> On Mar 17, 5:31 pm, "Shrikeback"
hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>> Americans will never get health care as long as the Big Pharma
>>>>> controlled media are leading naive Democrats around by the nose.
>>
>>>> We Americans already got health care,
>>
>>> And judging by the obesity rate of rightards, it sucks.
>>
>> Hm. Let's do a scientific sampling here.
>>
>> Al Gore: his carbon footprint doesn't begin to match his actual
>> footprint.
>> Software ocean models predict a cataclysmic event in coastal cities
>> should he ever fall overboard from a yacht.
>>
>> Bill "Yes, give me fries with that" Clinton: overweight, but not obese
>>
>> W: slendor and active looking. I wouldn't pick him up at a gay bar
>> though;
>> he's not my type.
>>
>> McCain: a little rotund, but healthy-looking for a guy over 80.
>>
>> Hitlery: have you seen the size of her ass lately? (Bret KKKahill
>> likes to claim Obama's got no staying power, but consider how big
>> Hitlery's ass will have grown by 2012, I'd say he's barking up the
>> wrong elephant.)
>>
>> Rush Limbaugh: once pushing gross obesity, now a lot thinner,
>> thanks to America's Pharaceutical ingenuity!
>>
>> Last, but not least (in terms of mass, anyhow):
>>
>> Michael Moore: computer gravitational models predict a
>> gravitational collapse by 2011 if he doesn't lay off the
>> supersizing.
>>
>> I'd say the leftard leadership is the fattest one in the US.
>> It's only natural. Fat guys in school always felt insecure
>> and inferior, which is the cause of envious "level the wealth"
>> thinking. So fat guys are usually leftards. Sure, then there's
>> the skinny leftard, who eats nothing but alfalfa sprouts, organic
>> granola, space cake, and yogurt with active E. Coli cultures.
>> Their frequent bike trips down to the corner co-op to pick up
>> incense and tie-dyed tarot cards left their prostates swollen
>> enough to make up for the weight though.
>>
>> Another point: those rich fat guys above have the best health
>> care in the world, yet they are fat. It just goes to show you
>> that the quality of health care and obesity are causally
>> unconnected. Of course, KKKahill is incapable of rational
>> thought, so this will go unnoticed by him.
>>
>> But evidently what KKKahill wants isn't health care, it's
>> paternailist health control. The bureaucratic nanny state.
>> Nurse Rachet with a human face.
> Its curious that your analysis missed Obama. Or that the only GOP
> candidate who stressed the need for physical fitness, Huckabee, never
> got your support and that of most GOP voters.
I have to admit that Obama is meth-addict thin. Another thing I
like about him is that he's reputed to be a smoker. Is America
ready for a smoking President? Will some granola health nutter
assasinate him?
As a good atheist, the only thing I know or care about Huckabee
is that he's a creationist. What else is there? Glad he was purged
in the primaries. Case closed.
But it's funny you should mention these two guys, since my
boyfriend who happens to be black watched these guys on
YouTube and expressed a liking for both of them. Obama,
because, "he's like me, he's black but he talks white."
"You don't talk white, you talk fag." I told him.
And he liked Huckabee because he spoke with passion. But
who cares? The last thing we need from politicians is more
creationist talk. If he blathers about phys ed, that hardly sells
him any better. Oh yeah, that's what Presidents are for. The
whole idea of presidential candidates blathering about phys
ed just puts into my head this image of comrades doing
calesthenics while Chairman Mao rambles on and on about
this year's 1000 year plan.
> But more than that, we dont have "private healthcare" any more. Most
> doctor's offices now are corporations, and you get seen by whoever is
> there that day. The hospitals are all corporations, and so are the
> insurance companies. With mandates to maximize profits for their
> investors, many of whom are no longer even Americans, and since they
> get taken care of by socialized medicine in their home countries,
> could care less what you get.
Somehow this doesn't pull it off. The whole They Don't Have an Interest
thing doesn't work because, as you said, corporations exist to maximize
profits. Two areas of management are required: reduction of expenses
and maximization of sales. In order to sell, the corporation has to attract
customers. In order to cut expenses, the corporation has to reduce the
chance of lawsuits. The only difference between a bureaucratic enterprise
and a corporation is that a bureaucratic enterprise is a monopoly whose
cost is hidden from the consumer.
> The reason the American healthcare system is so expensive is that it
> is corrupt.
Nonsense. The American healthcare syste is so expensive because of
the relationship between supply and demand is heavy on the demand
side. Welcome to remedial Economics 101. Of course, the proliferation
of third-party payers has artifiicially increased demand. The establishment
of a single third-party payer would result in an extreme increase in
demand, except for the perpetual socialist bureaucratic bottleneck for
demand: triage (i.e. rationing). The issue is that the Left's strategy for
health care in the United States will do nothing about increasing supply.
If supply doesn't increase, then it becomes a zero sum game. Every
re-allocation of medical resources will necessarily subtract somewhere
else. Thus, the 80%% of Americans with health insurance will lose
something in terms of quality of service, necessarily.l
> I grant you that it has some superior facilities, like the
> Mayo; but these are now contracting out to set satellite services in
> lower cost economies to deliver the same cutting edge technology... at
> far lower costs.
Which is a good thing. If we can ever get around to outsourcing
the lawyers to India, we'll make it possible for a day laborer in
Beijing to afford one.
> Where the rubber hits the road are in miscarriages, premature births,
> childhood mental development, and longevity; the USA pays more than
> anyone else, but is nowhere near the top when you compile the data.
Compile the data? The problem is you are failing to isolate
the health care variable.
> That *fact* is driving the call for socialized medicine. If the
> service we get is so bad, we may as well have the government do it.
The issue is not that the service is so bad. Compare real metrics,
if you must. Why don't you tell me the survival rate of women
with cervical cancer in the US versus Europe? Or the average
wait time for various procedures. Or the number of MRI machines
per capita. The metric, longevity is dependent on too many other
variables. For instance, the top 2 killers of those ages 25-44 are
AIDS and traffic accidents. Neither of these killers are the result
of the quality of health care, but rather the infection rate and the
amount of driving a nation does. Nobody drives as much as we
in the US do. Note that Asian-American women are among the
longest lived groups. Does that mean they get better health care
than white men? Do women get better health care than men?
They live longer. Your other alleged metrics suffer from the same
problem. A high proportion of births in the US are to women
who grew up in a polluted third world Catholic nation, and are
even illiterate in their native tongue. Nevertheless, like longevity,
infant mortality, at least, is more to blame on behavior than
health care. SIDS, a major cause of infant death, for instance,
has been linked to whether a child sleeps on its stomach.
Obesity -- KKKahill's original metric -- isn't related to the
quality of health care either. It is related to the behavior of
the obese, just as lung cancer is related to the behavior of
the smoker.
Also, for all the whining of the American Left on the topic
of the pharmaceutical industry, that industry is the most
productive in the world in terms of innovation. Where do
most drug patents get filed? The US pharmaceutical
industry is a boon to the world, and to destroy it now,
because you feel whiney about the price you pay for
Viagra because there's no generic would be a tragedy.
This is why we need to run an experiment first: socialized
legal care. Legal services are quite expensive too, and
justice is not supposed to be for sale. Hence create a
single-payer system for lawyers. This will provide us
with important empirical information about what to
expect if we did it to medical care. In case it has bad
aftereffects, at least lawyers are just another leeching
class. Now, suggest that one to your politician. I'm
sure both parties would get right on it.
