Al Borealis, Universal Health Care Trap? |478|

Alex

Administrator
#61
I wanted to give Alex a big thumbs-up for his emotional rant about healthcare. Would have liked to see some applause at the end. It resonated with me as I lost a sister to the absurdities of modern medicine.

To Garry - thanks for that link to Amanda Forbes Youtube channel - really wonderful.

Alex, you sometimes get a little carried away, but we can always depend on you to ask uncomfortable questions.

Thanks -
Scottie
thx Scottie :)
 

Alex

Administrator
#62
Guys, sorry, but you both appear to be somewhat misinformed as to what the ACA (Obamacare) is and what is available to you and I feel compelled to say something about that.

Any individual or small employer group can purchase an ACA plan and no one can be turned away. For individual coverage there is a government subsidy for the premium based on your income level. This is for those with too much income to qualify for Medicaid. So you could have an income that is above the Medicaid cut off point and still have your ACA premium 100% paid by the federal govt. The % paid by the feds decreases as your income level increases.

There is no reason for anyone in the US to not have insurance if they want it (many people do not want it) other than not taking the time to understand what is available or not valuing coverage enough to want to pay for it (if above the income limit for 100% govt coverage). The choice is yours.

Sp to be clear, there is free Medicaid coverage for the lowest income individuals. Then there is ACA with a sliding scale premium subsidy from the govt based on income level. Then there is Medicare for those over 65 years of age. Of course there is also employer based insurance, which is how most Americans get their coverage.

So who is it that suffers with no coverage?
thx. great info!
 

Alex

Administrator
#63
Maybe this is not answering your question, but the political/political conspiracy overtones to this show have become more pronounced. Conspiracy theories about COVID and global warming have infected the internet with a virus worse more contagious than COVID over the last year. Can we get back to the "controversial science" rather than the controversial politics pretending to be about science?
sorry... no there there... at least not for me.
 

Alex

Administrator
#64
I believe that spiritual seekers & any other person concerned w/ reducing suffering must be get involved in politics & try to find out what exactly is going on w/ decision-makers/powerful people. That's what got my attention in "Prepare Yourself for What is Coming." Look at the money concentrated in technocratic hands alone. Elon Musk suggested nuking Mars as a fast way to start terra-forming it!! People have gotten into the habit of being disgusted w/ politics, myself included, & disengaging & look what we got? A president w/ the most shocking case of narcissistic personality disorder I have ever seen who is still bent on forcing himself on the American people & the world for 4 more years, & permanently after that if he has his way. Look at the number of people who actually voted for him for another term!
I was really disturbed to read about all the podcasts, radio shows, & other venues that were dedicated to supporting tRump. The left & moderates really must get more engaged to counter what I see as a destructive force driving the Republican Party/conservative extremists. There was an article on Medium.com that tried to make the case that the GOP is finished. The GOP has found a lunatic that they can promote & how people voted tells you they aren't giving up. Maybe it was Alex who said the dark forces have only begun to fight. Look at the abortion issue: that's targeted b/c the religious right/cock-eyed reactionaries won't be happy until the USA has a religious police force just like Saudi Arabia does.
I get yr point... but not sure I agree.

I'm not a trumpster... too many H1 visas for 14 year old"models." too much swamp surfing.

But how does an outrageously fake election help anyone?
 
#65
According to what I've read from Deepak Shopra, after creating life and bringing it to a certain stage of evolution, the Creator entered it. I'm inclined to agree with him. No life here compares with the imagination and creativity of humankind. It was a sudden mysterious leap in biological history. That a bit of the Creator returns to it's place in Eternity at our death logically follows in my mind.
I think there may have been several jumps, but certainly, if we contain a spirit, then so do most or all animals. You only have to live with a pet to realise that.

BTW, a page or two back, you referred to a video we really must watch, but you forgot the link!

David
 
#66
I believe that spiritual seekers & any other person concerned w/ reducing suffering must be get involved in politics & try to find out what exactly is going on w/ decision-makers/powerful people. That's what got my attention in "Prepare Yourself for What is Coming." Look at the money concentrated in technocratic hands alone. Elon Musk suggested nuking Mars as a fast way to start terra-forming it!! People have gotten into the habit of being disgusted w/ politics, myself included, & disengaging & look what we got? A president w/ the most shocking case of narcissistic personality disorder I have ever seen who is still bent on forcing himself on the American people & the world for 4 more years, & permanently after that if he has his way. Look at the number of people who actually voted for him for another term!
I was really disturbed to read about all the podcasts, radio shows, & other venues that were dedicated to supporting tRump. The left & moderates really must get more engaged to counter what I see as a destructive force driving the Republican Party/conservative extremists. There was an article on Medium.com that tried to make the case that the GOP is finished. The GOP has found a lunatic that they can promote & how people voted tells you they aren't giving up. Maybe it was Alex who said the dark forces have only begun to fight. Look at the abortion issue: that's targeted b/c the religious right/cock-eyed reactionaries won't be happy until the USA has a religious police force just like Saudi Arabia does.
Kim,

People who are not getting information about Trump and his supporters from primary sources have been misled.

Here is what one Democrat learned when he investigated what Trump really said:
"Why I left the democrat party":



Here is a playlist of many more testimonials from people who left the Democrat party:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjbi7adhMoizwZTWPCAb2ELVNaFLzx79b

Here is one of the videos on the playlist:


This organization had their facebook page taken down this week. They are still on youtube but I don't know for how much longer. They are not advocating violence, they are just people expressing political opinions that expose the deceptions perpetrated by the Democrat/Mainstream Media/Big Tech oligarchy.


It seems like every power center in the world is against Trump - the Democrat party, the mainstream media, social media companies, big tech companies, the FBI, the CIA, establishment Republicans, foreign intelligence services, academia, Hollywood, multi-national corporations, the military insustrial intelligence comples, the Obamas Clintons, and Bushes. The reason for this is not because Trump is evil. Like the woman in the second video says, Trump was a media darling before he ran for president. The reason all the power centers in the world are against Trump is because he is a threat to their power - he cares about working class people and wants to stop the exploitation of the ordinary citizen.


In another thread I tried to explain why I support Trump. I don't expect you to agree with me on policy issues but I hope that if you look at what I wrote you will agree that good people can have legitimate differences on the subject:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/trump-consciousness.4080/page-163#post-148892
I try to separate spirituality from politics because it leads to demonizing people with different political beliefs as "evil". Throughout history that has led to the worst kind of atrocities justified by people claiming spiritual and moral authority. No one is infallible so it is usually a bad idea to judge others lest you be judged.

And people in different circumstances are naturally affected differently by political policies so it is common for good people to disagree on what is the best policy. Thinking large numbers of human beings are evil because of their political beliefs is almost always a mistake.


I have tried to explain why I think conservative polices are best (below). I am not trying to change any Democrats' minds but I hope I can get them to be a bit more tolerant of people on the other side:

Some people can't understand how I can be spiritual and also support Trump.

Here's how:

I was born in New York City. People from New York are known throughout the rest of the country for being blunt. I do not come from a refined family. The people around me when I was growing up were blunt. So I am not offended by Trump's blunt manners.

However people who are offended by Trump's manners don't like him.

People who don't like Trump because of his manners or because he is in the wrong party or because he is a billionaire are easily fooled by tons and tons of lies about him spread by the news media and opposing politicians. People are very careless about confirming information that seems to agree with anything they strongly believe so Trump's detractors are ready to believe any accusation about Trump that confirms their dislike of him. The dossier was a fraud, many new reports about him were retracted, etc etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html
https://www.thewrap.com/trump-says-...ry-no-different-from-all-the-other-fake-news/

The reason I can support Trump is because I am not fooled by fake news and political smears, I am not offended by his blunt manners, his party affiliation, or his wealth.

Trump is not a racist, he is not a pawn of Russia, Israel, or any other country. He is not beholden to Wall Street or corporatists. He is not insane. He is not Hitler. He is a street fighter from New York who knows how to play hardball with large corporations, governments, and government officials.

This is why I can support Trump. The reason I do support Trump is different.

I do support Trump because I care about the poor people in the United States. The USA is a wealthy country but we do have poverty here. Trump's policies will help the poor in the US more than Democrat policies. If you want to know what causes poverty, follow the money. Who benefits from poverty? The politicians who pander to poor people, Democrats. They want to keep poor people poor and they want to increase their ranks by making middle class people poor and through opening the borders of the USA to the world's poor. That is their strategy for keeping power from which they gain their wealth.
  • Unrestricted immigration hurts poor citizens because it lowers wages. It also puts stress on systems designed to help the poor which results in fewer resources available for poor citizens. It also increases demand for low income housing which raises rents.
  • High corporate taxes hurt poor people because high corporate taxes slow economic growth which slows job creation and slows growth in wages.
  • Interpreting the constitution according to "modern" views hurts poor people. The rule of law is based on objective interpretation of written laws, if we start interpreting laws according to the whims of the judges then every citizen is at risk of losing the protections guaranteed by the constitution. This hurts poor people most because poor people are more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system. Trump is not appointing "conservative" judges to the supreme court and federal courts, he is appointing judges who believe the law should be interpreted as intended by the writers not by the whim of the judges presiding over a case.
  • Unnecessary environmental regulation and other unnecessary government regulations slow economic growth which hurts poor people (above)
  • The conservative view of abortion is that an unborn baby is still a human being and deserves the same rights that every other human being has. (This video will show you why people oppose abortion, it is not for the squeamish: https://www.lifenews.com/2019/01/14...-in-first-trimester-moving-her-arms-and-legs/: Also, a racist would never oppose abortion.


I understand other people may have different opinions on these issues. People are entitled to their opinions. But I hope others can see that the conservative viewpoint consists of legitimate opinions and support for conservative policies does not necessarily mean a person is a selfish evil racist.

I am also concerned for the poor people who live in other countries. The best solution is for their countries to improve their form of government giving their people economic freedom and rule of law. Those two factors are all that is necessary to alleviate poverty. If this would happen the entire world would experience a reduction poverty without making things harder for the poor in the USA.


I don't expect this post to do much to change anyone's mind about Trump or the issues, but there is one minimum goal I hope I can accomplish and that is to convince people that conservatives are not stupid or evil and that supporting Trump is not an indicator that a person is stupid or evil. That the animosity between left and right is not warranted by the actual differences in their opinions ought to convince people to question the sources of information that perpetuate this animosity.
This is a more in depth explanation of conservative policies:
Immigration

  • The open border policies of Democrat politicians allow large numbers of unskilled workers into the US which makes it harder for low income Americans to find jobs.

  • The US has a generous legal immigration policy. Each year from 2008 to 2017 there were between 620,000 to 1 million immigrants granted citizenship (migrationpolicy.org). Staying in the country illegally, is unfair to immigrants who follow the rules. People who stay in the US illegally are violating US law, they are not law abiding people.

  • Democrat immigration policies make it harder to protect American citizens from dangerous criminals, child sex traffickers, and drug gangs.

  • People staying in the country illegally are exploited by corporations that pay them less than legal residents and provide poor working conditions. Democrat politicians are exploiting them too, they encourage them to come here illegally where they will be exploited second class citizens because Democrat politicians hope amnesty in the future and illegal voting in the present will give them an edge in elections.

Economic Growth


  • Economic growth is the best way to reduce poverty, it has raised billions of people across the globe out of poverty. Economic growth provides more jobs, better jobs, higher wages, increased benefits, and improved working conditions.

  • Lower taxes increase economic growth. Trump has lowered taxes. Democrats want to raise taxes.

  • Economic growth is good for the environment. Rich countries can better afford to protect their environment. The worst environmental problems occur in the poorest countries.

  • Too many unnecessary government regulations inhibit economic growth. Trump has cut regulations. Democrats want more regulations.


  • Trump's trade policies favor American workers not American corporations. Democrat trade policies favor foreign countries and corporations.


Foreign Policy


  • When Trump took office there were numerous terrorist attacks occurring in Europe. After Trump wiped out ISIS in Iraq and Syria, those attacks stopped.


Education

  • Trump supports school choice which allows parents to choose better schools for their children. Democrats want to eliminate or limit school choice because they don't care about educating children, they care about the public school teachers salaries, pensions, benefits and vacations.


Judges

  • Democrats want to appoint judges that interpret the law to favor their left leaning political views. Other people might want judges that interpret the law according to right leaning views. The best compromise is to appoint judges that interpret the law according to neither left or right leaning views. The best compromise is to appoint judges who will interpret the law the way it was understood when it was passed and let elected legislators alter the law democratically when it needs to be changed. This is what Trump is doing, appointing originalist judges who interpret the law as it was meant to be understood. But the Democrats don't want a fair compromise they want to push their radical agenda on everyone in an undemocratic manner.


Social Policy

  • For decades Democrats have been using political correctness and identity politics to silence opposition and divide Americans into special interest groups. The natural evolution of this is the riots occurring in Democrat run cities. It will only get worse if it is not opposed. Trump is not politically correct. He favors open communication and settling our differences through democratic constitutional mechanisms, not through street brawls, intimidation, and censorship.


  • Why are the all the power institutions: the media, Hollywood, academia, the Democrat party, the federal bureaucracy, US intelligence agencies, foreign intelligence agencies, the Obama’s, the Clintons, the Bushes and some other Republicans against Trump? Because Trump is fighting for the American people and not the policies that these institutions favor to enrich themselves at the expense of American workers.
This post is also relevant:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...iefs-don’t-change-399.4250/page-3#post-127350

One of the things Jonathan Haidt has been speaking about and writing about is that the differences between liberals and conservatives are not very large. They both agree that certain things are important and, in fact, these priorities are common to all human cultures world wide. Where liberals and conservatives differ is on which of the priorities are more important.

These differences are easily settled by democratic processes. However the trouble starts when politicians, journalists and other professional provocateurs, who benefit from controversy get involved. It's like when there are two friends and a third person, a troublemaker, goes between them lying to each one about what the other said. Once they are fooled by the lies, the fake dispute takes on a life of its own because because now they think the other side is "bad" and they really do start saying nasty things about each other. It continues back and forth with the help of politicians and journalists continually fanning the flames.

This is what Trump means when he says the fake news media is the enemy of the people.

https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2016/01/jonathan-haidts-constructive-approach.html


 
Last edited:
#67
Guys, sorry, but you both appear to be somewhat misinformed as to what the ACA (Obamacare) is and what is available to you and I feel compelled to say something about that.

Any individual or small employer group can purchase an ACA plan and no one can be turned away. For individual coverage there is a government subsidy for the premium based on your income level. This is for those with too much income to qualify for Medicaid. So you could have an income that is above the Medicaid cut off point and still have your ACA premium 100% paid by the federal govt. The % paid by the feds decreases as your income level increases.

There is no reason for anyone in the US to not have insurance if they want it (many people do not want it) other than not taking the time to understand what is available or not valuing coverage enough to want to pay for it (if above the income limit for 100% govt coverage). The choice is yours.

Sp to be clear, there is free Medicaid coverage for the lowest income individuals. Then there is ACA with a sliding scale premium subsidy from the govt based on income level. Then there is Medicare for those over 65 years of age. Of course there is also employer based insurance, which is how most Americans get their coverage.

So who is it that suffers with no coverage?
You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Obama "scam" care. What really happens is that you are forced to get "health coverage" by the government, and if you don't get it, you get a HUGE penalty. Also, the premiums are absolutely ludicrous unless you have little to NO INCOME at all. I know, I lived through this, and was on the phone with the clowns for hours on end. Total Joke.
 
#69
You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Obama "scam" care. What really happens is that you are forced to get "health coverage" by the government, and if you don't get it, you get a HUGE penalty. Also, the premiums are absolutely ludicrous unless you have little to NO INCOME at all. I know, I lived through this, and was on the phone with the clowns for hours on end. Total Joke.
LOL.

Yeah I'm only a senior manager at a fortune 100 healthcare insurance company and I specifically manage our ACA products. Sure, what would I know? Sigh. Surely not as much as some blowhard on the internet that talked to an insurance broker once.

You are obviously not up to speed on this topic. The "forced to get" part is no longer true. Trump removed the mandate. No one has been forced to purchase insurance for the past two years. The penalties for not purchasing insurance when the mandate was in effect were not "huge". They were, actually, quite small. In fact much smaller than the cost of a policy, which is why many people made the financial decision to forego insurance (if they were healthy) and pay the small penalty. Anyhow, the penalty is long gone.

The premiums are what they are because ACA members tend to be high $ claimants, on average and Obama made certain minimum benefit levels into law - though now you can purchase catastrophic only coverage which is much more affordable, thx again Trump - but what you say about needing 0 income to receive a subsidy is completely wrong. I'd pass you some links, but you are obviously incapable of doing your own basic research and/or suffer reading comprehension issues.

If you have 0 income, then you should seek to obtain Medicaid coverage through your state.
 
#70
I agree with you, Alex. I think that you, Al, and I are all pretty much in agreement about the Health Care shit, but we are talking about it from different angles. About five years ago, I busted my ankle on ice, and I had no healthcare. I was paranoid about people finding out that I had busted my ankle, albeit this happened in a small shopping center and I did not want the expense of the ambulance. So, to do the best of my ability, in agonizing pain, I pushed my self up against and called a friend. I never went to the hospital because I knew that the expense would be overwhelming. I simply lived with the broken ankle, lost my apartment because I could not work, and ended up homeless.

I think that you are right about all these clowns that go to the doctor whenever they want for whatever reason. However, if somebody is in a situation where they have broken a limb or leg, I don't think that they should feel impending, financial doom if in need of medical attention.

Love your show, brother. Keep up the good work.
Jesus man, sorry to hear that you went through that. But oftentimes hospitals have programs for uninsured or low income folk. And they will work with you on payment plans. They’d rather you pay them 20 bucks a month than nothing at all. The cost of having a screwed up ankle for life might be much greater than a trip to the hospital.
Unless you’re fairly confident that you will recover. But that’s nearly impossible to determine on your own.
 
Last edited:
#71
I think there may have been several jumps, but certainly, if we contain a spirit, then so do most or all animals. You only have to live with a pet to realise that.

BTW, a page or two back, you referred to a video we really must watch, but you forgot the link!

David
“you don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body”

CS Lewis

To me consciousness equals soul. They’re indistinguishable. I think a lot of people think that a soul is something they have waiting around for you to die so you can become it. But you are already you.
 
#72
Jesus man, sorry to hear that you went through that. But oftentimes hospitals have programs for uninsured or low income folk. And they will work with you on payment plans. They’d rather you pay them 20 bucks a month than nothing at all. The cost of having a screwed up ankle for life might be much greater than a trip to the hospital.
Unless you’re fairly confident that you will recover. But that’s nearly impossible to determine on your own.
I hear what you are saying, but let my emphasize, this is not a viable option for many people. There are times in life where confidence in recovery goes to the back burner. The imminent necessity in survival is so overwhelming that you forget about the consequences of long term damage. In truth, it is getting through the day that is more important than health insurance or 401 K plans. Until one has lived in situations whereupon your life or death is determined by getting through the day, then this kind of "logic" will seems insurmountable.

Most people do not live a risky life. It doesn't matter what moral pomp they want to pump the world up with; about how they "earned" everything that they have. In reality, their life and circumstances have been quite boring, and the have definitely chosen the easy way to their pedestal. Their pedestal is rather like a footstool in front of a toilet, covered in urine, pubic hairs, and shit splatters of massive diarrhea. They did exactly what would get them the most money, and did so with the least amount of work.
 
#73
“you don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body”

CS Lewis

To me consciousness equals soul. They’re indistinguishable. I think a lot of people think that a soul is something they have waiting around for you to die so you can become it. But you are already you.
Your soul is that eternal grit that surfaces in bad times. What we call "ethereal" is better described as "blood, sweat, and tears."
 
#74
I agree. We do.

Last year I was dead for three days after suffering a heart attack. I had no health insurance, and medical bills put me Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) in debt.

I was forced to declare Bankruptcy. You can read about that here...

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/today-is-exactly-one-year-since-my-n-d-e.4600

Alex's curse-laden filth about "F-- the medical system! I don't want any part of it!" was absurd and childish.

When Alex is laying dead on the ground, I'm fairly certain his Wife will want part of it, and would appreciate the medical system responding to her 911 call.
Sadly, for those folks in the US. My brother in law was 9 months in the hospital from various things that came from a bad heart. He was having a heart attack, then went into a coma, bleeding internally constantly, stints, shingles, pneumonia, the works. He eventually even got a new heart.
Cost? $0.
Because Canada.
My sister the nurse who has worked in both Canadian and various states in the US said it would have cost about a million and a half, which would have meant my brother in law would have lost his house and STILL died.

Just watched "Superstore" the comedy where they pointed out its 20,000 dollars to give birth in most hospitals in the US.
Really? And we talk about CONTROL.
The REAL control is keeping people financially made into peons
 
#75
#77
Hi folks, Al Borealis here.

I see the debate is still raging on. Well, with the risk of stepping on sensitive toes, here's my frank and direct take on it:

If we have as a premise that Big Pharma should not run Health Care, no matter which model of financing is used, and that what services should be included in the health care system must be up to the citizens of each country as a separate issue from how it is financed (today Big Pharma has the power in all types of systems, including USA) - then I wonder:

Why would anyone want to keep the Corporatist model used in USA today, given that:

* It cost the nation MORE than single payer solutions (M4A saves half a trillion over 10 years according to the most anti-M4A study, financed by the Koch Brothers - much more according to fear studies) - thereby inflating taxes.

* Universal Health Care halfes your personal expanses (removes the private taxes such as deducables, co-pays, etc) because there's no longer leeches making profit from your health.

* UHC let you choose any doctor or hospital to use.

* UHC saves job-sellers (employers) fortunes as they dont have to finance it for their staff.

* UHC liberates job-buyers (employees) who has safety net and can change jobs without worrying about health care - more personal freedom.

* UHC keep the insurance companies in business as there will always be wealthy people who want more fancy options than the bottom line, plus there's tons of area which are voluntary and not included in health care (silicon boops, nose job, etc).

* Current US model rips off those who have health care on paper, in that there's an incentive for insurance not to pay out and you need to fight to get what you already should have (google it, people get sick and don't get what they are owed).

* UHC avoids the huge number of medical bankruptcies (google it, people get sick and get bankrupt).

* Current US model is highly costly for the public as people avoid going to their doc to save money, or become homeless, or chooses to do crime, etc.

* UHC keeps price of medicine down as there's a single payer who can dictate prices, rather than let Big Pharma rip you off (that's why americans who can flee to Canada and Mexico to get medicines for a normal price).

* UHC is more ethical in that it saves many families from much grief and suffering. Makes for a happier society with lower crime.

* In UHC money is spent on health, not wasted on profit, therefore Doctors still make tonns of money, and are usually the highest middle class in all countries with UHC. Nurses and others get paid better with UHC and thereby do a better job.

It's just the Oligarchs who has a rationale to favour the current corporate system, plus the politicians they owe (95%). Yet it is also supported by people who has fallen for the propaganda (same reason normal people are against legalized cannabis).

Texas implemented temporary M4A due to the winter storm. Why is that a legitimate reason and not all other reasons? There's no difference whether you die of Cancer, Car Crash, or Corona, so why should the collective safety net discriminate and just be valid in a random instance?

This leads us to an interesting question: Which health system is best?

1) NHS (National Health Service) can be defined as a left wing (socialist) plan. Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the U.K. model. Publicly run & publicly financed.

2) M4A (Medicare for all) can be defined as a centrist plan (nonetheless what Bernie is pushing). Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the Scandinavian model. Privately run, publicly financed.

3) H4A (Health care for all) can also be defined as centrist (what Tulsi is pushing). Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the Australian model. Privately run, publicly financed, + priv insurance add-on.

4) Public Option can be defined as a right-wing (capitalist) plan. For those who can't afford private insurance, the public option makes it free at the point of service. Although this covers everyone, it lead to a 2 tier quality service. Private insurance marked + pub insurance add-on.

5) Corporate Dictatorship - private insurance exploitation. Does not belong to any wing, it's just the wet dream of Wall Street psychopaths and can best be defined as Corporatism. It's a dictatorship over people, as you have no say in your own health but must be an obedient slave abiding by whatever dictate their profit motive demands. This "system" is not Universal Health Care, but rather an insane situation where life & death is regarded as commodities, governed by a needless and irrelevant middleman who price gouge & extorts, yet bails on delivery (aka "insurance companies"). Despite not being free for anyone, it actually cost tax-payers half a trillion USD more per year than M4A. It also leads to 70 000 yearly deaths and innumerable bankruptcies (before corona - much worse now). But hey, those vampire corporations are people too and need your blood. This is what peoeple in USA have today (except that small segment, like elected politicians, who receive the publicly funded free service of Medicare - which is good enough for them but not for you, as the great majority is at the mercy of the health mafia).

Personally I've never worried about my health because I knew there is a safety net no matter what happened. Health isn't an issue in my country. Here we rather debate what should be covered or not. But I would be happy under any of the first 4 options. Outside of USA, no right-wing party is arguing against Universal Health Care. If our consvervative party did, they would be eradicated by the next election. It's not a wing thing, it's just common sense and ethics.

Certain matters should not be a market place. Hospitals should focus on health, not making money. Fire department should focus on putting out fires, not making money. Prisons should focus on running the incarceration, not making money. Police should focus on keeping order, not making money. Schools should focus on education, not making money. Military should focus on defence, not making money. Courts should focus on maintaining the law, not making money. Politicians should focus on making laws & implemehnting solutions, not making money.

It is telling that only in USA half of these concerns are money-makers.

In my personal view, money should be made in the market place. Meaning commodities, trade, & services. Here I am libertarian - don't interfer with the old woman selling fish at the town square!!! But it is a crazy libertarian fundamentalism to regard everything as a market. What's next? Expropriate the parents and sell the children to the highest bidder for a more fiscally efficient family? If families are exempt, why not health care? So we agree there's a limit, we just don't agree where it should be drawn?

Wake up my american friends: Your country (richest in the world) is almost alone in not offering universal health care. But to be fair: you have Nigeria and Saudi Arabia agreeing with you on this one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care)

When I learned about your health care system I couldn't believe it. My reaction was identical with this:


Watch it. I think its a wake up call even for Americans. If not, google the poor bastard who got a bill of hundreds of thousands USD for corona treatment - or the lady who even got millions (again, google it).

If any of you visit me in Norway and something happens to you, you get immediate health care. Free at the point of service. Even if your ailment is your own fault. Even if it was a condition starting before you came here. No questions asked, just treatment. From top quality providers (the rich use the same hospitals and doctors).

Because you are good enough. Because you deserve it.

Mens sana in corpore sano.

- Al
 
Last edited:
#78
Hi folks, Al Borealis here.

I see the debate is still raging on. Well, with the risk of stepping on sensitive toes, here's my frank and direct take on it:

If we have as a premise that Big Pharma should not run Health Care, no matter which model of financing is used, and that what services should be included in the health care system must be up to the citizens of each country as a separate issue from how it is financed (today Big Pharma has the power in all types of systems, including USA) - then I wonder:

Why would anyone want to keep the Corporatist model used in USA today, given that:

* It cost the nation MORE than single payer solutions (M4A saves half a trillion over 10 years according to the most anti-M4A study, financed by the Koch Brothers - much more according to fear studies) - thereby inflating taxes.

* Universal Health Care halfes your personal expanses (removes the private taxes such as deducables, co-pays, etc) because there's no longer leeches making profit from your health.

* UHC let you choose any doctor or hospital to use.

* UHC saves job-sellers (employers) fortunes as they dont have to finance it for their staff.

* UHC liberates job-buyers (employees) who has safety net and can change jobs without worrying about health care - more personal freedom.

* UHC keep the insurance companies in business as there will always be wealthy people who want more fancy options than the bottom line, plus there's tons of area which are voluntary and not included in health care (silicon boops, nose job, etc).

* Current US model rips off those who have health care on paper, in that there's an incentive for insurance not to pay out and you need to fight to get what you already should have (google it, people get sick and don't get what they are owed).

* UHC avoids the huge number of medical bankruptcies (google it, people get sick and get bankrupt).

* Current US model is highly costly for the public as people avoid going to their doc to save money, or become homeless, or chooses to do crime, etc.

* UHC keeps price of medicine down as there's a single payer who can dictate prices, rather than let Big Pharma rip you off (that's why americans who can flee to Canada and Mexico to get medicines for a normal price).

* UHC is more ethical in that it saves many families from much grief and suffering. Makes for a happier society with lower crime.

* In UHC money is spent on health, not wasted on profit, therefore Doctors still make tonns of money, and are usually the highest middle class in all countries with UHC. Nurses and others get paid better with UHC and thereby do a better job.

It's just the Oligarchs who has a rationale to favour the current corporate system, plus the politicians they owe (95%). Yet it is also supported by people who has fallen for the propaganda (same reason normal people are against legalized cannabis).

Texas implemented temporary M4A due to the winter storm. Why is that a legitimate reason and not all other reasons? There's no difference whether you die of Cancer, Car Crash, or Corona, so why should the collective safety net discriminate and just be valid in a random instance?

This leads us to an interesting question: Which health system is best?

1) NHS (National Health Service) can be defined as a left wing (socialist) plan. Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the U.K. model. Publicly run & publicly financed.

2) M4A (Medicare for all) can be defined as a centrist plan (nonetheless what Bernie is pushing). Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the Scandinavian model. Privately run, publicly financed.

3) H4A (Health care for all) can also be defined as centrist (what Tulsi is pushing). Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the Australian model. Privately run, publicly financed, + priv insurance add-on.

4) Public Option can be defined as a right-wing (capitalist) plan. For those who can't afford private insurance, the public option makes it free at the point of service. Although this covers everyone, it lead to a 2 tier quality service. Private insurance marked + pub insurance add-on.

5) Corporate Dictatorship - private insurance exploitation. Does not belong to any wing, it's just the wet dream of Wall Street psychopaths and can best be defined as Corporatism. It's a dictatorship over people, as you have no say in your own health but must be an obedient slave abiding by whatever dictate their profit motive demands. This "system" is not Universal Health Care, but rather an insane situation where life & death is regarded as commodities, governed by a needless and irrelevant middleman who price gouge & extorts, yet bails on delivery (aka "insurance companies"). Despite not being free for anyone, it actually cost tax-payers half a trillion USD more per year than M4A. It also leads to 70 000 yearly deaths and innumerable bankruptcies (before corona - much worse now). But hey, those vampire corporations are people too and need your blood. This is what peoeple in USA have today (except that small segment, like elected politicians, who receive the publicly funded free service of Medicare - which is good enough for them but not for you, as the great majority is at the mercy of the health mafia).

Personally I've never worried about my health because I knew there is a safety net no matter what happened. Health isn't an issue in my country. Here we rather debate what should be covered or not. But I would be happy under any of the first 4 options. Outside of USA, no right-wing party is arguing against Universal Health Care. If our consvervative party did, they would be eradicated by the next election. It's not a wing thing, it's just common sense and ethics.

Certain matters should not be a market place. Hospitals should focus on health, not making money. Fire department should focus on putting out fires, not making money. Prisons should focus on running the incarceration, not making money. Police should focus on keeping order, not making money. Schools should focus on education, not making money. Military should focus on defence, not making money. Courts should focus on maintaining the law, not making money. Politicians should focus on making laws & implemehnting solutions, not making money.

It is telling that only in USA half of these concerns are money-makers.

In my personal view, money should be made in the market place. Meaning commodities, trade, & services. Here I am libertarian - don't interfer with the old woman selling fish at the town square!!! But it is a crazy libertarian fundamentalism to regard everything as a market. What's next? Expropriate the parents and sell the children to the highest bidder for a more fiscally efficient family? If families are exempt, why not health care? So we agree there's a limit, we just don't agree where it should be drawn?

Wake up my american friends: Your country (richest in the world) is almost alone in not offering universal health care. But to be fair: you have Nigeria and Saudi Arabia agreeing with you on this one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care)

When I learned about your health care system I couldn't believe it. My reaction was identical with this:


Watch it. I think its a wake up call even for Americans. If not, google the poor bastard who got a bill of hundreds of thousands USD for corona treatment - or the lady who even got millions (again, google it).

If any of you visit me in Norway and something happens to you, you get immediate health care. Free at the point of service. Even if your ailment is your own fault. Even if it was a condition starting before you came here. No questions asked, just treatment. From top quality providers (the rich use the same hospitals and doctors).

Because you are good enough. Because you deserve it.

Mens sana in corpore sano.

- Al
Hi Al,

First of all, let me tell you that I really enjoy your podcast and that I am happy that you are speaking on this forum. You and Alex are the true, living rock stars of philosophy. That isn't an opinion, but a fact. I agree with you about the health care conundrum in the USA. Your explanation is absolutely perfect, and I have lived through the effects of this idiotic system. Thanks for clarifying this to all.

Shane
 

Alex

Administrator
#79
Hi folks, Al Borealis here.

I see the debate is still raging on. Well, with the risk of stepping on sensitive toes, here's my frank and direct take on it:

If we have as a premise that Big Pharma should not run Health Care, no matter which model of financing is used, and that what services should be included in the health care system must be up to the citizens of each country as a separate issue from how it is financed (today Big Pharma has the power in all types of systems, including USA) - then I wonder:

Why would anyone want to keep the Corporatist model used in USA today, given that:

* It cost the nation MORE than single payer solutions (M4A saves half a trillion over 10 years according to the most anti-M4A study, financed by the Koch Brothers - much more according to fear studies) - thereby inflating taxes.

* Universal Health Care halfes your personal expanses (removes the private taxes such as deducables, co-pays, etc) because there's no longer leeches making profit from your health.

* UHC let you choose any doctor or hospital to use.

* UHC saves job-sellers (employers) fortunes as they dont have to finance it for their staff.

* UHC liberates job-buyers (employees) who has safety net and can change jobs without worrying about health care - more personal freedom.

* UHC keep the insurance companies in business as there will always be wealthy people who want more fancy options than the bottom line, plus there's tons of area which are voluntary and not included in health care (silicon boops, nose job, etc).

* Current US model rips off those who have health care on paper, in that there's an incentive for insurance not to pay out and you need to fight to get what you already should have (google it, people get sick and don't get what they are owed).

* UHC avoids the huge number of medical bankruptcies (google it, people get sick and get bankrupt).

* Current US model is highly costly for the public as people avoid going to their doc to save money, or become homeless, or chooses to do crime, etc.

* UHC keeps price of medicine down as there's a single payer who can dictate prices, rather than let Big Pharma rip you off (that's why americans who can flee to Canada and Mexico to get medicines for a normal price).

* UHC is more ethical in that it saves many families from much grief and suffering. Makes for a happier society with lower crime.

* In UHC money is spent on health, not wasted on profit, therefore Doctors still make tonns of money, and are usually the highest middle class in all countries with UHC. Nurses and others get paid better with UHC and thereby do a better job.

It's just the Oligarchs who has a rationale to favour the current corporate system, plus the politicians they owe (95%). Yet it is also supported by people who has fallen for the propaganda (same reason normal people are against legalized cannabis).

Texas implemented temporary M4A due to the winter storm. Why is that a legitimate reason and not all other reasons? There's no difference whether you die of Cancer, Car Crash, or Corona, so why should the collective safety net discriminate and just be valid in a random instance?

This leads us to an interesting question: Which health system is best?

1) NHS (National Health Service) can be defined as a left wing (socialist) plan. Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the U.K. model. Publicly run & publicly financed.

2) M4A (Medicare for all) can be defined as a centrist plan (nonetheless what Bernie is pushing). Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the Scandinavian model. Privately run, publicly financed.

3) H4A (Health care for all) can also be defined as centrist (what Tulsi is pushing). Free at the point of service for everyone. This is the Australian model. Privately run, publicly financed, + priv insurance add-on.

4) Public Option can be defined as a right-wing (capitalist) plan. For those who can't afford private insurance, the public option makes it free at the point of service. Although this covers everyone, it lead to a 2 tier quality service. Private insurance marked + pub insurance add-on.

5) Corporate Dictatorship - private insurance exploitation. Does not belong to any wing, it's just the wet dream of Wall Street psychopaths and can best be defined as Corporatism. It's a dictatorship over people, as you have no say in your own health but must be an obedient slave abiding by whatever dictate their profit motive demands. This "system" is not Universal Health Care, but rather an insane situation where life & death is regarded as commodities, governed by a needless and irrelevant middleman who price gouge & extorts, yet bails on delivery (aka "insurance companies"). Despite not being free for anyone, it actually cost tax-payers half a trillion USD more per year than M4A. It also leads to 70 000 yearly deaths and innumerable bankruptcies (before corona - much worse now). But hey, those vampire corporations are people too and need your blood. This is what peoeple in USA have today (except that small segment, like elected politicians, who receive the publicly funded free service of Medicare - which is good enough for them but not for you, as the great majority is at the mercy of the health mafia).

Personally I've never worried about my health because I knew there is a safety net no matter what happened. Health isn't an issue in my country. Here we rather debate what should be covered or not. But I would be happy under any of the first 4 options. Outside of USA, no right-wing party is arguing against Universal Health Care. If our consvervative party did, they would be eradicated by the next election. It's not a wing thing, it's just common sense and ethics.

Certain matters should not be a market place. Hospitals should focus on health, not making money. Fire department should focus on putting out fires, not making money. Prisons should focus on running the incarceration, not making money. Police should focus on keeping order, not making money. Schools should focus on education, not making money. Military should focus on defence, not making money. Courts should focus on maintaining the law, not making money. Politicians should focus on making laws & implemehnting solutions, not making money.

It is telling that only in USA half of these concerns are money-makers.

In my personal view, money should be made in the market place. Meaning commodities, trade, & services. Here I am libertarian - don't interfer with the old woman selling fish at the town square!!! But it is a crazy libertarian fundamentalism to regard everything as a market. What's next? Expropriate the parents and sell the children to the highest bidder for a more fiscally efficient family? If families are exempt, why not health care? So we agree there's a limit, we just don't agree where it should be drawn?

Wake up my american friends: Your country (richest in the world) is almost alone in not offering universal health care. But to be fair: you have Nigeria and Saudi Arabia agreeing with you on this one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care)

When I learned about your health care system I couldn't believe it. My reaction was identical with this:


Watch it. I think its a wake up call even for Americans. If not, google the poor bastard who got a bill of hundreds of thousands USD for corona treatment - or the lady who even got millions (again, google it).

If any of you visit me in Norway and something happens to you, you get immediate health care. Free at the point of service. Even if your ailment is your own fault. Even if it was a condition starting before you came here. No questions asked, just treatment. From top quality providers (the rich use the same hospitals and doctors).

Because you are good enough. Because you deserve it.

Mens sana in corpore sano.

- Al
nice. I have a hard time accepting that collectivism/socialism is ever the solution, but as you point out the system in the US is so horribly unfair that it's probably the best option... you've convinced me :)

it's just scary to think how something like that could be implemented inside of a completely corrupt plandemic-ized system... then again, as you point out it's hard to argue that what we have is better.
 
Top