The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[actaeon277]

And how many innovations come from socialized medicine?
I'll bet the list is a bit on the low side.

 

[T.Lex]

And how many innovations come from socialized medicine?
I'll bet the list is a bit on the low side.

1. Creative queues.
2. Fidget spinners to control anxiety while waiting months for emergency surgery.
3......

That's all I can think of right now.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And how many innovations come from socialized medicine?
I'll bet the list is a bit on the low side.

The National Socialism laughs at your question.

 

[actaeon277]

not sure I understand your statement.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There is something that's been bothering me about the Dem position, that I haven't seen articulated critically. Maybe because it is doesn't really lend itself to soundbites. I apologize in advance that the tone of this post is more alarmist than usual, from me, but this idea has been incubating since the debates. And it hasn't gotten any more comfortable.

It starts with the idea of "medical care" as a human right. It isn't. In fact, that's kinda absurd. For as long as there has been medical care, the practitioners of it have special expertise. Care is rendered with the expectation of something in return. Might be chickens or a goat or fiat currency. Something. Part of that is because the acquisition of the expertise can be expensive, particularly in the modern era.

Medical care is a service rendered for price.

But, to me, this is linked to the "free college" promise. If the expertise to render medical care is devalued such that it costs nothing to obtain, then it creates an argument that it should not be charged for. That is, once the government provides the path to the expertise, then the government can control the "cost" of the service.

This free health care thing, philosophically, builds into it the nationalization of more than just the health care industry (and the resulting death knell for certain insurance services). Really, any professional service would count, since college is the typical path to all sorts of expertise.

So, this is a parade of horribles/slipper slope type thing. Yeah yeah yeah, other countries have socialized health care and it hasn't (yet) culminated in complete socialism.

It just seems remarkably lacking in self-awareness to have a national conversation about both sides - free college and free health care - without seeing how the 2 are linked.

Which brings up another thing. What system of insurance did those countries have prior to socialized health care/insurance? Did they have insurance companies at all, and if so, was the insurance industry anywhere close to the size of ours? Going from little to nothing to "socialized" isn't nearly the leap that going from a large, well-established system to something completely different.

 

[T.Lex]

Which brings up another thing. What system of insurance did those countries have prior to socialized health care/insurance? Did they have insurance companies at all, and if so, was the insurance industry anywhere close to the size of ours? Going from little to nothing to "socialized" isn't nearly the leap that going from a large, well-established system to something completely different.

Fair point.

I don't know. I suspect that for Canada and England, the roots of it go back to the pre-WWII efforts at socialism. A friend of mine's dad was a doctor in Canada, but they moved to the states in the early 70s when there was another big change up there to the health care system.

For me, I kinda don't care - other than historical curiosity. The (further) nationalization of health care is just a bad idea.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

CNN/SSRS national poll:
Biden 22% (-10)
Harris 17% (+9)
Warren 15% (+8)
Sanders 14% (-4)
Buttigieg 4% (-1)

 

[T.Lex]

Biden/Harris?

Oof.

 

[KG1]

All I know is that I’m finally going to see an ENT specialist tomorrow for the first available appointment that I made almost 2 months ago.

Foreshadow of things to come?

I would like some of these Democrat
candidates proposing Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants to explain to me how it will get any better under thier proposals.

 

[Brad69]

Is INGO Ready for Joe Biden’s daily gaff?

Evidently a kid wearing a “hoodie” might not be a gang banger but a poet!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-aim-joe-biden-s-language-about-race-n1025011

In other news “Ol hair sniffing Joe’s” son Hunter might be a liability to his dad!

Not only the ties to the foreign countries and a life fueled on cocaine and booze with some diversion on crack!
He also was doing the nasty with his dead brothers wife while still married and getting kick out of the Navy for drug use!

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign

 

[BugI02]

There is something that's been bothering me about the Dem position, that I haven't seen articulated critically. Maybe because it is doesn't really lend itself to soundbites. I apologize in advance that the tone of this post is more alarmist than usual, from me, but this idea has been incubating since the debates. And it hasn't gotten any more comfortable.

It starts with the idea of "medical care" as a human right. It isn't. In fact, that's kinda absurd. For as long as there has been medical care, the practitioners of it have special expertise. Care is rendered with the expectation of something in return. Might be chickens or a goat or fiat currency. Something. Part of that is because the acquisition of the expertise can be expensive, particularly in the modern era.

Medical care is a service rendered for price.

But, to me, this is linked to the "free college" promise. If the expertise to render medical care is devalued such that it costs nothing to obtain, then it creates an argument that it should not be charged for. That is, once the government provides the path to the expertise, then the government can control the "cost" of the service.

This free health care thing, philosophically, builds into it the nationalization of more than just the health care industry (and the resulting death knell for certain insurance services). Really, any professional service would count, since college is the typical path to all sorts of expertise.

So, this is a parade of horribles/slipper slope type thing. Yeah yeah yeah, other countries have socialized health care and it hasn't (yet) culminated in complete socialism.

It just seems remarkably lacking in self-awareness to have a national conversation about both sides - free college and free health care - without seeing how the 2 are linked.

There is another caveat, also. Without wishing to downplay the motivation to heal the sick that I know is part and parcel of putting in the time an effort to become a doctor, it doesn't hurt that it is still a good way to provide for your family
When it becomes even more of a hectic grind and paper chase than it already is, for less remuneration, it might become much more difficult to get people to choose that career path. Then what? Certify more folks as doctors who did not train in the US system, or worse yet begin selecting majors for succeeding generations of freshmen? IMO it's analagous to the downward pressure put on compensation for engineers; no matter how much the best and the brightest love the field, if they can't make the kind of money they want they'll go become quants on Wall St

 

[Twangbanger]

...So, this is a parade of horribles/slipper slope type thing. Yeah yeah yeah, other countries have socialized health care and it hasn't (yet) culminated in complete socialism...

I think the "socialized free (___fill in the blank____)" concept is a more dangerous slope in America, than in those other countries, because we have two things they don't have: 1) a strict constitutional principle of individual rights, and 2) an insanely inflated civil rights profession and allied court establishment which constitute a "printing-press" designed to mint additional content into #1 at the fastest possible rate.

Our system is designed to turn ideas into new civil rights within the average person's lifetime. "Your" profession (this is not aimed at you personally) runs things to the most ridiculous, extreme reduction-ad-absurdum conclusion in a half-life which seems to get shorter all the time. It seems to create a certain type of entitlement mentality the European nations don't have. Because they didn't have a strict foundation of individual rights to begin with, nor the army of lawyers with which to battle for them.

We cannot morally resolve and defend the difference between Rosa Parks wanting to sit on a bus, and a spoiled California teenage boy who wants to sit in the girls' toilet and pee betcause he "feels like a girl today." As a result, the free sxxt crowd sees that "Civil Rights" is a leg-kick that our constitutional Republic has no defense for...and they're going to keep leg-kicking more and more stuff onto the entitlement list, until someone musters the moral courage to tell that California boy he is not Rosa Parks. And, his parents don't have the right to have surgeons change his plumbing, and force the taxpayer to pay for it.

Maybe only peripherally-connected concepts. But offered for thought, since we're drawing connections between things here.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, my profession is the one primarily responsible for writing the document that reflects actual natural rights in our country, so it can't be ALL bad.

Further, the free stuff crowd is a function of human nature. Those who want power in a democratic republic (or transient popular oligarchy) know they can get voted in by promising stuff to people. Works almost every time.

Even when the thing promised is "greatness."

The Dems are promising greatness, just another flavor. People want that, and they want it the easiest way possible, so they'll vote for it.

 

[BugI02]

I noticed that the other Dems and the media have failed to address the comment made by one of the unknown debaters down at the end of the line that said all of the hospitals he has talked to, said that if everyone was paying the Medicare rate they would have to close their doors.

I'm not sure some of this wouldn't be a good thing if we wish to wring some cost savings out of health care. Columbus is a second tier city, but we have three major competing hospital groups. Each one duplicates many expensive specialized care facilities. All three have level one trauma capabilities and stroke centers, two have neurological wings and one has an on site facility for proton radiation therapy (they essentially have a synchrotron)

The cyberknife system is a marvel, in that it can irradiate patients with a beam of very precisely controlled (in terms of energy as well as focus) protons. This precise control of the energy allows the protons to pass through the outer tissues of the body without interacting with them and then as they slow down reach an energy level at which they couple with the tissue and deliver the radiation without injuring all the intervening tissue. Doctors I know tell me the system is one of the best in existence to treat cancers in children, but it's marketed predominantly for prostate cancer treatment because potential patients have more resources and are usually much better insured

It seems that the various medical groups could save us all a lot of money if they would split up the provision of expensive expert services, I understand the argument about competition that might be made, but I have never seen competitive pressure be very effective in the medical field (especially with near non-existent pricing information to make comparisons)

It would seem if we went from three trauma centers to one that there would be room to reduce the price of the services since the increased number of patients would make up for the lost revenue

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Fair point.

I don't know. I suspect that for Canada and England, the roots of it go back to the pre-WWII efforts at socialism. A friend of mine's dad was a doctor in Canada, but they moved to the states in the early 70s when there was another big change up there to the health care system.

For me, I kinda don't care - other than historical curiosity. The (further) nationalization of health care is just a bad idea.

I don't know either, but it seems to me that basically eliminating a multi-billion dollar segment of the economy in one swell foop, as is being proposed by some of these dem candidates is gonna cause some pain. It's up there with AOC's "Green New Deal" wanting to basically eliminate air travel, the automotive industry (as we know it), fossil fuels (and presumably all the by-product industries - if she's thought that far in advance).

 

[actaeon277]

So, while those running the democrat party advocate gun control, Vox tells leftists to arm themselves.

[video=youtube;g1RyoW1rvIg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RyoW1rvIg[/video]

 

[JettaKnight]

So, while those running the democrat party advocate gun control, Vox tells leftists to arm themselves.

You can't complain about a publication being one sided, then criticize it when they run an article contrary to their prevailing trend.


After reading the opinion piece, I gotta say, the author has a point.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/7/1/18744204/guns-gun-control-anarchism

Maybe we need more people like the author, not leftist anarchist, but left leaning gun owners who know the meaning of the 2A.



And I did watch some of Mr. Pool's pontificating - pure gatekeeping. People should have guns, but only the right people. The whole issue of training is a red heering and a way to cast aspersions on leftists. There's no logic in saying that proper training is exclusive to one political ideology. There's the very real danger that following the democrats unrelenting assault on the 2A, we think that the 2A only applies the right. Hogwash. The 2A is for everyone.

Then he calls out "marginalized communities". Well, the right certainly has their own, e.g. Randy Weaver's family, the BLM protesters.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Appeal to those emotions.

Hugging moms is enough reason to **** on the 2A.

 

[actaeon277]

Appeal to those emotions.

Hugging moms is enough reason to **** on the 2A.

No one asks her what "executive actions" she will take.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No one asks her what "executive actions" she will take.

She can pound sand. Hence why she's not getting my vote even if she is the nominee.