U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[Coito ergo sum]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

Platitude.

The myth of European superiority....

'Nother platitude.

Um, no. I'm pointing out the fact that this constant refrain about how much better the Europeans do it is quite tiresome.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

Platitude.

The myth of European superiority....

'Nother platitude.

Um, no. I'm pointing out the fact that this constant refrain about how much better the Europeans do it is quite tiresome.

So is pointing out that bit of "information".

[Trolldor]

That's funny, because Australia isn't Europe and yet we had better health coverage than the US. I have the same Sentiments as Woodbutcher.

And, um yes, It is a platitude.

[Woodbutcher]

Just posting to make sure everybody spotted the reference to 20thcentury.
OKTHXBAI

[Trolldor]

I did, gave me a chuckle.

Also the fact he said "Europe" despite the fact you live in Canada.

[AshtonBlack]

Ok.

Stat 1: Infant mortality rate. US = 33rd in the world. (wiki)

Stat 2:

Source.

Now, the stats could be a lie, possible. But that looks to ME, like you pay more and get worse service taken at a national level.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think that's the American dream at all. The American Dream is, in short - liberty and opportunity. The American way has never been about guaranteeing people things. It's your right to place a negative value judgment on that, but that is the American tradition.

Look who wants to give us his pre-recorded civics lecture.

Just clearing up your mistake.

Perhaps you'll grace us additionally with your wisdom about just what was the meaning and result of the War Between the States.

If you like. There wasn't just one "meaning and result." The result was that the United States defeated the Confederate States in the war, and compelled the southern states which had seceded to rejoin the union. There is no one "meaning" of the war. It certainly meant that slavery would end, because after the war was over the reconstruction amendments to the constitution, 13th, 14th and 15th, were ratified and put an end toward slavery and indentured servitude, thankfully.

Is there something you are unclear about? I'd be happy to help you.

Be sure to include what you mean by "liberty"

You want me to include in a discussion of the "result and meaning" of the American Civil War what I mean by "liberty?" You'll need to explain why I would need to "be sure to include" that....

In any case, I'd be happy to explain what I mean by "liberty." What I mean by liberty is similar to Thomas Jefferson's explanation in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen." Maybe you read it? Probably not. What he said was: "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." That sounds rather a nice, succinct, definition. It's why I am pro choice, pro gay rights and gay marriage, pro drug legalization, pro free speech, pro free thought, pro free expression, pro freedom of association, pro freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and those kinds of things.

Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" There is a lot of truth in that.

I can gather you are against the concept of liberty, and are more in favor of force and compulsion. That's certainly good for you, but I don't share in your opinion. I'd prefer to enhance human dignity by fostering human liberty to the greatest extent possible.

and, um, "opportunity".

What I mean by opportunity is "a situation or condition favorable for attainment of a goal." It's part of the American Dream, as traditionally conceptualized, that people should ideally exist in a situation or condition favorable to attainment of their goals and dreams. That makes people happy, and happiness is a very important thing in life. Well, to me, anyway - maybe not to you. You'll have to explain your own position on liberty and opportunity, and why you're against it.

And what it said about how much one segment of the population is really entitled to dictate to another.

What did what say? The war between the states? You think that war said how one segment of the population is entitled to dictate to another? How so? In eliminating slavery, it seems the war was a great success at coming at least one fundamental part of the way toward one segment of the population not being dictated to by another. To me that's a good thing. You're free to hold your own opinion on that.

Yep, there are no guarantees in life, but that means that even if you have access to health care, it doesn't guarantee a cure. It may be that representative democracy is a pipe dream, and that the health care legislation won't fix the problems at which it is supposed to be aimed. In other words, the legislation doesn't guarantee a cure for what ails you. Live with it.

No, you live with it the way it is now. I'm entitled to not live with it the way you want it as much as you are entitled to not live with it the way I want it. We are all entitled to push for what we think is best for the country.

You may or may not be a first-generation American, but if you are,

Are you calling me a liar?

you'll have to do better than reciting the dogma your grandpappy brought with him from the old country.

You'll have to understand what you're talking about before I take you seriously.

From nowhere, because I don't think the concept of "the American Dream" was "no poor people"

.

Naah. You're right. That came much later, from the "Tea Baggers".

What are you even talking about? You think the "tea baggers" say that the American Dream is "no poor people?" Where did you get that? Out of your rectum?

[Coito ergo sum]

That's funny, because Australia isn't Europe and yet we had better health coverage than the US. I have the same Sentiments as Woodbutcher.

And, um yes, It is a platitude.

I had no idea where he is from. I hear the same shit most often from Europeans.

You're free to call what I said a platitude. Now, let's all refrain from using them, including ones that incorporate stupid cliches like his did. You folks can go on thinking yourselves as superior as you want to, if it makes you think your dicks are longer than they are.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ok.

Stat 1: Infant mortality rate. US = 33rd in the world. (wiki)

Stat 2:

Source.

Now, the stats could be a lie, possible. But that looks to ME, like you pay more and get worse service taken at a national level.

There are issues with the infant mortality rate numbers. The US uses the WHO definition of infant mortality, and many other countries do not (including Switzerlan, Italy, almost every former Soviet country, etc.). I'll provide more info on this, but the bottom line is, when we compare apples to apples, rather than apples to oranges, the US is about the same as most other industrialized countries.

[MissingNo.]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

I can't believe people are dragging their feet over this. Tales of long waiting times in Canadian hospitals strike me as myths. I live in the most populous city in Canada and I've been to the emergency room many times in my life thanks to my severe asthma. I've never had to wait for a stretch of time that would be considered exorbitant - maybe a couple hours at the most.

Same here. Usually measured in minutes. Call an ambulance here in the States and in most places you are picked up in five minutes, and at the hospital in no time flat with immediate care.

It's usually measured in minutes here as well. When I say never more than two hours, I mean that two hours is the maximum. It's the longest I've ever had to wait, it happened to be during a time when the hospital was insanely busy. So does this mean we agree that there is not much difference in wait times?

If there's a life-threatening emergency where every second is critical, of course the doctors will see that patient first but this is not true for the majority of cases. I find the long wait times argument abhorrent anyway. They''re essentially saying "I don't want to have to wait behind all those poor people with medical emergencies - I have money!"

That's a red herring, because poor people in the US with medical emergencies do not wait longer than anyone else. The emergency room, as a matter of law, treats emergency care patients by prioritizing medical conditions.

My point was not that American hospitals don't prioritize their patients, only that universal health care doesn't prevent anyone from receiving medical attention when they need it. This was aimed at people who worry about longer wait times once health care is universal (presumably because people on a tight budget can visit the hospital when they need it without worrying about paying a bill they can't afford). I don't recall you making this argument - this was targeted towards mozg who did.

they just pay for it with taxes,

Not everyone pays taxes, and those that do often pay way less than their proportionate share per capita.

All right, so those who are below a certain level of income do not pay taxes. How often is often?

cutting out the insurance company middleman who is seeking a profit.

The new US law does not cut out insurance company middlemen.

I know that - that's why this bill is far from perfect. But it's a step in the right direction.

I did, gave me a chuckle.

Also the fact he said "Europe" despite the fact you live in Canada.

Hey we're the loyalists, remember? We have a constitutional monarchy! Maybe that counts as Europe?

Just posting to make sure everybody spotted the reference to 20thcentury.
OKTHXBAI

What can we say? America is a full century behind.

[Coito ergo sum]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

I can't believe people are dragging their feet over this. Tales of long waiting times in Canadian hospitals strike me as myths. I live in the most populous city in Canada and I've been to the emergency room many times in my life thanks to my severe asthma. I've never had to wait for a stretch of time that would be considered exorbitant - maybe a couple hours at the most.

Same here. Usually measured in minutes. Call an ambulance here in the States and in most places you are picked up in five minutes, and at the hospital in no time flat with immediate care.

It's usually measured in minutes here as well. When I say never more than two hours, I mean that two hours is the maximum. It's the longest I've ever had to wait, it happened to be during a time when the hospital was insanely busy. So does this mean we agree that there is not much difference in wait times?

I don't doubt your experience. I haven't seen any good numbers, though, for an overall assessment or comparison.

If there's a life-threatening emergency where every second is critical, of course the doctors will see that patient first but this is not true for the majority of cases. I find the long wait times argument abhorrent anyway. They''re essentially saying "I don't want to have to wait behind all those poor people with medical emergencies - I have money!"

That's a red herring, because poor people in the US with medical emergencies do not wait longer than anyone else. The emergency room, as a matter of law, treats emergency care patients by prioritizing medical conditions.

My point was not that American hospitals don't prioritize their patients, only that universal health care doesn't prevent anyone from receiving medical attention when they need it.

That is true in the US too, right now.

This was aimed at people who worry about longer wait times once health care is universal (presumably because people on a tight budget can visit the hospital when they need it without worrying about paying a bill they can't afford). I don't recall you making this argument - this was targeted towards mozg who did.

O.k. My only point is that the idea that poor Americans are left lying in their blood is a complete and utter falsehood designed to rally support for the new law.

they just pay for it with taxes,

Not everyone pays taxes, and those that do often pay way less than their proportionate share per capita.

All right, so those who are below a certain level of income do not pay taxes. How often is often?

In the US, quite often, because the top 20% of income earners pay 80% of the taxes.

cutting out the insurance company middleman who is seeking a profit.

The new US law does not cut out insurance company middlemen.

I know that - that's why this bill is far from perfect. But it's a step in the right direction.

Far from perfect, I agree. Step in the right direction? Only if guaranteeing failure so that the single-payer movement can say "see we tried half-measures, so now we have to go full bore single payer UHC" is a step int he right direction.

I did, gave me a chuckle.

Also the fact he said "Europe" despite the fact you live in Canada.

Hey we're the loyalists, remember? We have a constitutional monarchy! Maybe that counts as Europe?

I love how you folks get so superior on an issue like this. I didn't know where he was from, exactly.

Just posting to make sure everybody spotted the reference to 20thcentury.
OKTHXBAI

What can we say? America is a full century behind.

The 20th century was 11 years ago.

For us to get to the status of other western countries, we have to take a few steps back. It's not for nothing that we have led the free world since World War 2. But, of course, the US is so far "behind."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The 20th century was 11 years ago.

Does one usually begin a century at the end?

[Coito ergo sum]

The 20th century was 11 years ago.

Does one usually begin a century at the end?

Nobody referenced beginning, end or middle.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The 20th century was 11 years ago.

Does one usually begin a century at the end?

Nobody referenced beginning, end or middle.

Okay, more blantantly, would one go "into the X century" from ahead or behind? We normally start at the beginning.

[Trolldor]

"into the 20th Century"

as in, entering, as in 1900 etc, etc, etc.