, and it has nothing to do with skin color?

@GrandMasterOrge: I understand your perspective as an outside observer of US politics, but the thing that no one ever seems to remember is that unlike most other first world countries the US was once ruled tyrannically by your parliament. The subsequently rebelled to gain their autonomy, and their founding values as an independent nation were based very much on the notion that such a thing will never again be allowed to occur; The United States were once a victim of Imperialism, and not simply a beneficiary as many claim.
  • 1 0
 @jayacheess: delusional ultranationalists unite!
  • 2 3
 @SmashySmashy: I'm somehow not surprised that you don't believe in systemic racism or white privilege. Those things do not fit the libertarian world view, unfortunately. Trust me, I'd love it if your way of thinking worked in the real world, but there's more nuance happening than you're willing to admit.

*The people who benefit most from the systems they're advocating for should be the ones to scrutinize their own biases the most.*

(Note, I am an upper middle class white Male who likely would benefit from your advocated-for system, but I believe it would be a worse system for the whole)
  • 2 1
 @jayacheess: true about the insurance companies.

My patients use blue cross and others, and one year i did an audit. 50% profit. They deny tx for most treatment needed.

Now I recommend Brockhealth.ca

They limit their profit to 5%. I have all my employees on it.
  • 2 1
 @SmashySmashy: The US being ruled by the Welsh Parliament will be big news over here.
  • 2 2
 @jayacheess: Well, the cooler heads were nice while they lasted.
I can see it's a matter of belief for you, but it's not for me. I am well aware that racist policies and systems existed in the US, and how their consequences are manifest today. But neither me, my ancestors nor my country committed such crimes.
If you wish to publicly self-flagellate in the church of woke for atonement, that's your shtick. It's not mine. And it shouldn't be imposed on anybody to do so.
  • 2 1
 @GrandMasterOrge: I'm sure it'll be front page news, right beside the delivery dates of the next lorry load of sheep.
  • 2 4
 @SmashySmashy: " I am well aware that racist policies and systems **existed** in the US

Yikes.

Yeah, I figured this was fundamentally where you were at, but I'm still disappointed to hear it out loud. Sigh.
  • 3 2
 @jayacheess: It probably has something to do with not being a card-carrying, fully-lobotomized member of the fairytale left.
  • 3 2
 @SmashySmashy: Projection.
  • 3 1
 @jayacheess: If you go by pretty much all polling, Obamacare has never been popular and as people actually experience it, its popularity drops. I don't know why people want to defend it so badly. Its the worst written bill in our lifetimes, full of so much graft, pork barrel, corruption, and compromise. It has dramatically increased the cost of healthcare in the United States with little to no measurable benefit.

I have lived in a country with socialized medicine: the USA. We have 100% Canadian/European style socialized medicine for Veterans and those over 65 with Medicare. Both of these systems are such utter failures that only the willfully blind can defend them.

The "social contract" is the modern day version of "Divine Right" or "Mandate of Heaven". Its a concept made up by those who rule to justify their power and authority over others. The fundamentals of society are not force and coercion, but voluntary exchange. You start your day with your phone alarm. You chose to buy that phone. If your city government didn't have a violent monopoly on electrical power, you would choose how you got your electricity. You chose to live with your spouse. You chose the city to live in. You will choose your breakfast, and which grocer you bought it from. Voluntary exchange is the foundation of a society of individuals, not force and compulsion.

Here in the USA, many places have privately paid fire fighters. It works better. Private police enforcement works better than public. In Detroit, a city that the Democratic Party has ruled for generations, people are forced to pay for private security because the police there do nothing. It works better.

If you have a mortgage, or your landlord has a mortgage, what bank on this planet would issue them a mortgage without property insurance? In absence of government police and fire, what insurance company on this planet would cover your property if you didn't subscribe to a private police and fire service? Perhaps some insurance companies might provide that service as part of your premium. This is how societies function. This is how you have lower costs, freedom of choice, and increases in quality.

Finally, if you look at systemic racism in America, the two most unequal, unfair, and racist parts of a Black American's life is the schooling they are given as kids and how they are treated by the criminal justice system. In America these two sectors are 100% socialist. In Canada it is exactly the same. Ask First Peoples how they feel about the socialist, government provided police. Or how their kids schools are compared to the rich, white neighborhoods in Toronto.
  • 3 1
 @jayacheess: In reply to someone elses comment, you said no society has ever failed from too much government control. I would ask that you look at Cuba, Venezuela, China during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, Vietnam (where my Dad fled), Cambodia, North Korea, Ukraine during the Holodomor, Somalia in the 70s and 80s, etc.
  • 4 0
 @hamncheez: without a chainbreaker these comments are worthless
  • 1 1
 @ceecee: haha. Socialized medicine doesn't work because they don't have chainbreakers.
  • 3 3
 @hamncheez:

Make all the arguments you want - the US has significantly worse quality of life outcomes, across the board, than countries with more socialized systems. And no, I don't agree that that's because the US is offering them 'protection', or 'innovations' or whatever nonsense has been argued earlier.

One thing I will concede is that the US excels at creating the ultra-rich. Like, if my aim was to get filthy, disgustingly rich, I would have moved to the US a long time ago.

About your second reply: All of the examples (the ones I'm familiar with, at least) have instances of massive corruption. I'm arguing that corruption is the driving force for these failures, and that even seemingly oppressive, over reaching governments would function well if they had minimal corruption and waste, and were able to function benevolently.

You can argue that those kinds of systems tend toward corruption, but then the US has significant and growing corruption issues, and a lot of it stems from lobbying related to for-profit industries and the influence of the super rich.
  • 4 2
 @jayacheess: "US has significantly worse quality of life outcomes" that is not what economic evidence shows. What is shown is that Americans generally are less risk adverse, and more prone to violence. That is independent of the medical system used.

What the data does show is that the USA, despite becoming more and more socialist (and being more socialist overall than many other countries) enjoys the highest average consumption of any country ever. Every single US state has a higher average consumption than all the Scandinavian countries except Mississippi. When Scandinavians move to the USA, their incomes rise significantly. Scandinavian immigrants and their 1st generation children have double the consumption rates as their stay-at-home peers.

The USA has the strongest middle class in the world. My dad came here as a 14 year old orphan refugee who didn't speak English and got a Masters degree. All my siblings and I are married, have great incomes, and graduated college.

The whole point of being anti-government is because power corrupts, and ultimate power corrupts absolutely. Socialism requires hierarchy and power structures. It requires that some dictate to others. This attracts the pathological who want to rule over their fellow men, or it corrupts any virtuous person who enters politics with good intentions.

Also don't pretend Canada or Europe is immune to government corruption. Its just as bad everywhere, as seen by the government treatment of First Peoples in Canada, as I mentioned before.
  • 3 2
 @hamncheez:

I mean, you're just wrong, and your data is bad. I don't even know why I bother.

"The USA has the strongest middle class in the world." - This is laughable. The US HAD the wealthiest middle class up until last year, when Canada overtook it, and it has been losing ground to Europe in this regard for many years. But that's not even a good measure of middle class. How LARGE is your middle class? Hint: it's much smaller than most other progressive European countries.


And I'm sorry, are you arguing that consumption is the ultimate example of positive quality of life in developed countries? This is why an over-reliance on economists in the last couple decades has been f*cking poison, especially for perspectives in the US.

"Also don't pretend Canada or Europe is immune to government corruption.* Its just as bad everywhere,* as seen by the government treatment of First Peoples in Canada, as I mentioned before."

Yeah, you're f*cking delusional. For an AMERICAN to bring up our issues with first nation's peoples - which are indeed real and ongoing, but at least are issues we are actively attempting to address - is f*cking priceless. Your track record on dealing with your native communities is beyond abysmal. Like, it's been completely swept under the rug and forgotten about. f*ck. Right. Off.
  • 2 1
 @jayacheess: our Indian casinos are better than your Indian casinos
  • 2 2
 @jayacheess: What metrics are you using for middle class measurement?

I use consumption because its a valuable way to cut across exchange rates, purchased goods vs government benefits, purchase power parity, etc. Also, ultimately, healthcare is consumption. It is a combination of goods and services that require trained professionals to interface with specialized equipment that also requires supply chain management, inventory, shipping, storage, quality control, etc. The hypothesis that government can provide goods and services, in the form of healthcare, better than a competitive market requires testable data. That data is the level of (healthcare) goods and services the end consumer, the customer/citizen, ultimately receives and the cost efficiency (in time and money) for said goods/services.


I am 100% serious about trying to reach some sort of understanding. I never engaged with name calling or cursing at you. I have given you full respect of another intelligent human being. I would ask for the same.
  • 3 3
 @hamncheez: You are not arguing in good faith. The first nation's example was ignorant/morally repugnant/intellectually dishonest - pick one or all. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion with you. I don't think we exist in the same reality.

I urge you to continue advocating for the wrong things, and I'll continue to enjoy my failed socialism in Canada.
  • 2 3
 @jayacheess: I believe this is referred to as a "Tap-Out". When one resorts to name calling and denial of facts and reason... they have lost. Thanks to all combatants. What's next on our MTB forum... Climate Change?
  • 1 1
 @Baller7756: Thanks for your useless input, mr Shapiro.
  • 56 0
 Lucky to be alive, there’s room for 2/3 of your circulating blood volume within you thigh, not to
mention inside your thoracic cavity..,
  • 27 0
 /\ This. If you care about your friends, get wilderness focused first aid training and stay up to date. Knowing how to handle emergencies saves lives.
  • 26 0
 @DirtCrab: I am wilderness first aid certified and still hope I never have to deal with something like this.
  • 10 0
 @DirtCrab:
Reminds me of Cedric Gracia's femoral artery tear, crazy
gripped.com/gripped-outdoors/watch-mountain-biker-survive-femoral-artery-injury
  • 4 0
 @chrod: man that was horrific. Amazing he survived
  • 7 0
 @chrod: Think I will pass on watching that one.
  • 5 0
 Military grade clotting agents on ur packs..especially moto
  • 5 0
 @chrod: I’ve seen this before. Still cracking jokes whilst dying, what an animal
  • 1 0
 @Ynotgorilla: *1/3, or 1-2 liters out of 4.5-5.5 liters of blood in body. But yes, that is plenty enough to put you into hemorrhagic shock, and especially once you factor in the thoracic trauma and pneumothorax, he's a lucky one for sure.
  • 17 0
 Always a lot of debate about QuikClot and other stuff. Some sources advocate for carrying a tourniquet. I'd love for pinkbike to do a little article on "small and light" first aid kit. I know guys who carry everything, guys who don't even take their phone. There has to be some crucial items that are small enough to go next to the tool kit in the Enduro strap.
  • 5 0
 @PHeller: everyone should carry a tourniquet and know how to use pressure points to stop bleeding. Splints are cool, but stopping bleeding and opening airways are usually the difference between life and death in emergency response.
  • 4 0
 @PHeller: I would love to see an article like that. For me I always carry a cravat and rolly gauze. Can take care of most everything with that, if will to improvise with other stuff laying around the trail or with a tube haha.
  • 4 0
 @PHeller: always carry a tourniquet. Enough studies now through the military that show tourniquets can be left on for 72 hours without losing the limb. Carry a sharpie, write on the body when it was applied. Sam splints or similar can easily be packed small and can help secure a broken pelvis. Enough sticks and such in the forest for limb splints. As mentioned, addressing blood loss is life or death.
  • 3 0
 @chrod: We watched this in our WFA course. There isn’t a tourniquet in the world that would have stopped that. But you probably already carry a tourniquet, use a spare tube, or tear up your favourite jersey, just get the job done. And don’t leave it on for too long...
  • 2 0
 @letsgoridebikes18: inguinal pressure point will do the trick. You’re likely in a very bad spot if you’re preforming this, but you get on in there and stop the bleeding
  • 2 0
 I wonder if my tubolito spare tube would handle the tension of being tied tight as a tourniquet.
  • 3 0
 @cedrico: www.tacmedsolutions.com/SOF-Tourniquet-Gen-4

Best tq out there. Might as well just buy one and keep it in your pack or on your bike
  • 1 0
 @cedrico: Probably more useful for that than as a spare. I had one and when I needed it, it didn't hold air. I even stored it in a saddle bag.
  • 7 1
 @dfab: this is insane...

You cannot leave a functioning tourniquet on a limb for more then 3-4 hours max without causing irreversible injury to that limb. It’s called ischemia time. Tourniquets work by cutting off arterial blood supply to the limb, which means limb is not perfused.

There is no need for any mountain biker to carry a tourniquet. The only injury that would require one to be applied would be an major (common or superficial femoral) arterial laceration. This is extremely rare, and I don’t think carrying a tourniquet for this injury is a reasonable plan and the damage done by improperly applied tourniquets or tourniquets applied to injuries not requiring one would far outweigh the benefit.

Almost any major bleeding extremity injury can be managed with firm pressure until help arrives.

Obviously head, thoracic, abdo and pelvis bleeds are a different animal but not much you can do in the field anyway.
  • 2 0
 @chrod: when I saw that crash, it made me up my first aid kit game. I now carry quick clot gauze, army surplus trauma bandage with pressure bar. As well as the standard self adhesive dressings, alcohol wipes, tick tweezers, triangular bandage, scissors (useful for trimming tubeless plugs)... Only ever had to use the low adherent dressings - when pedal bites got bad enough to drip into my socks!
  • 4 0
 @wilsondaj: tourniquets have their place. You can’t stabilize or move a patient, buddy carry, etc. There’s no need to use pressure points over TQ’s just because you are scared of doing damage. I’ve applied dozens of tourniquets to patients and never once had any issues, and this was in the early phases of the Iraq and Afghan wars when we were still refining modern combat medicine.
  • 2 1
 @onlyDH:

I agree, for combat injuries applied by experienced personal for short periods of time until transfer to medical facility tourniquets are great.

For the average mountain biker, and common mountain bike injury (even uncommon), they are unnecessary and dangerous.
  • 2 0
 QuilClot, what can and cant it do? Pros and cons?
  • 2 0
 @PHeller: I crashed and put a gash in my knee that needed twelve stitches in the top third of Downieville. I had a quickclot in my bag and taped it in place and was able to ride out. If I didn't have the quickclot, I would have had some serious blood loss and it may have been a scary escape. Instead, I was fine.

I have one that I wrapped the package in athletic tape and leave it in my bag for big gashes. For anything less, I just ride out. For anything more, I plan to use a tube or clothing as a tourniquet.
  • 34 1
 I've said it before, as much respect I give these riders for these HUGE hucks, gaps and jumps....I hate seeing guys get injured like this and I kinda feel like MTB is staring over the same precipice freestyle moto did, riders that are not paid big bucks, risking life and limb for 10 second segments wrecking themselves into oblivion....gotta send it, gotta get seen, gotta pay rent.... I get just as stoked seeing Sam Hill inside line a corner, or a sick whip, some McKaskill trials, etc...I don't need to see high risk stuff to enjoy MTB....but maybe I am in the minority. Heel up dude!
  • 6 0
 Pretty sure MacAskill has beaten himself up pretty good over the years,
  • 6 0
 @RadBartTaylor : heels down, heal up
  • 4 0
 @ReformedRoadie: Fair - he has, I have, you have probably too but nothing like the trauma the freestyle moto dudes have gone through over the years...broken collar bones, tib, fib, radius, etc are mouse nuts vs backs, femurs (some multiple times), multiple compounds fractures, both arms at same time etc.....not to mention the multiple deaths over the years.
  • 14 1
 Best of luck on a speedy recovery Tom! Glad to hear you're in good spirits and we know you'll be back strong.
  • 9 0
 2 days later and putting weight on it and bending it? No painkillers?!?! Jesus.
  • 4 0
 Not sure how that's even possible if that x-ray is the femur - pinned, I guess, but after having had my shoulder pinned I sure needed pain killers! Hardcore...
  • 8 0
 I broke my femur in a very similar way about 5 years ago. I found out that if they throw a weight bearing rod in the bone then there is no need to keep weight off it and they want you to start PT ASAP. I was totally shocked when the PT showed up at my house the day after i was dismissed and started giving me weight bearing exercises.
  • 5 0
 Bone responds very rapidly to loading, so by putting weight on in ASAP actually speeds up the healing process. Obviously you have to be careful and guided by what the surgeon or rehab peeps say is acceptable. In our ortho wards we have people standing the same day as they have hip and knee replacements, or 24 hours at the latest.
  • 1 0
 @freestyIAM: How was the pain?
  • 1 0
 @sargey2003: pretty bad. Worse that the double compound in my radius and ulna (fun fact, bone marrow looks like pink jello) and various dislocations. I think i have heard it said that the only bone that hurts more to break than a femur is the pelvis
  • 9 0
 A bit much to throw in a promo video on the back of these kinda announcements.
  • 7 0
 hope you heal quick mate
  • 2 0
 Best of luck in your recovery TVS. Coincidentally, last night my GF and me re-watched the 2018 Rampage. We watched and re-watched your run over and over. I saw it live in 2018 and it still gets me just as stoked watching it today. You’re one of the absolute best, and so proud to be a Canadian. Thank you for the incredible moments to date, and many more to come.
  • 2 0
 So many comments about health care and socialism. I wish Tom well but surely part of health care is taking care of yourself and recognising when it is time to ' send ' it on another day, looking at a take off and landing frozen solid and still going for it is not relying on the obvious skills he has but more like huck and hope, should of left it for a day with better conditions
  • 3 1
 "Socialism" arguments aside, the US stands out in the world as a country in which you pay a hell of a lot more for health care than what you receive. Even if you have a sort of "plan". So it is the sick or injured individual that is heavily subsidizing the state, or the corporations, or whatever it is. Think about it: The sick make the healthy wealthy in this country. And suggesting that the opposite would perhaps make a little more sense is seen as a socialist heresy.
  • 1 0
 That's a big off, hope you heal up quickly, I had a big over the bars coming up short on a left hip 3 months ago, broke my scapula cracked my upper right arm and ribs. I had insurance with totally sports insurance thay payed up with a 2000 lump sum and then monthly pay out. Glad I had it. swimming water aerobics and assisted pull up dipp machine fix me up in no time.
  • 3 2
 As a healthcare provider living in close proximity to Canada, we get a large number of Canadians that come over and pay cash for surgeries being denied by their healthcare system in Canada. Many of these are necessary for basic improvements in quality of life. Sounds like many folks commenting are okay with paying into this, and yet being denied fairly basic surgeries, albeit most considered elective. I’m sure many anti-American comments on this are coming from a rather young demographic.
  • 3 0
 Think about our healthcare this way: it is free. Basic. Covers emergencies, then efficiently uses the remaining tax dollars to treat the most necessary first.

The US has no equivalent.

After that we are equal. We can both buy insurances from Blue Cross, etc. We can both go to the Mayo Clinic if we want to pay. I'm a healthcare provider that has spent 10 years in each country. No doubt that this is the place I want to live. I'm paying exactly the same effective tax rate, but I get much much more back for my taxes, and just as much left over to cover additional health insurance as I did in the US for basic+ health insurance.
  • 1 0
 Do you work in medical billing? Because different Americans pay different amounts for the same services right now. We even have laws that prevent people on the other side of a state line from using the nearest hospital for the same price.
Tell me more about "freedom".
  • 1 0
 @fruitsd79: So if a hospital wants to break even, it bills differently like this. Break even is 50. It charges 100 for a bandaid. Insurance co.s with a large customer number negotiate it to 25. others negotiate to 60. Individuals in the state get it for 80. Others have to pay the 100. I or Mexicans can show up at an emergency room and you can't let us die, 0 If we show up with an insurance plan, that insurance company will pay whatever it negotiated. At the end of the day, the average cost is hypothetically 50 or whatever they set it at. A girlfriend of mine from college does this for a hospital group out of Sacramento. She lives in Vancouver now though - works remotely for the past few years.

Same thing happens in Canada at hospitals here. We get it for free (our taxes get routed into the hospital) Others have to pay.

I went to school at Loma Linda University. All my friends/roommates also have doctorates and work all over the world now. Many in the US military, Diego Garcia, Japan, Germany, Hawaii, Guam, San Diego etc. Many in Canada, most in the US. You might say that I have made an educated decision in regards to my healthcare choices.
  • 1 0
 @fruitsd79: Another interesting note. Edsard has been in the Netherlands, the US for school (where Bas or Tom was born) and now chooses Canada. They were my neighbours when we lived on Sarsons rd in Kelowna when he set up his first office there. Before they bought their acreage in SE Kelowna and built and before they bought their place at silver star. Before either Bas or Tom were sponsored, when they were 14/16. Their family knows a bit about the choices you have in healthcare, how it works and what they want after living in multiple countries.
  • 1 0
 @Jvisscher: i was replying to the other guy
. American healthcare is expensive and very much not patient focused.
  • 2 0
 as someone who crashed riding park this summer and broke 6 ribs, collarbone, and shoulder blade, and collapsed a lung, I feel your pain, Tom. Heal up soon.
  • 3 1
 Next time use a real guinea pig and see if he makes it ... no better still maybe a flying squirrel and call it a day
  • 1 0
 If someone like a pro mtb thinks that they can ride at 10 10 s all the time and never come off the bike they are living in dreamland.
  • 1 0
 Easily could have bled out internally. “Ow pretty manageable injury’s” jeez man! You’re lucky. all the best you animal
  • 2 0
 Yow I xant imagine how painful that must have been...
  • 2 0
 Damn - speedy heals man. That's as nasty as it gets
  • 4 2
 Love peace and strength, wishing you healing
  • 1 0
 Wow, be careful in every way during your healing! We know you'll come back strong like bull....sorry, like monster.
  • 1 0
 All the best to you Tom, one of the best, amazing and unique rider. Recover well and soon!
  • 1 0
 A good attitude is part of the process of healing. I like Tom's positive outlook. Sending healing vibes.
  • 2 0
 BRUTAL!
  • 3 1
 That's a pretty big owie
  • 1 0
 rest up! at least it didnt happen during the spring or summer.
  • 1 0
 HOLY SH%T...that boy can shred...heal up Dude.
  • 1 0
 Brutal bone break. Heal up.
  • 1 0
 Gnarly as usual! Always sending huge. Healing vibes!!!!
  • 3 2
 Damn you guys are shitting on U.S. repubs, and I love it Smile
  • 1 0
 Sorry to hear Tom. Healing vibes!! You’re a savage.
  • 1 0
 As with winter sports- so good to have a solid riding crew! Get well soon.
  • 1 0
 Heal up mate. I wish I didn't read this just before going for a ride...
  • 1 0
 Healing Vibes Van
  • 6 6
 Knucklehead move...age will be your savior.
  • 1 0
 GEE-ZUSS!!
  • 2 2
 I always wondered if TVS and BVS were brothers
  • 1 0
 Speedy recovery Tom
  • 1 0
 Heal up quick Tom!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.035058
Mobile Version of Website