Venezuela's Fall Into Dictatorship

[gatorbait]

 

Statistics show that when the poor do go to the ER, the situation is already acute. What makes you think that they will change their behavior? You do realize that after ACA passed, ER visits jumped, even though people had medical coverage to see a doctor? A how in the world will service get better when you will reduce the service options and pay less for the services? Do you think the doctors will start to provide better care at less pay for the common good of mankind?

The ACA was a joke, it's not single payer or the answer. Insurance companies can't stay involved in the process. Millions still didn't have insurance or use the one they had. Single payer isn't perfect, obviously. What is? The current way isn't working. Costs and premiums keep going up and it's getting out of hand.

 

Doctors won't have a choice. It's their career so they will have to stay doing it until retirement, or go be a consultant or do something else. Then, young people who will have Pell grants and help with their medical school can charge and make less in the future. Doctors are still heroes and it will always be one of the most important occupations, if demand goes down a tiny bit for the position we will still be okay.

 

Don't believe me I don't care, just don't say no one ever told you about single payer when we switch to it in the future.

 

Ci senor, gatorbait gets his bulldozers and death squads deseo radical.

Chupa mi penga bendejo.

It's a question that you should be able to answer easily, because it's fundamental to your position.

 

If you can't answer it, what does that say about your assertion?

I could argue the semantics of it but it isn't that important if it's a right or not. Every major nation offers a basic level of care, and we will too. It is only a matter of time. Score one point for Tasker.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[TakeYouToTasker]

I could argue the semantics of it but it isn't that important if it's a right or not. Every major nation offers a basic level of care, and we will too. It is only a matter of time. Score one point for Tasker.

 

It's not semantics. Saying something is a right implies something very specific; which is why you chose to call it a right.

 

You'll have to resolve this internal logical inconsistency if you want your argument to have merit.

 

[GG]

The ACA was a joke, it's not single payer or the answer. Insurance companies can't stay involved in the process. Millions still didn't have insurance or use the one they had. Single payer isn't perfect, obviously. What is? The current way isn't working. Costs and premiums keep going up and it's getting out of hand.

 

Doctors won't have a choice. It's their career so they will have to stay doing it until retirement, or go be a consultant or do something else. Then, young people who will have Pell grants and help with their medical school can charge and make less in the future. Doctors are still heroes and it will always be one of the most important occupations, if demand goes down a tiny bit for the position we will still be okay.

 

Don't believe me I don't care, just don't say no one ever told you about single payer when we switch to it in the future.

Chupa mi penga bendejo.

 

I could argue the semantics of it but it isn't that important if it's a right or not. Every major nation offers a basic level of care, and we will too. It is only a matter of time. Score one point for Tasker.

 

There's a clear reason you've been branded an idiot by Tombot.

 

You are the latest in the line who can't differentiate between health insurance and health care.

 

So let me recap. Even though ACA fulfilled the vision of your compatriots by providing greater access to HEALTH CARE to a portion of population that did not have HEALTH INSURANCE, and they did not avail themselves to the benefits of the new law, you think that by expanding the provisions of that law to give everybody access to HEALTH CARE and in the process reduce payments to the providers of HEALTH CARE will result in better HEALTH CARE for the population?

 

Try this for an experiment, what would you do if your boss came in and said, starting tomorrow you're taking a 30% pay cut, but I need you to work 10 hours more per week. Do your civic duty.

 

You may accept the terms because there are few better options available. But don't tell me that you will be just as motivated to do your job. And that's precisely what we need to accomplish your social experiment, let's have the entire HEALTH CARE industry miserable and unhappy while you're lying in the hospital bed.

 

As had been said countless times on this board, noob, the US HEALTH CARE industry's biggest issue is not HEALTH INSURANCE, but people's livestyles, regulation and how people consume HEALTH CARE.

 

Tomorrow's comedy lesson will discuss how you will get the Democrats to convince the trial bar to drop all malpractice lawsuits.

[gatorbait]

 

It's not semantics. Saying something is a right implies something very specific; which is why you chose to call it a right.

 

You'll have to resolve this internal logical inconsistency if you want your argument to have merit.

 

I said it's becoming a right, and a lot of young people and countries feel that way too. That's what I think, disagree all you want. It won't change my day one bit.

 

There's a clear reason you've been branded an idiot by Tombot.

 

You are the latest in the line who can't differentiate between health insurance and health care.

 

So let me recap. Even though ACA fulfilled the vision of your compatriots by providing greater access to HEALTH CARE to a portion of population that did not have HEALTH INSURANCE, and they did not avail themselves to the benefits of the new law, you think that by expanding the provisions of that law to give everybody access to HEALTH CARE and in the process reduce payments to the providers of HEALTH CARE will result in better HEALTH CARE for the population?

 

Try this for an experiment, what would you do if your boss came in and said, starting tomorrow you're taking a 30% pay cut, but I need you to work 10 hours more per week. Do your civic duty.

 

You may accept the terms because there are few better options available. But don't tell me that you will be just as motivated to do your job. And that's precisely what we need to accomplish your social experiment, let's have the entire HEALTH CARE industry miserable and unhappy while you're lying in the hospital bed.

 

As had been said countless times on this board, noob, the US HEALTH CARE industry's biggest issue is not HEALTH INSURANCE, but people's livestyles, regulation and how people consume HEALTH CARE.

 

Tomorrow's comedy lesson will discuss how you will get the Democrats to convince the trial bar to drop all malpractice lawsuits.

Thanks for the long response and lecture. There are fat and obese people in America? Some people will never take care of their health, no matter what? I know this. Single payer brings down costs, that is the most important factor in America. Costs and the bottom line override everything.

 

Do you think people calling me an idiot matters to me? I'm an IB grad who had a full ride to a state university and I have a Master's degree. My opinion on certain matters gets ridiculed but I do not care. Less than 10% of the population has a Master's, which is sad. Everyone could use a little more education imo.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[TakeYouToTasker]

I said it's becoming a right, and a lot of young people and countries feel that way too. That's what I think, disagree all you want. It won't change my day one bit.

Again, you aren't addressing the fundamental underlying inconsistencies in your position. You're entitled to any opinion you'd like to have, but that doesn't somehow infuse it with merit. If something is a right, it needs to be something available to you in a vacuum without the intercession of others. It needs to be something inherently part of your humanity, in it's natural state.

 

How can something be a right if:

 

a) there is a limited supply of it

b) it requires the resources and labor of others

 

If we "run out of care", because it is a finite resource, how can one claim a right to something that doesn't exist?

 

If something requires the labor and resources of others in order to produce, what happens if (when) they decide to stop producing it?

[gatorbait]

Again, you aren't addressing the fundamental underlying inconsistencies in your position. You're entitled to any opinion you'd like to have, but that doesn't somehow infuse it with merit. If something is a right, it needs to be something available to you in a vacuum without the intercession of others. It needs to be something inherently part of your humanity, in it's natural state.

 

How can something be a right if:

 

a) there is a limited supply of it

b) it requires the resources and labor of others

 

If we "run out of care", because it is a finite resource, how can one claim a right to something that doesn't exist?

 

If something requires the labor and resources of others in order to produce, what happens if (when) they decide to stop producing it?

Thanks for reposting that Tasker, you would make a great lawyer. Let me rephrase my "opinion". Healthcare is a luxury that all Americans should have access to and be able to afford. Is that better for you?

[GG]

I said it's becoming a right, and a lot of young people and countries feel that way too. That's what I think, disagree all you want. It won't change my day one bit.

Thanks for the long response and lecture. There are fat and obese people in America? Some people will never take care of their health, no matter what? I know this. Single payer brings down costs, that is the most important factor in America. Costs and the bottom line override everything.

 

Do you think people calling me an idiot matters to me? I'm an IB grad who had a full ride to a state university and I have a Master's degree. My opinion on certain matters gets ridiculed but I do not care. Less than 10% of the population has a Master's, which is sad. Everyone could use a little more education imo.

 

Single payer will not bring down costs because the very basic assumption is as faulty as your logic. An truly educated person would recognize that. If you accomplish your nirvana of obliterating the private insurance industry, then you will need to create an entirely new administrative machine to handle the cost of providing HEALTH CARE and payments. That is 1 - not going to be cheap and 2 - will not be cheaper than the current system.

 

Get out of your bubble and learn why the US HEALTH CARE costs are so high and then you will understand that single payer will not solve the problem.

[gatorbait]

 

Single payer will not bring down costs because the very basic assumption is as faulty as your logic. An truly educated person would recognize that. If you accomplish your nirvana of obliterating the private insurance industry, then you will need to create an entirely new administrative machine to handle the cost of providing HEALTH CARE and payments. That is 1 - not going to be cheap and 2 - will not be cheaper than the current system.

 

Get out of your bubble and learn why the US HEALTH CARE costs are so high and then you will understand that single payer will not solve the problem.

Dude, you don't get it. Single payer will regulate the costs and prices of everything in the medical field. Other countries pay a third of the price to see a doctor, get a surgery or medication. Why do you think that is?

 

You obviously have no !@#$ing clue how reimbursements right now work in medicine. I'm a health administrator genius, we are going to have to downsize when we go to single payer, not increase the workforce. To say reimbursement and administrative costs will go up with single payer shows how little you know about it.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[TakeYouToTasker]

Thanks for reposting that Tasker, you would make a great lawyer. Let me rephrase my "opinion". Healthcare is a luxury that all Americans should have access to and be able to afford. Is that better for you?

It is, because now you're at least arguing from an honest position with agreed upon terms.

 

Health care is a luxury.

 

Now that you're conceded that health care is a luxury, we can begin to tackle the access and affordability arguments.

[gatorbait]

It is, because now you're at least arguing from an honest position with agreed upon terms.

 

Health care is a luxury.

 

Now that you're conceded that health care is a luxury, we can begin to tackle the access and affordability arguments.

Fair enough, your two points/questions poke serious holes in the argument. Every other major nation would probably disagree with you and say that since they offer universal care, it has now become more than a luxury, it is almost a right for their citizens. You got me with your semantics, and I'm serious, you would make a good lawyer.

[TakeYouToTasker]

You obviously have no !@#$ing clue how reimbursements right now work in medicine. I'm a health administrator genius, we are going to have to downsize when we go to single payer, not increase the workforce. To say reimbursement and administrative costs will go up with single payer shows how little you know about it.

 

Now on to the structural part of your argument.

 

You intend to increase access and quality by reducing resources? Explain how that works.

[gatorbait]

Now on to the structural part of your argument.

 

You intend to increase access and quality by reducing resources? Explain how that works.

Universal care increases access, that is not even debateable. Waiting times will go up slightly for everyone besides the rich, but access will increase. Single payer will not single handedly increase quality but there are tons of measures we could take to increase it. Reducing administrative costs by not having to seek reimbursement from 100 different payers is not reducing resources. Downsizing 25% of administrators will help hospital's bottom line, not lower resources for providing care.

 

Do you guys really think the current health system is working in America? We spend over 2 trillion a year on the stuff, and prices keep going up. It is not sustainable.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Fair enough, your two points/questions poke serious holes in the argument. Every other major nation would probably disagree with you and say that since they offer universal care, it has now become more than a luxury, it is almost a right for their citizens. You got me with your semantics, and I'm serious, you would make a good lawyer.

It's easy to call something a right, but far more difficult to prove it out.

 

It's also important to call into question what happens to these nations when their health care systems collapse, which they are beginning to do in most of Europe. Will quality healthcare still be a right there when it isn't obtainable?

[gatorbait]

My opinion is it's becoming more of a right, debate that all you want. More people than just myself feel that way. Japan, Germany, Canada and others have their complaints about their systems, but they are not collapsing. We could pick and choose the best parts of all systems around the globe to modernize and improve ours.

 

If you guys don't want to go to single player, then we could just regulate the **** out of pharmacy companies, insurance companies and medical companies. That would go a long way, but we live in a country where profits and lobbyists would never allow that.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[snafu]

(A) I don't want a mandate, I want a basic universal level of care provided through our taxes.

 

(B) Hundreds of years ago when they wrote the constitution, healthcare wasn't a right like it is becoming now.

 

© Think about becoming a teacher these days, it isn't desirable at all. They need more support, better pay and benefits to attract better talent. New York actually takes care of their educators compared to Florida but it is getting worse. Standardized education right now gets students to take standardized tests; it doesn't prepare them for the real world or make them as truly educated as they could be.

 

(D) Does that make us closer to Nazi Germany or Venezuela?

 

As to (A): you say that your don't want a mandate, but then you describe a mandate.

 

As to (B): it wasn't a right then and it isn't a right now. Do you want everyone to have the same coverage? How does everyone pay for their own coverage?

 

As to ©: I'm not sure what you're saying there. Do you want every student to have standardized education? What about private schools?

 

As to (D): Yes, it absolutely does. Any step towards socialism takes this country down that road. It is human nature to NOT be socialists. If a government wants to force the issue, then that's what you eventually wind up with.

 

When you say that this country needs a single payer health care system, what do you think will happen when the insurance companies, their employees, their investments and their segment of the economy collapses (and takes the greater economy with it)? A bailout? Just have the government take them over?

[B-Man]

“I NEED WIDER POWERS!” Venezuela’s Maduro Wins Power Over Oil Despite Court Reversal.

 

The Venezuelan Supreme Court may have amended part of its explosive decision to take over the opposition-led congress, but it still gives embattled leftist President Nicolas Maduro broad new powers over the OPEC nation’s vast oil wealth.

The reversal on Saturday came after political leaders worldwide and street protesters at home accused the pro-government court of effectively making Maduro a dictator.

While the court backed off its Wednesday decision to fully take over the legislative branch, it left in place sweeping new authority for Maduro to cut oil deals on behalf of PDVSA, the state-run oil company, without congressional approval.

Maduro’s cash-strapped government now has the autonomy to sell stakes in Venezuela’s oil fields, which contain the world’s largest reserves, or launch new joint ventures with foreign firms.

 

 

 

Venezuela’s socialist government can’t drill the oil profitably itself, and — I’ll put this gently — the country’s political situation makes it somewhat risky for foreign firms to enter into joint ventures.

 

 

All unexpectedly, of course.

 

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/261544/

[gatorbait]

 

As to (A): you say that your don't want a mandate, but then you describe a mandate.

 

As to (B): it wasn't a right then and it isn't a right now. Do you want everyone to have the same coverage? How does everyone pay for their own coverage?

 

As to ©: I'm not sure what you're saying there. Do you want every student to have standardized education? What about private schools?

 

As to (D): Yes, it absolutely does. Any step towards socialism takes this country down that road. It is human nature to NOT be socialists. If a government wants to force the issue, then that's what you eventually wind up with.

 

When you say that this country needs a single payer health care system, what do you think will happen when the insurance companies, their employees, their investments and their segment of the economy collapses (and takes the greater economy with it)? A bailout? Just have the government take them over?

A mandate means people have to do something. Universal care is something that's offered, not required, but you knew that. Doctors at the time when the constitution was written were fingering girls to completion to treat real medical issues. People died from minor infections and there weren't any real medicines invented yet. Maybe they didn't look at healthcare like we do today? Taxes buddy, our taxes should cover healthcare and education in this country. Not wars and rebuilding the countries we just destroyed.

 

The health insurance companies can disintegrate into thin air for all I care. They are a big factor why healthcare is so ridiculous in this country. Here's a hint, maybe we should actually let some of these millionaire executives lose their companies. People will need to find new jobs but that happens every day in America.

 

Education and healthcare are my two biggest gripes in this country. We could do a lot better in those areas, and they aren't going to fix themselves on their own. Call me a socialist all you want, I don't give a rats ass.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[grinreaper]

Two different healthcare threads weren't enough? Or was this thread on socialism bound to come down to healthcare because gatorbait is championing socialized medicine?

[snafu]

A mandate means people have to do something. Universal care is something that's offered, not required, but you knew that. Doctors at the time when the constitution was written were fingering girls to completion to treat real medical issues. People died from minor infections and there weren't any real medicines invented yet. Maybe they didn't look at healthcare like we do today? Taxes buddy, our taxes should cover healthcare and education in this country. Not wars and rebuilding the countries we just destroyed.

 

The health insurance companies can disintegrate into thin air for all I care. They are a big factor why healthcare is so ridiculous in this country. Here's a hint, maybe we should actually let some of these millionaire executives lose their companies. People will need to find new jobs but that happens every day in America.

 

Education and healthcare are my two biggest gripes in this country. We could do a lot better in those areas, and they aren't going to fix themselves on their own. Call me a socialist all you want, I don't give a rats ass.

 

Taxes = mandate. Mandate = invasive.

And if you don't care about 17% of our GDP collapsing then there's no use going any further. You do see how that will reach down to every level of the economy. But Socialism to the rescue, right?

[gatorbait]

 

Taxes = mandate. Mandate = invasive.

And if you don't care about 17% of our GDP collapsing then there's no use going any further. You do see how that will reach down to every level of the economy. But Socialism to the rescue, right?

Collapsing? So prescription and medical companies will stop selling their goods? Hospitals will stop paying their employees? I love how people think some social ideas are so extreme, but then over exaggerate to the point it is laughable.

 

If people could pay 5% or 10% more in taxes, but never had to make an insurance premium payment again for them or their families, would it be worth it?