@fieyr i believe the government can change. right now it is irresponsible and inefficient with its money. right now we spend so much on military and death sentences and other things that other first world countries don't fret about, and it's a huge waste of money. not to mention it gives america a really bad reputation. but the government can change, and that's the beauty of democracy. the people have a voice, and if we speak out we can help bring about the change that will make socialized healthcare work.

@Gargron: anti-Socialism is a byproduct of the Cold War mentality. It's going to take probably two more generations to wear off, and even then several prominent economists and definitely members of both political parties wouldn't dare wear the "Communist" label, in light of the failures of the Soviet Union.

@canon I agree with you. Government CAN change. However, and you said it yourself, right now it is irresponsible and inefficient with money.

My point is, you shouldn't entrust government with an additional task and THEN expect it to change to become more efficient. Call for the change first so that you have a healthy platform from which to implement healthcare.

@TokoyamiSenshi If you read the wall of text, somewhere in there you will find the answer. actually here: "There is always a problem in those types of systems. The terminally ill will probably end up dying by the long wait b/c everyone is equally treated (read as first come first serve). If there is a long line of equally terminally ill persons and there is not enough facilities to attend to every one of them, there will be unfortunate but weeded out deaths. " Law of supply and demand. If the demand for product/service is too large, and let's say the consumers have an infinite amount of money to spend, the first to come and go will receive the said service/product. The system works like that. Too many ppl for a certain type of medical surgery? If terminally ill, the wait for the next surgery is fatal. Because Obamacare will significantly increase the "consumer" side, the medical field will be overwhelmed in some fields. Death is possible in this situation unless the said terminally ill is willing to buy services/products in the private sector. Otherwise, good luck.

@canon The USA does not have a democratic system. That is a common false belief of its citizens.

@Fieyr That is exactly what the most hardlined Republicans are going for: less govt interference and instead letting the private sector somehow handle itself. However, many Americans so unsatisfied with the costs of healthcare that they resort to flying out of the country to receive medical attention elsewhere. Funny thing is the cost of the travel and medical expenses combined is less than what we normally charge here.

whew, I need some smokes naow.

I don't like it and that's all I have to say

@PigBoss: Law of supply and demand is based on the fact that there is a scarcity. If everyone had enough money to pay for service, there would be no economics, no law of supply and demand to talk about, therefore your argument is invalid. The only scenario which I can think of, where running out of space(in my country) for the terminally ill is I dunno, zombie apocalypse.

..waaaaait a second.

On a more serious note, I find it hard to believe that there is not enough hospital space for all the terminally ill in the US. If that really is the case, however, I guess the problem is more fundamental than whether or not to charge for hospital services.

@TokoyamiSenshi Economy can be used on anything, from finances, social studies, logistics, and biology. In any branch of (pseudo)science, you can apply scarcity because there is indubitably a competition for resources. You do not need to put dollars into the equation. The scarcity in question is of the services related to the number of patients. I am just demonstrating that if everyone can get health care equally, some will be late than others. The rate of curing those with illnesses to the rate people die from said illness will grow in ratio, but some people might die. Hospitals will charge. They aren't a charity group you know. And space-wise, it is doubtful that America would not have enough hospitals, but even so, the distribution of hospitals in relation to the population is unequal as well as the skill sets. The most competent will be found in the highest paying hospitals and those will usually be in major cities. Again, I am just stating that someone might die due to scarcity of services due to too many people clogging up the waiting line.

@PigBoss: Someone might die that way(which is highly unlikely if there are enough facilities to treat everyone), but if you start charging money for treatment, those who can't pay will surely die. I do not see where you're trying to ground your arguments. Thinking purely in terms of lives saved, it should be obvious that, given enough facilities, not charging money directly from patients is a better approach.

I am just demonstrating that if everyone can get health care equally, some will be late than others.

Well, you're not.

And space-wise, it is doubtful that America would not have enough hospitals, but even so, the distribution of hospitals in relation to the population is unequal as well as the skill sets.

Ever wondered why there's a helicopter platform on every hospital? Now you know.

Hospitals will charge. They aren't a charity group you know.

It's not a matter of whether they will charge or not, it's a matter of whether or not you have to pay for it directly or face the consequences if you can't.

Real-world examples prove this directly; there has not been a single case in my country(for as long as I remember) where someone died waiting in line. Can you say the same about the US?

As I understood, the main arguments against this are a lack of money and citizens' distrust towards the way government uses their money, none of which are direct criticism towards the proposed system itself.

Also, something tells me that you've never taken economics classes.

@PigBoss That's not what I'm advocating at all. I think that, in all likelihood, the only way to cover everyone, is via a government run program. Find me a hard-line republican that will say that.

I'm simply saying that given the current status of our government, that it is currently horrendously ill-equipped to handle implementing healthcare.

Show me a government that spends my money wisely, that can balance its check book, that runs like a well-oiled machine, that is free from GSA scandals, that is accountable, that can tell me exactly what my money is going towards.

Show me a politician that truly represents his or her constituents, that isn't lining their pockets with money from special interests, that is more concerned with doing what is right instead of being re-elected for another term.

Show me a nation that is not 15 trillion dollars in debt.

Do these things, and you will begin to restore my faith in our government. And once my faith in government is restored, I'll entertain the idea of universal healthcare for all, implemented by our government.

I'm not a fan of an entity infamous for an infrastructure of inefficiency, a culture of political one-upsmanship, and a talent for ignoring the voices of reason to instead serve some short-sighted political agenda, being in charge of my or anyone else's healthcare.

Lol, politics.

@TokoyamiSenshi

Having enough facilities does not imply that there will be adequate doctors to fulfill certain medical procedures. Whether indirect or direct, people will be still paying money. Implying that every hospital has a helipad. Implying the Obamacare will not be met with state rules and regulations. Each citizen might have to stay in their own state to be treated in a public hospital. By going out of state, financial matters might get complicated. There is a whole debate about how taxes should be done for this Obamacare Canada is a perfect example of deaths occurring whist waiting in line. The number of population vs number of facilities. My main intention was to provide how terminally ill people could die while waiting in line. I never argued against you of the "lack of money and the citizens' distrust towards the way government uses their money." That was a response toward the others.

read these two articles please:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=2147484001 http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=2147484002

Your last line was an example of ad hominem. Please refrain from using logical fallacies in a debate.

read the first line: There was no mention of money. Economics can be used as a crude instrument for any sciences.

another uber uguu kawaii moeblob Yui~

@Fieyr

What I am saying is a hard lined Republican will use the excuse that Gov't shouldn't be interfering with the private sector (laissez faire), so they would back up the notion that Obamacare should not be implemented.

I hope our current status as a bumbling giant will be a thing of the past.

"Show me a government that spends my money wisely, that can balance its check book, that runs like a well-oiled machine, that is free from GSA scandals, that is accountable, that can tell me exactly what my money is going towards.

"Show me a politician that truly represents his or her constituents, that isn't lining their pockets with money from special interests, that is more concerned with doing what is right instead of being re-elected for another term."

that is kind of impossible to fix in a president's term. During the last 50 years, it takes quite an effort for Congress to agree with the President and vice versa. lol and kind of a lot to ask for, even in 10 years @___@ which says a lot about what type of society we live in.

"Show me a nation that is not 15 trillion dollars in debt.

Do these things, and you will begin to restore my faith in our government. And once my faith in government is restored, I'll entertain the idea of universal healthcare for all, implemented by our government.

I'm not a fan of an entity infamous for an infrastructure of inefficiency, a culture of political one-upsmanship, and a talent for ignoring the voices of reason to instead serve some short-sighted political agenda, being in charge of my or anyone else's healthcare."

I agree. I don't like an inefficient gov't where politicians are making the Constitution a Prostitution.
Well, capitalism is essentially a machine fueled by personal greed. I guess the Capitalism culture has pervaded into the mindset of the American gov't so much that it changed the way politicians act. (lol implying that politicians were any different 200 years ago). "Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws" -Amschel Rothchilds Money runs the world. In order to cure the gov't's inefficiency, we need to change the economic system. We need to evolve into a more perfect society, but we haven't gotten there yet. Greed doth rot the human integrity much mmm

moar Yui~

@PigBoss:

Having enough facilities does not imply that there will be adequate doctors to fulfill certain medical procedures.

I thought it does. The whole point is that people can be taken care of in a timely manner. If that's the case, if there's really no chance to treat all terminally ill people in time, that's a different problem. Certainly not the kind solvable by obamacare.

About the problems with transfering to other hospitals, I'm guessing it has to do with taxes being collected at state level. I can't really argue about that since my country functions as a whole in that regard. Also, isn't it a rule that every hospital needs a helipad? It is here.

Your last line was an example of ad hominem. Please refrain from using logical fallacies in a debate.

It was an implication that you misapplied economics to the problem at hand, not an ad hominem(unless you consider not taking economics classes a serious faux pas^^). If that's how it came off, I apologize.

It seems to me that the nature of our disagreement is quite simple. You see a scarcity in the system which I do not. In the articles you provided, one could argue that scarcity is indeed present in Canadian system.

From personal experience here, if you need a surgery, you'll be on the table within a day. Especially on the E.R., there is practically no waiting time. Routine tests, however, can take up to 3 weeks unless your doctor decides that it's an emergency in which case you're taken care of immediately. That's why I'm finding it hard to understand the situation in the US.

Also, I like Yui. Let this continue.

@PigBoss Which is exactly my point. We have simply not reached the point in the evolution of our government/society that is required to make universal healthcare implemented by our government feasible, sustainable, cost effective, .

I hope you understand now however, that I'm not at all saying that I prefer, "less govt interference and instead letting the private sector somehow handle itself" with regard to healthcare as you stated previously. Rather I'm saying that our government needs to first get it's shit together. Don't put the cart before the horse as they say.

As you pointed out, it's incredibly difficult to render meaningful change in government. If you throw healthcare on top of an already broken system, then it will be executed poorly. And since things are difficult to change, it will continue to be executed poorly until we drive ourselves off some proverbial cliff.

Examples for your consideration:

-United States Post Office and their hemorrhaging of money due to a severe decrease in the volume of mail sent which means less revenue. They lost $3 Billion per quarter in 2011. Revenue peaked in 2001, and yet we continue to throw tax payer money at them in order to keep that broken system running.

-The U.S. Mint. minting coins that cost more to make than they're worth.

These are problems we have RIGHT NOW. And we've had them for YEARS.

And you expect me to believe that our current government can do better with the monolithic institution that is healthcare? Are you kidding me?

@TokoyamiSenshi For the helipad question, I found an answer from one of AZ's hospital http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/190339

"Do all hospitals have helipads? If so, why?

No. Hospitals that do not have a trauma center or an acute level of patient care are not required to have a helipad for the transport of patients."

As you already know, I am only saying that the scarcity might become an unfortunate reality. However, it is interesting to note though that most Canadians stay in Canada for their treatment.

A pie chart I took from @Trev.

As of right now, if you have the money, you can "have it your way" -BURGER KING® LOL

I only hope my fear is just a dreadful thought. Nothing more. This was an interesting discussion :)

Moar Yui~

@Fieyr lol I understand exactly how you feel. The two conflicts in question can be dealt with, but at a painful cost. For the US postal, the govt can:

1) fire 80% of the existing employees and overwork the remaining 20% to death. A part of the 80% will live off the Govt. or

2) Privatize the whole system by selling it quickly to private companies like they did with the Illinois lottery back in 2010.

For the US Mint,

1) each citizen can be branded with an ID chip and all money can be completely digital, or

2) produce coins in a cheaper fashion like they did with the dollar bills (each bill cost about 2.2 cents) by using recycled plastic instead of comparatively expensive metals. And of course, nobody in the right mind would want to counterfeit a bunch of coins; unprofitable.

Yes. There are way more problems than these two examples. And yes, there are way more than 2 solutions for any problem. I just wish the government is not too deliberately slow in taking action. I kind of wish that corporations can just lobby the government to take a straight direction to efficiency for cultivating long term growth instead of making a quick buck here and there.

but reality is a bitch, put a leash on it and fuck her,

life is a whore, and death is her sister,

you know father time, and you've met mother nature,

look at this picture frame, what a fucking family picture

(lol random rapping):

Do you have any ideas to make a more efficient government? If so, I'd like to hear them.

Also, cute Yui~

I have a simple but ultimately unattainable decision system. Simple because I've seen the completition of a similar nation-wide server used for ranking at university entry level. Unattainable because there is no government on this planet willing to approve of such a thing and there probably never will be.

Basically, government would be repurposed and the entire thing would take a forum-like form. Govt. officials would be moderators(not in imma ban you forum sense), presenting current problems and debating in public, they would also act as diplomats and ministers and such, but, no decision would be made by the government. Every decision would be a referendum through a well-protected national server in which you'd login with your citizenship id or whatever is used in that country, and all the people would be required to cast a minimum of X% votes during the course of the year as a part of their citizen duty(though I doubt there would be people who would refuse to vote should the system work fairly).

That way, whatever the country decides, it's the will of the people.

Also, from an organizational viewpoint, this is very convenient because decisions in local communities could be made on a local level through the same system. I guess this approach would make present day corruption nearly impossible though manipulations of the system itself would remain a concern, but nothing unsolveable.

@Inasda Ad hominem fallacious attacks do not faze me. I hope you read all my comments on this thread. I'll be about to reply to your so called "questions" soon.

@inasda whoah whoah calm down. i'm not saying to cut military funding altogether, i'm just saying we spend a lot and it doesn't really make us any better or worse than other first world western countries?

@pigboss semantics. you understood what i meant.