Renovated Hall of Presidents previewed by passholders at Magic Kingdom

What exactly does that have to do with how socialism is practiced in America?

Crap! I didn't put that answer in the form of a question? ;)

The idea is that socialism has been practiced all over the world, in different levels of government, local, state, and federal. This example was from small town America and yet it still failed. In a way, a smaller level of socialism is being practiced in urban cities today and those who don't believe in it have fled to the suburbs.

But really the point of my post was to be a smarty pants to Jeff and get under his skin.

~Rob

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was about as failed an attempt as is imaginable.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, Rob. Seriously. Is anyone anywhere proposing anything that radical? Like everything, there are middle ground scenarios that make perfect sense. You can't take something that far out and say, "Look! It'll never work, whatever 'it' is that we don't understand or want to try." I've got news for you... your police, fire and highway system are very much socialist in nature.

Jeff, I don't think you got that memo that I was being a smartass. Of course I don't believe that is what's being proposed right now!

And Dj, chill out, I'm just having fun with you guys.

Sigh.... I'll stop now.

~Rob

You suck at that game, Rob.

djDaemon said:
Socialism is bad because it will make our health care system as bad as Canada's!!!

Great! I wanna wait 14 months for knee surgery when I could have it done next week under the current system. Thanks, universal health care!

You're supposed to read the entire article, Gonch:

It is not a perfect system, but it has itsmerits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waitingfor 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history ofarthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery isfinally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her qualityof life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end ofthe tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could neverafford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery andrequisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee.Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative isliving in pain for the rest of your life.

Good for Aunt Betty.

I don't live on a fixed income and can afford private insurance. I still get the impression the I'd have to wait that long as well under a universal system like Canada's.

That scenario is not a symptom of the system, it's a symptom of mismatched supply and demand for doctors/surgeons. Let's not confuse the issue.

Yeah, old people should just go off and die somewhere. Preferably quietly.

Well, that was a complete non-answer, djDaemon. I never said that - or even insinuated that. Total straw man stuff there.

But surely you can see my hesitation in a system that potentially causes me and my family (and most likely millions and millions of other like us) to wait significantly longer for needed health care.

This is exactly indicitive of the policies that I dislike.

Jeff - Perhaps. But who is to say the same thing wouldn't happen here once a rush of previously uncovered indivduals hits the streets? That is to say it's a symptom of an issue caused by the system.

Of course its a straw man - you're not offering anything novel or accurate in the way of arguments, so why should you expect anything in return?

Yeah, if you're having an elective procedure done, you may wait longer, but its not a guaranteed significantly longer wait. As Jeff mentioned, its a symptom of too few doctors. Perhaps that's because they'd prefer to work in the US, where they get paid more?

Just look at how much money we waste on our system - Canada's system has 1% overhead, while the US system has 31%! If you were a doctor, and you were looking to maximize your income in North America, its not difficult to make a choice as to which system offers you the most opportunity to do so. Perhaps if we had a similar system to Canada's, the supply-demand dynamic would equalize.

I didn't know I was being scored on originality. And that the penalty was a response of nonsense. :)

The article you linked to simply says, "It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system....Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life."

Well, the system I use now isn't a perfect system and it has it's merits too...most importantly, I don't wait more than a year for needed health care.

If that's the tradeoff for reduced costs, then no thank you. I'm still wondering why I'm expected to support something that would reduce my quality of life.

I'm not saying health care in this country isn't broken, but if I'm to take the article you linked to as facts, then I'll take the better deal for me and right now that includes getting any current needed health care this month, not in September 2010.

That's fine - I suppose its not sensible to expect someone so focused on themselves to find merit in something that helps others (or could, if circumstances change, actually help them in the future).

I'm not invoking such dicketry to be mean, that's simply how you're coming across (and I'm sure you'll admit as much :)).

I'd love to help and feed and hug all the people in the world, but it's not necessarily a realistic task. Could it be someday? Sure. And that'd be all rainbows and lollipops and kitties and stuff. I'll be the first in line to that party.

Reducing my quality of health care to improve other's with an outside chance that my own situation could improve? I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I don't like those odds.

I'm not sure it's necessarily as selfish as you want to play it off to be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

djDaemon said:
Socialism is bad because it will make our health care system as bad as Canada's!!!

Exactly. ;)

I wanna wait 14 months for knee surgery when I could have it done next week under the current system.

Don't count on that next week thing, Gonch. My mother in law had to reschedule a diagnostic MRI that was supposed to happen mid-June. As of mid-June, the earliest they could fit her in was mid-September, three months later. And, its not like Ann Arbor is short on medical care facilities.

As a hard-core capitalist, I'd suspect health care is one of the areas where you'd be most unhappy, actually. If a consumer has adequate health insurance, there is no incentive to shop around for the best value---only the best outcome, without regard to cost. Likewise, providers have dual incentives to order every imaginable test and procedure, because they are paid per test/procedure *and* doing more rather than less is preferable under our current malpractice system. From the point of view of the free, rational market, health care is seriously seriously broken.

Lord Gonchar said:
Reducing my quality of health care to improve other's with an outside chance that my own situation could improve? I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I don't like those odds.

What if you were able to reduce your family's health care costs by 30%, and still retain your current coverage (and yes, run the risk that certain, obscure, non-life-threatening issues may take longer to correct)? Is that a better bet? I don't know about you, but I could do a lot with that extra money. Hell, I may even be able to hire a private doctor when I need a new hip in 50 years!

I'm not sure it's necessarily as selfish as you want to play it off to be.

Sure it is. Its not much different from someone refusing to give up some mostly-unused cargo space in their 7,000lb vehicle - just because its their right not to do so - when the benefits of doing so are clearly obvious. While it may not inherently make you a bad person, you're certainly being selfish. You're refusing to help improve others' health because of the outside chance at a personal inconvenience.

Brian Noble said:
As a hard-core capitalist, I'd suspect health care is one of the areas where you'd be most unhappy, actually.

At least you understand it, even if you don't agree with it. :)

djDaemon said:
You're refusing to help improve others' health because of the outside chance at a personal inconvenience.

No, I'm refusing to improve others' healthcare at the reduction of my own. I'm refusing to do it in that way. A way that keeps or improves my current level of care while improving others' is awesome and I'd be the first in line.

The difference is one is a good idea and the other isn't. Hurting some people to help others. Taking from one to give to another. You see the trend in my opinion here, I've said it often when politics come up around here. I don't think it's a good approach to cap the top in order to raise the bottom...in any aspect of society, not just health care.

I don't believe that makes me selfish, I believe that's smart. Common sense even.

To me, there's not much difference between my stance and with someone who is not covered wanting my coverage to suffer for their benefit. That seems every bit as 'selfish' as I'm being.

Wait.

What's wrong with selfish? We're all selfish. That's the whole idea behind evolution. It is, to put it simply, the entire point of life.

The trick is not to convince people not to be selfish, 'cause it's never going to work. The trick is to create structures that force people to pay for the true costs they impose elsewhere---which, getting back to the whole gas thing, is what Europe has been doing forever with gas taxes.

As a simple example, there has been a big push to get electronics manufacturers to pay for the costs to recycle the equipment they build and sell when that equipment reaches the end of its lifecycle. If this stuff is just thrown away, all the toxic crap that ends up in the landfill eventually leaches into the groundwater, giving mercury poisoning to little Suzy who lives downflow of the aquifer. But, by forcing the manufacturer to bear the cost of recovering those materials safely (a) they are actually recovered safely and (b) they are passed along to the consumer buying the thing, who might decide that at the extra cost they don't need to go from a 42" TV to a 54" one just yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/earth/30ewaste.html