Only in America, the world's greatest country...

oslooskar said:
That’s a textbook straw man reply. I never said treatment should be denied to anyone, you inserted that to dodge the point. I was talking about funding, not morality. Calling it “free” while it’s paid for through taxes is linguistic sleight of hand. Bottom-line, It’s not free, it’s paid for, just not at the point of use.
Click to expand...
Can you explain your comment "straw man reply" ?
You said
oslooskar said:
“without payment”????? Except for those nasty little deductions called taxes. But apart from that, it’s totally free!
Click to expand...
I just said that
WOLF ANGEL said:
It's free at source, for anyone and everyone regardless of if they pay taxes or not.
Click to expand...
For those who feel the need to Thailand - or any other country that does things "on the cheap" is IMO
WOLF ANGEL said:
The hope of the desperate
Click to expand...
  • And I stand by that
You may have a different opinion, and have the right to disagree but Straw man reply???
I can only think that you are referring to that of a Wizard of Oz scenario .
.
- And that is the mark of the immature
 

WOLF ANGEL said:
Can you explain your comment "straw man reply" ?
You said

I just said that

For those who feel the need to Thailand - or any other country that does things "on the cheap" is IMO

  • And I stand by that
You may have a different opinion, and have the right to disagree but Straw man reply???
I can only think that you are referring to that of a Wizard of Oz scenario .
.
- And that is the mark of the immature
Click to expand...

The straw man was your insertion of morality into what was clearly an economic point. I said healthcare isn’t free because it’s funded through taxation, you reframed that as if I was suggesting people should be denied treatment, which I never implied. That’s the definition of a straw man, misrepresenting the argument so it’s easier to attack.

And no, it’s not about Oz or immaturity, it’s about precision in debate. You can stand by your view, but it doesn’t change the arithmetic; if taxpayers fund it, it’s paid for. Calling it "free" just hides who’s footing the bill.
 
oslooskar said:
The straw man was your insertion of morality into what was clearly an economic point. I said healthcare isn’t free because it’s funded through taxation, you reframed that as if I was suggesting people should be denied treatment, which I never implied. That’s the definition of a straw man, misrepresenting the argument so it’s easier to attack.
--- And no, it’s not about Oz or immaturity, it’s about precision in debate. You can stand by your view, but it doesn’t change the arithmetic; if taxpayers fund it, it’s paid for. Calling it "free" just hides who’s footing the bill.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure you are happy with the situation in Thailand.
I'm happy with the U.K. provision of service.
I guess to each their own (opinion)
 

WOLF ANGEL said:
Well, I'm sure you are happy with the situation in Thailand. I'm happy with the U.K. provision of service. I guess to each their own (opinion)
Click to expand...

Nice sidestep, but that’s not a counterpoint, that’s called "evasion by deflection", when abandoning the substance when cornered by logic. I wasn’t talking about personal satisfaction with healthcare systems, I was pointing out the factual reality that if taxpayers fund it, it isn’t free. “To each their own opinion” doesn’t change the arithmetic. So, it doesn't matter whether it's in Thailand, the U.K., or anywhere else, if someone’s footing the bill, it isn't free. And calling it “free” is just political sugar-coating.
 
hollydolly said:
..about a year on average on the NHS..less if it's paid privately out of pocket...
Click to expand...
I pay for private health cover so that I don't have to wait. I would not drop out of my health fund as long as I can afford the monthly contributions. My cover allows rebates for extras such as dentistry, podiatry and other allied health treatments. I am bulk billed at the GP's surgery, and I pay nothing for all consultations and blood tests.

My cover means that I am not out of pocket for private hospitals and live in rehab hospitals.

I would give up a lot before I would give up my private insurance but should I be unable to afford it anymore, I would still be able to access free treatment at the GP and public hospitals.
 
oslooskar said:
I was pointing out the factual reality that if taxpayers fund it, it isn’t free.
Click to expand...
You're simply nitpicking and stating the obvious.
oslooskar said:
And calling it “free” is just political sugar-coating.
Click to expand...
Most of us are not so naive to think that this specialised and skilled service comes at zero cost. The point is that it is (often) free to individual patients.
I recently had a significant injury to my hand, I tried to avoid going to the hospital emergency department, so I attended a clinic and agreed to pay $AUD 200. Unfortunately I had to go to the hospital at about 9.30 PM on a Saturday night, I waited on a chair in the front until I was taken to a cubicle about 3.00 AM. I was able to sleep until day shift tended to my injuries. Because I was sent to the hospital I didn't have to pay the agreed $200 or any other clinical or rehab costs. This was free to me as a patient but not as a taxpayer.
I'm happy as a taxpayer that those in need get the medical attention they require without undue financial hardship. I believe that to think otherwise would be churlish.
 
Rakaia said:
You're simply nitpicking and stating the obvious. Most of us are not so naive to think that this specialised and skilled service comes at zero cost. The point is that it is (often) free to individual patients.
I recently had a significant injury to my hand, I tried to avoid going to the hospital emergency department, so I attended a clinic and agreed to pay $AUD 200. Unfortunately I had to go to the hospital at about 9.30 PM on a Saturday night, I waited on a chair in the front until I was taken to a cubicle about 3.00 AM. I was able to sleep until day shift tended to my injuries. Because I was sent to the hospital I didn't have to pay the agreed $200 or any other clinical or rehab costs. This was free to me as a patient but not as a taxpayer.
I'm happy as a taxpayer that those in need get the medical attention they require without undue financial hardship. I believe that to think otherwise would be churlish.
Click to expand...

You're a wee bit confused, it’s not "nitpicking" to insist on honesty, it’s just cutting through the sales pitch. Calling something free when taxpayers foot the bill is political stagecraft, not truth. You admit it yourself, it wasn’t free, it was paid for collectively. That’s the opposite of free. Saying you’re "happy to pay" doesn’t change the math, it just means you’ve accepted the illusion. If a pickpocket gave your money to someone else, calling it charity wouldn’t make it noble, it would just make it dishonest.
 
This reminds me why I hate talking, thinking and reading about insurance of any kind.

We all have what we have, we all come accustomed to what we can do with or without it.
We may love some aspects of it and loathe others.

Whatever our country is using is how it is and frankly I see flaws in all of it because Health Care is
a very expensive issue, any way you look at it. When money is involved it's going to get abused in
some way, shape or form and paid for in many different ways.

I will say this, I do not want my government paying for everything I need in life, it can be taken away too
easily. For an obscure example: I do not want a free grocery store where all I can get is what they choose
to give me; if I want white bread I don't want to be handed a loaf of pumpernickel.
 
oslooskar said:
You're a wee bit confused, it’s not "nitpicking" to insist on honesty, it’s just cutting through the sales pitch. Calling something free when taxpayers foot the bill is political stagecraft, not truth. You admit it yourself, it wasn’t free, it was paid for collectively. That’s the opposite of free. Saying you’re "happy to pay" doesn’t change the math, it just means you’ve accepted the illusion. If a pickpocket gave your money to someone else, calling it charity wouldn’t make it noble, it would just make it dishonest.
Click to expand...
Bringing pickpockets into the conversation is a better example of stagecraft, I'm not in the least bit confused, despite your attempts to burley up the water.
If someone pays for something then gives it away, it's free to the recipient...
 
oslooskar said:
Nice sidestep, but that’s not a counterpoint, that’s called "evasion by deflection", when abandoning the substance when cornered by logic. I wasn’t talking about personal satisfaction with healthcare systems, I was pointing out the factual reality that if taxpayers fund it, it isn’t free. “To each their own opinion” doesn’t change the arithmetic. So, it doesn't matter whether it's in Thailand, the U.K., or anywhere else, if someone’s footing the bill, it isn't free. And calling it “free” is just political sugar-coating.
Click to expand...
Let's just say I'm happy with thr U.K process and you are happy with the way Thailand chose to operate
 
Rakaia said:
Bringing pickpockets into the conversation is a better example of stagecraft, I'm not in the least bit confused, despite your attempts to burley up the water. If someone pays for something then gives it away, it's free to the recipient...
Click to expand...

That logic collapses under its own weight. By your reasoning, if someone takes money from others to fund what they "give away," it’s magically free. That’s not generosity, it’s redistribution and redistribution isn’t free, it’s financed. Calling the recipient’s lack of payment "free" doesn’t change the fact that someone else did pay. The word you’re looking for is subsidized, not free.
 
WOLF ANGEL said:
Let's just say I'm happy with thr U.K process and you are happy with the way Thailand chose to operate
Click to expand...

You’re still dodging my point by retreating into personal preference instead of addressing my point. Hence, that’s not the issue, and you know it. Satisfaction isn’t evidence, and preference doesn’t change definitions. Whether you’re happy or not doesn’t alter the fact that something funded by taxpayers isn’t free, it’s financed. The debate was about truth in language, not feelings about the system.
 
oslooskar said:
That logic collapses under its own weight. By your reasoning, if someone takes money from others to fund what they "give away," it’s magically free. That’s not generosity, it’s redistribution and redistribution isn’t free, it’s financed. Calling the recipient’s lack of payment "free" doesn’t change the fact that someone else did pay. The word you’re looking for is subsidized, not free.
Click to expand...
You're imputing more to this to the point of misrepresentation. Call it what you will, you're pretty good at the label and denounce rhetoric.
I'm curious how you might apply your twisted logic to the concept of the Free World, which I believe is bought and paid for.
 
Rakaia said:
You're imputing more to this to the point of misrepresentation. Call it what you will, you're pretty good at the label and denounce rhetoric. I'm curious how you might apply your twisted logic to the concept of the Free World, which I believe is bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

Cute diversion, but the "Free World" isn’t called that because goods and services are free, it’s shorthand for political freedom, not economic costlessness. You’re conflating liberty with price, which only strengthens my point. Freedom is bought with vigilance and sacrifice; social programs are funded with taxes. Two very different currencies.
 
oslooskar said:
“without payment”????? Except for those nasty little deductions called taxes. But apart from that, it’s totally free!
Click to expand...

I am currently paying $1,230 a month for health insurance for my wife and I. That's with both of us on Medicare. $185 each for Medicare Part B. And $430 a month each for out BCBS supplement that includes prescription coverage. On top of that I have co-pays and deductables. But they are small and manageable. So I have plenty of room ($1230 a month, which comes to $14,760 a year) to pay more in taxes to have a system like they have in Canada or the UK.
 
Rakaia said:
That's your perception, and you're taking a liberty by trying to say that I'm saying what I am not, and that's wilful ignorance in my view. Arguing with you is like banging your head against the wall, it's so nice when you stop. 🛑
Click to expand...

Disparaging remarks are the refuge of someone who’s run out of reasoning. I stayed on the argument, you slipped into attitude. But I’ll stop here because I don't want to be responsible for you banging your head on a wall.
 
Trade said:
I am currently paying $1,230 a month for health insurance for my wife and I. That's with both of us on Medicare. $185 each for Medicare Part B. And $430 a month each for out BCBS supplement that includes prescription coverage. On top of that I have co-pays and deductables. But they are small and manageable. So I have plenty of room ($1230 a month, which comes to $14,760 a year) to pay more in taxes to have a system like they have in Canada or the UK.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Different systems, same reality, someone always pays, just in different ways.
 
There is no perfect system. However, I would say, healthcare for all seems to me to the minimum a modern day society could achieve. Illness, and treatment/recovery, should be not be based on what an individual can afford. What kind of society doesn't seek at least basic healthcare for all?

It's difficult to truly work out the cost of American healthcare. The system encourages drug companies to charge right up to the breaking point, and the same happens at the delivery of service (beds, nurses, etc). It undermines a "healthcare for all" by using capitalist ideals as a control. Fact is, the more money you have to spend, the better the healthcare.

I read complaints about the NHS, and many of them are factually based. But at the same time, we're discounting 99% of what the NHS delivers to complain about the 1%.

The reality is US healthcare can be both fantastic and horrific. Your social status somewhat determines which. A catastrophic health incident is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, alongside losing a job. Medical debt is a huge problem.
 
Trade said:
Same reality? Hardly. The UK spends about 11% of it's total GDP on healthcare to cover all of the people all of the time. The US spends about 17% of it's total GDP to cover some of the people some of the time.
Click to expand...

Sure, the UK spends less of its GDP, but that still doesn’t make it free. It just shifts who pays, when, and how much control they have over their care. Efficiency and "free" aren’t synonyms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top