You’ve changed subjects. Life expectancy says something about outcomes, not costs. "Free" still isn’t the right word when taxpayers are footing the bill.
Only in America, the world's greatest country...
- Thread starter outlander
- Start date
You’ve changed subjects. Life expectancy says something about outcomes, not costs. "Free" still isn’t the right word when taxpayers are footing the bill.
Well here's another morsel for the troll, your so called logic is illogical to me. I think it's illogical to at least one other forumite. I've received a PM about this thread!
As for your point landing where it should have , yes it did in dead ground.
As for childish insults, don't get me started...
Growing up is optional, growing old isn't.
Well here's another morsel for the troll, your so called logic is illogical to me. I think it's illogical to at least one other forumite. I've received a PM about this thread! As for your point landing where it should have , yes it did in dead ground. As for childish insults, don't get me started...
Calling reason "illogical" and waving around anonymous messages doesn’t strengthen your case. It just shows you’ve run out of arguments. But thanks for the emoji parade, I found it rather colorful.
Universal health care may have something to do with it. However don't forget that we lose about 17,000 people per year to homicide; another 50,000 to suicide; another 80,000 to drug overdoses. These numbers are more than enough to skew the life expectancy rates. Then throw in US obesity/diabetes/coronary incidence and a bunch of other cultural factors (distracted driving, for example), and I'm surprised our life expectancy is as high as it is.
gruntlabor
Well-known Member
- Location
- Last Frontier, Age 83
.. and blood, oslooskar, don't forget the blood.
Trade
Well-known Member
Every devoloped nation that has universal health care does it better and cheaper than our for profit system notwithstanding your attempts to deny that. It is your comments that fly in the face of logic and they wil continue to do so no matter how many times you repeat them over and over and over ad nauseum.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
I don't think comparing spend is the best way to look at this. As I've said, all the US system is geared toward profit. Even the delivery of the healthcare. It's not the same in, say, the UK. The UK is not free to consequences of the profit motive, but it's not an expectation of the system.
I say that, and honestly, if 25% of GDP were spent on giving people the treatments they need, I'd be for it. I can't think of anything as fundamental. If you've ever lived with constant pain, then what price would you put on comfort? If you need surgery, what price on normality?
They got it right in the past. Healthcare and housing are so important for a healthy society. IMO.
I say that, and honestly, if 25% of GDP were spent on giving people the treatments they need, I'd be for it. I can't think of anything as fundamental. If you've ever lived with constant pain, then what price would you put on comfort? If you need surgery, what price on normality?
They got it right in the past. Healthcare and housing are so important for a healthy society. IMO.
You keep mistaking refutation for repetition. You’ve never actually addressed my argument, you’ve just restated your own belief as though saying it again and again makes it true. My point has always been simple: no system is “free.” Whether the money comes from taxes or premiums, someone still pays. Efficiency doesn’t erase cost, it only changes who foots the bill and how it’s collected. Seriously, pay attention!
Bottom-line, so far, you haven’t refuted that, you’ve just repeated your preference and that is not a counterargument, it’s just an echo.
Medusa
Well-known Member
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
He isn't arguing the merits of universal health care versus our system. He's simply saying that calling it free isn't factually accurate.
EXACTLY! Thank you, Medusa. You’re the only one here who seems to have actually read what I wrote. I never debated the merits of universal healthcare, I simply pointed out that calling it “free” wasn’t factually accurate. A few individuals here kept arguing against a claim I never made, which says a lot about the level of reading comprehension on this thread. Apparently, critical reading isn’t covered by universal education either.
Medusa
Well-known Member
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The point you were making was clear, yes.
But people can be protective of their home country and, by extension, the way of life provided there, which might give rise to assumptions of slight where it is not present, leading to the need to defend against imaginary assaults.
Which is to say, people are sensitive about their countries. I get that; I'm very proud of my country and can get a bit reactionary at times, myself. (Which is why I usually stay out of such discussions.)
What makes me a bit sad is watching mature (most of us very mature at this point, age-wise, at least), people resorting to insults and name-calling. That's just ugly and so unnecessary. If you can't refute the argument, concede the point and move on with your life. It's not the end of the world.
Peace and quiet moments.
( I know, gag. I'm annoyingly "vibe-y." But there it is.)
BJintheUK
Member
- Location
- Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, UK
Mr Oslooskar, now that you've made your point so eloquently, can we all move on and discuss other things without you keeping harping on about the merits, or otherwise, of who pays for healthcare?
Yes, I live in the UK, yes, I know it's funded by a form of universal taxation, yes, I get your point that it's not actually free, but for all intents and practical purposes, to those of us who use the system, it certainly looks a lot freer than any system in which people are asked for payment any and every time they use the healthcare system.
Incidentally, regarding my point in the last paragraph, about those of use who use the system and how we see the healthcare system in the UK. There is a video on YouTube made by an American called Evan Edinger who has moved to the UK. In the video he pointed out that although most of us who live here pay taxes into the system, some people don't pay any taxes at all, so for them the system is entirely free. It is not funded by those people at all, yet they benefit from it whenever they need it.
Now, you've won your argument about the system not being actually 'free', as someone has to pay for the infrastructure and the wages of the staff. However, being pedantic hasn't won you any friends for your posts on this thread has it.
Muskrat
Senior Member
- Location
- Mainly arizona
This has sort of degenerated. Whoever or whatever caused global warming…we will all live with the consequence. Healthcare is the same…a sicker population impacts the whole. When you deny healthcare because a person can not afford it the person sometimes enters the system much sicker. For instance…you can not turn down emergent care at a hospital here. Untreated diabetes can cause emergencies. Would we as a nation rather pay for un hospitalized diabetic care…or have a person repeatedly enter the hospital in a diabetic crisis? Or asthma. Or COPD. Or heart problems. These are the choices facing Americans today. They impact all of us.
Knight
Well-known Member
I don't think winning friends was the intent of Oslooskar. Getting a valid point across took time but finally was understood. That took patience. For that IMO credit is due.
Last edited:
gruntlabor
Well-known Member
- Location
- Last Frontier, Age 83
Just another opinion:
Yes, everyone in the world should be flourishing, why on earth not? And how can we bring that about? Well, we can't by the means we're employing.
We're all going to die soon enough. And maybe miserably, no big deal to anyone but ourselves. This mad scramble of hysterical demands of assistance and approval from all quarters under the sun is not helping our goal.
When you finally put the billionaires on Universal Income there still won't be enough. If you want to give, give your own money or volunteer, nobody's stopping you.
For myself, I'd like to see some cracking down on rogue and predatory governments, give the U.N. some teeth, aim to STOP ALL CORRUPTION, get sincere honest smart people in charge for a change. TERM LIMITS!
'There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.' --Winston Churchill
gruntlabor
Well-known Member
- Location
- Last Frontier, Age 83
.. and making personal remarks is the quickest way to get an interesting thread shut down.
BJintheUK
Member
- Location
- Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, UK
May I apologise for stepping on toes that I shouldn't have? I'll shut up now.
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
Well said..... !!!
It’s amusing that after a dozen people misread what I wrote, I’m the one accused of "harping." That’s rich. Accuracy isn’t pedantry, it’s just inconvenient for those who argue by headline instead of comprehension. So be advised that I wasn’t looking for friends, just accuracy. That being said, you don’t need my permission to move on, after all, discussion threads don’t come with turnstiles.
This is inaccurate because he's evaded the original point by deflection, and this is where the rot sets in.
Last edited:
That’s actually inverted. Medusa’s summary was accurate, the point was about terminology, not motive. Calling it “free” at the point of use doesn’t make it factually free, it only shifts when payment happens. Labeling that clarification as deflection misses the mark because the argument never left the subject. So your allegation, amusing as it is, collapses under its own weight.
You are not doing anything simply, that's terminology for you.
The point that you don't seem to get or refuse to acknowledge is that medical care is available with no direct payment required from the patient.
No need to shut up, BJ. After all, there’s nothing more educational than an honest debate. And as far as I know, you still have freedom of speech on this website, just as long as it doesn’t involve politics, or personal attacks.
On the contrary, Rakaia, I’ve acknowledged that from the start. The point you don’t seem to understand is that “no direct payment” is not the same as “free,” unless words have suddenly stopped meaning things. Bottom line: you’ve essentially repeated my argument while insisting I don’t understand it.
OMG you're really splitting hairs and being pendantic about the word free..
I think we all get the point that universal health care is funded by the government or its agencies using public. Every taxpayer contributes to provide healthcare for those who are eligible for public healthcare, so what are we arguing about?