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.
|On 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.
Source: none, I'm just talking shit...
FWIW, I am/would be all for it.
It's astounding he's back on his feet already, that all sounds ridiculous! Heal up soon.
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.
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.
"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"
free healthcare typically tax based and and limited to essentials surgeries or ICU anyway
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.
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.
Think about what personal responsibility really means, it’s not just the things you cherry pick when judging others,
Being an American can be embarrassing, changing “teams” is harder than it looks.
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.
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.
Yer spare parts bud.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
No, arguing with a "freedom"-person is a complete and utter waste of time.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
Please, learn a little history or economics before commenting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please, learn the many examples in modern history where the many various US government regulatory agencies have promoted your well being before commenting.
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.
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.
Implementing the same policies in the US will not work- the citizenry is much too fractured ideologically. It would fail hard and fast.
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?
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.
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.
That shows how ignorant you are. Take a look at the global quality of life index for starters.
About everything else - you don't appear to have been keeping up with the discussion anyway. Not really worth arguing with you.
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.
Cure? Not as profitable
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!
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!
@/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...
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.
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.
“The goal of socialism is communism”
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.
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?
Its very sad and pathetic to watch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you cure the disease, you don’t have a long term pharmaceutical customer.
Plenty of companies working in therapeutics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Unfortunately socialism can't cure an intellectual spanking any better than it can stupidity, despite what you may have been told.
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’.
Socialized services inevitably become political entities to be exploited, manipulated or denied.
Everyone else : Healthcare = civility.
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?
"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.
@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.
@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.
" 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.
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.
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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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 )
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.
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.
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.
( 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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)
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.
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.
Yeah, I figured this was fundamentally where you were at, but I'm still disappointed to hear it out loud. Sigh.
(I mean they're actually goats but still)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I urge you to continue advocating for the wrong things, and I'll continue to enjoy my failed socialism in Canada.
mention inside your thoracic cavity..,
Reminds me of Cedric Gracia's femoral artery tear, crazy
Best tq out there. Might as well just buy one and keep it in your pack or on your bike
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tell me more about "freedom".
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.
. American healthcare is expensive and very much not patient focused.
Join Pinkbike Login