Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

? There can be multiple meanings of the word. I certainly wouldn't call it proselytizing. To be taught, one has to want to be taught. That was my point. To change your mind, and particularly your mindset, you have to be willing.

Of course you wouldn't call it proselytizing, it doesn't sound as nice when your motives are made honestly clear lol

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Christ almighty. There is no such thing as free. That is such a puerile way to measure and respond to a real, specific, and existent problem.

Can you imagine what would happen if the people who actually had to decide medical policy made that their standard of judgement? No matter the nature of the system used, the important thing is always going to be resource to outcome. Medicine is an ungodly portion of the budgets of all states where quality of life isn't shit, it deserves a more nuanced discourse.

Even with a debt model of international finance, you can't just "play the fat" and say everything is free user-side and accounted for through taxation. That way lies destroying the very ability to efficiently distribute medicine, because it's still being paid for and irresponsible polices stemming from irresponsible voters believing in irresponsible things gradually ruins the system. Every cent that is being spent on something that nobody needs has to go.

If what you want is for everybody to have medicine without being financially damaged, then the system must be set up with that goal in mind, and specifically to trim out any excess costs. Those excess costs are always going to be what ends up causing a health crisis, when the state loses the ability to manage its own medical account from boondoggling.

[Dorsidwarf]

Christ almighty. There is no such thing as free. That is such a puerile way to measure and respond to a real, specific, and existent problem.

Can you imagine what would happen if the people who actually had to decide medical policy made that their standard of judgement? No matter the nature of the system used, the important thing is always going to be resource to outcome. Medicine is an ungodly portion of the budgets of all states where quality of life isn't shit, it deserves a more nuanced discourse.

Even with a debt model of international finance, you can't just "play the fat" and say everything is free user-side and accounted for through taxation. That way lies destroying the very ability to efficiently distribute medicine, because it's still being paid for and irresponsible polices stemming from irresponsible voters believing in irresponsible things gradually ruins the system. Every cent that is being spent on something that nobody needs has to go.

If what you want is for everybody to have medicine without being financially damaged, then the system must be set up with that goal in mind, and specifically to trim out any excess costs. Those excess costs are always going to be what ends up causing a health crisis, when the state loses the ability to manage its own medical account from boondoggling.

Artificially inflating the price of test strips because it's less obvious to non-diabetics how important they are and how often they must be bought is a problem, no matter how triggered you are by the phrase "free medicine"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'll take "things I didn't argue and in fact specifically mentioned earlier on this page" for 500.

[Dorsidwarf]

I'll take "things I didn't argue and in fact specifically mentioned earlier on this page" for 500.

I'll take "Responds to criticism of argument with overused meme" for 300, Alex.

[Loud Whispers]

I'll take "things I didn't argue and in fact specifically mentioned earlier on this page" for 500.

I'll take "Responds to criticism of argument with overused meme" for 300, Alex.

Stop talking in quote marks you ninnies

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'll take "things I didn't argue and in fact specifically mentioned earlier on this page" for 500.

I'll take "Responds to criticism of argument with overused meme" for 300, Alex.

Stop talking in quote marks you ninnies

I'll take "Big Guy" for U, Dr. Pavel.

[Dorsidwarf]

I'll take "things I didn't argue and in fact specifically mentioned earlier on this page" for 500.

I'll take "Responds to criticism of argument with overused meme" for 300, Alex.

Stop talking in quote marks you ninnies

I'll take "Three duchies in Serbia" for 15,000 please, Miroslav.

[Loud Whispers]

I'll take "Big Guy" for U, Dr. Pavel.

Was getting quoted part of your plan?

I'll take "Three duchies in Serbia" for 15,000 please, Miroslav.

You're not a Karling or Isauros are you?

[Max™]

Even with a debt model of international finance, you can't just "play the fat" and say everything is free user-side and accounted for through taxation. That way lies destroying the very ability to efficiently distribute medicine, because it's still being paid for and irresponsible polices stemming from irresponsible voters believing in irresponsible things gradually ruins the system. Every cent that is being spent on something that nobody needs has to go.

It's weird seeing someone who is deeply worried about the climate pushing a bunch of capitalism supporting nonsense like "the efficiency of the market for distributing supplies" in any situation. There's no such thing as reasonably priced across the board--much less free--medical supplies because somebody noticed "holy shit, you can literally charge someone an arm to save their leg" and that's been the standard ever since. Get them dolla dolla bills ya'll.

[smirk]

Even with a debt model of international finance, you can't just "play the fat" and say everything is free user-side and accounted for through taxation. That way lies destroying the very ability to efficiently distribute medicine, because it's still being paid for and irresponsible polices stemming from irresponsible voters believing in irresponsible things gradually ruins the system. Every cent that is being spent on something that nobody needs has to go.

It's weird seeing someone who is deeply worried about the climate pushing a bunch of capitalism supporting nonsense like "the efficiency of the market for distributing supplies" in any situation. There's no such thing as reasonably priced across the board--much less free--medical supplies because somebody noticed "holy shit, you can literally charge someone an arm to save their leg" and that's been the standard ever since. Get them dolla dolla bills ya'll.

Distribution efficiency is a basic problem, not a capitalist one, though. The current system of buying the most expensive thing in minimum amounts on the fly is possibly the least efficient way to go about things. At least give Medicare/Medicaid the ability to negotiate bulk buys of cheaper drugs.


IN ELECTION NEWS:

Trump stops bothering with fundraisers for high-dollar donors: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/25/trump-halts-big-money-fundraising-cutting-off-cash-to-the-party/

He's still doing alright with online donations, but per the article: "But the RNC gets only 20 percent of the money that Trump raises online in conjunction with the party, while the vast majority of the big checks contributed to Trump Victory are routed to the party." So the RNC now has far less cash flow to route to down-ticket races, because Trump can't be arsed. They're gonna have one helluva hangover on the 9th, I think.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What the fuck is with people in this thread and quoting arguments I haven't made today? I don't give a shit about the market. If I had good evidence that marching the National Guard into every medical and insurance board in America and holding the executives under literal slavery would prevent medical boondoggling, that would be the plan to go with.

Supplies need to be distributed with maximum efficiency regardless of dumb ideological presumptions. I believe it is possible for this to be done both with and without nationalization, but it will definitely never happen until people get more nuanced than the "free medicine" memes spread around by the political clusterfuck surrounding Obamacare.

Even if your wallet thinks it's "free" because the IRS will kill you if you don't pay them does not mean the use of those dollars shouldn't be subject to strict scrutiny. The lack of scrutiny is in large part why most medical costs are determined by assholes guessing at how much they want to be paid. Nobody really believes the hospital bills they give out now because they're a ridiculous fiction, invented to hold up the similarly ridiculous fiction of the supplies sold to the hospital.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Personally, since I lean heavily toward socialism, "to each according to their need" sounds really good. But I can see how that is infeasible, so "all medicine is free" is too extreme a solution. How about "medicine costs are scaled by income" or some shit like that?

[Phmcw]

Get he cost of all treatment get agreed in advance at the national level, and then reimbursed in huge part up to 100% depending on the importance of the treatement to avoid abuse? Combine that with a minimum salary slightly above living wages and a special status for very low incomes peoples that allow them too always get reimbursed at 100%?

How does that sound?

[Max™]

Sorry MSH, just one of those things that gets my beard turning all white and fluffy seeing people talking about finance and any implication of "efficient distribution" in regards to necessary supplies. There are systems which handle things involving bulk procurement and distribution of basic goods and services for all, we call them governments, not letting them handle those things is how we get fun stuff like the US healthcare system, or worse, the US ISP arrangement.

Still, given the choice between someone who at least tries to acknowledge areas where more socialism is needed, and someone who takes the "ok, let us bend you over and shtup ya good and hard, then when we're done we'll see what trickles down" positions of a party to an extreme... it's an easy call.