Bull Ring Tommy T (or Lysistrata): Can you answer reply by Dekster to your OP?

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, May 10, 2019.

  1. Dekster
    Offline

    Dekster Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    3,631
    Thanks Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,981
    Ireland had a similar problem with false negative cervical cancer screenings . Over 200 women were misdiagnosed and 18 or 19 have died (I think I saw on twitter where at least 1 more died after this article was published): https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hpv-test-for-cervical-cancer-screening-ireland-1.4735758

    In their defense, however, they did send the tests to a low-bidder Texas lab.

    I agree that there needs to be more localized treatment but my gut instinct is that in any national system there would be an even steeper divide between haves and have nots than we already see in urban v, rural markets. Obamacare has certainly been blamed for smaller rural hospitals closing.

    I am more conflicted on the direct personal relationship aspect though. Sometimes it is better to have a fresh set of eyes on a problem if the symptoms are similar to a patient's usual complaints and history.
     
  2. Tommy Tainant
    Online

    Tommy Tainant Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    18,082
    Thanks Received:
    1,979
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Y Cae Ras
    Ratings:
    +12,998
    So go back to Bulldogs question. Why do US companies charge more in the US than overseas ? The answer is pretty obvious.
     
  3. Tommy Tainant
    Online

    Tommy Tainant Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    18,082
    Thanks Received:
    1,979
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Y Cae Ras
    Ratings:
    +12,998
    When you use ideological words like enslave and quote anecdotal stuff I cannot see that you want a conversation. Your final paragraph just flew over my head. I didnt understand it.
     
  4. Tommy Tainant
    Online

    Tommy Tainant Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    18,082
    Thanks Received:
    1,979
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Y Cae Ras
    Ratings:
    +12,998
    Where have I said that ? You still havent provided an example of the US subsidising the rest of the world. This was a central claim on the thread that kicked this off but not one example has been put forward.
     
  5. Tommy Tainant
    Online

    Tommy Tainant Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    18,082
    Thanks Received:
    1,979
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Y Cae Ras
    Ratings:
    +12,998
    You make several assertions but do not provide any links to back them up. I am interested in the figure you quote for R and D. Is this your government spending or companies ?
     
  6. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    20,424
    Thanks Received:
    2,836
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,531
    Tommy Tainant
    0. Sorry if what I state isn't clear to you, but I don't know why you would
    "jump to assumptions" about "not wanting a conversation" when I started this whole thread for the purpose of resolving the issues!
    That means all sides participating, through THOROUGH conversation or dialogue. That's the purpose of the thread.

    Will this clarify points better:

    1. Since you and I agree the point is to get for-profit-insurance out of the way,
    I am criticizing how the "nationalized govt reform" attempted by Obama did the opposite and
    PAID for-profit-insurance interests to ensure they got the business.

    I am pointing out to you that going through govt had the OPPOSITE result.
    Instead of removing FOR PROFIT INSURANCE, going through national govt allowed corporate interests to dominate the process,
    FORCING citizens to purchase FOR-PROFIT-INSURANCE (plus billions in tax dollars were paid up front to these FOR PROFIT INSURANCE interests in order for Obama to get the ACA approved and passed)

    2. Thus I am arguing that the nonprofit cooperative approach
    achieves this goal better of eliminating for-profit-insurance.

    Instead of going through federal govt that is so far removed from the people that only the BIG CORPORATE INTERESTS
    can access representation through partisan politics, the cooperative approach PRESERVES control by citizens on the
    GRASSROOTS level to directly pay and manage services WITHOUT relying on profit-driven or politically-driven middlemen.

    I am arguing this works better, while going through federal govt FAILED.

    3. Then I added further criticism of your approach, arguing if you keep pushing blindly that
    the ONLY solution is "nationalized health care through govt" this DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS
    that the cooperative and DIRECT ASSOCIATION structure has solved.

    BUT IT KEEPS PEOPLE STUCK IN A STATE OF DEPENDENCE ON CORPORATE-INFLUENCED GOVT.
    INSTEAD OF TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO ACCESS HEALTH CARE DIRECTLY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

    I am saying, in that last paragraph, the more that you and others PUSH BLINDLY AS A MINDLESS MOB
    for just "single payer" or "nationalized health care" WITHOUT SPECIFYING the reforms that direct association cooperatives make,
    then you end up being part of the problem. You ENABLE the very FOR PROFIT CORPORATE INTERESTS
    to remain in control because you keep preaching to people to give up control to Govt that is run by those hostile interest.

    That's why I brought up the
    point under #1: to show how your "solution" of just having government take over
    led to mandates FORCING citizens to buy FOR PROFIT insurance.


    So it had the EXACT OPPOSITE effect of what you and I are both arguing.
    The "nationalized govt legislation" allowed FOR PROFIT CORPORATE INTERESTS
    to control the policy terms.


    That is why I was arguing that your INSISTENCE on putting this "in govt hands"
    PERPETUATES this very problem of FOR PROFIT INSURANCE INTERESTS injected into the costs instead of being taken out!


    Is this more clear?
     

Share This Page