Tweet
Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Any socialist medical system HAS to set the prices for what doctors are paid. In the UK that has ended up causing a doctor shortage which is why they are wanting to see 15 people at a time, so by the fact that you propose socialist medicine you are IMPLICITLY proposing this. Socialized medicine can't work if the doctors can charge whatever they want to.
So this section is filled with sidetracks and misinformation. First, no healthcare is "free." The question is, how is it paid for. Second, the customer negotiating a price has a long history, and a single payer system does nothing more than consolidate the buying power of the U.S. population to establish the best prices. Assuming the current fee-for service model, the government would not be telling anyone what they can or should be paid - they would be establishing reimbursement rates for services. So instead of those rates being negotiated by a corporation whose choices I cannot influence and whose goal is to maximize its profits, it would be negotiated by a government whose representatives I can elect and who have a vested interest in getting the best deal they can for their constituents, or they risk losing their seats. I certainly would not advocate for a system in which doctors are not free to "go out on their own." Indeed, Medicare and Medicaid permit that now. I also don't think the "single payer" system needs to be structured to eliminate "private insurance" or "private practice. It's "single payer" not "single practice."
In the present situation, if your insurance refuses to pay, you can appeal to the government regulator or sue, as I threatened to do once. When the government decides what treatment you can have, there is no higher place to appeal. Their 'no' is final.
As for the poor/wealthy - that is a problem that will never be solved. Anyone with enough money will get what they want wherever they want it. Unless you propose laws to prevent them doing so, the question is how much better can we do for everyone else. Right now, with the system as it is, we have people deciding whether to eat or get healthcare. We have people rationing insulin because they cannot afford it. We have people (like my neighbor) not accessing any healthcare at all - so their teeth are rotting, and their overall health is in general decline. The healthiest people don't get insurance because "they don't need it," the wealthiest get whatever they want, and the sickest often cannot afford it.
The reality is that no society has the money to pay for all the citizen's health care. All society's ration it via some means. In china, only the powerful have access to healthcare. The average joe has to save his money to pay for a surgery.
You are making some very large (and incorrect) leaps. Yes, I have read it (hence my comment), and have studied most of the major religions of the world. I was a seminarian for 4/5 years of my life. Some of those brain cells are under a few inches of dust - but they are there and a lot of them have been dusted off these past few years (thanks to TWeb discussions).
I expect when people read something that they remember it or look it up to refresh their memory. You could have found those anti-Semitic verses if you had but had the curiousity. I don't like having to do research other people could easily have done. When you said there was nothing anti-Semitic in Islam, it was clear to me that you are not talking about the islam of the Koran but the Islam in your mind. One thing that does set me off is people being unwilling to verify what their fingers are about to type. Sorry, rant is over.
Your statements don't align. If you were to be consistent, you would be saying "I wouldn't want a bunch of German's imported here either--would that be wrong?" and my answer would be "yes." You see, there are militant Islamists who are antisemitic, just as there were militant German's who joined the Nazi party and held the Nazi beliefs. I would not want either in my country.
But there are also an enormous number of peaceful Muslims - the majority of them, AFAICT. I have no problem with them coming to my country, so long as they pass all of the same checks and verifications that anyone else has to pass.
Yes, I know many are peaceful, but the problem lies in sorting them out. Every terrorist nutbag has been peaceful until he wasn't. Polls show 5-8% of Muslims support the extremist. Telling that 5-8% apart from the others is hard. A bigger problem to me is their general desire that Sharia be the law where they live. I don't want my granddaughters living under Sharia ever.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
Disagreed that it represents "antisemitism."
So let's compare 2 sentences
Koran: take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors
Comparison: take not the Malaysians for your friends and protectors
As I understand you, the first statement is not anti-Semitic which would mean that the 2nd isn't either and still wouldn't be if Blacks were substituted for Malaysians!
I don't see how your argument could possibly hold. Please explain the difference if blacks were substituted for Malaysians--why that wouldn't be racist like the Koran's statement isn't.
Comment