Ron Paul's barbaric healthcare policies...

Silvio.Dante

This guy should have been born in the 19th Century Wild west...

Survival of the Greedy Rich policies...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PubWnGFlPE

matthew8

He never said he would let the uninsured die, stop spreading blatant lies. He is a doctor and he knows damn well that that person would be treated.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

He never said he would let the uninsured die, stop spreading blatant lies. He is a doctor and he knows damn well that that person would be treated.

Where did I mention him letting people die..?

It's his blasé attitude to a person whose 'made his choice' not to have insurance that chill's the blood...

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Where did I mention him letting people die..?

It's his blasé attitude to a person whose 'made his choice' not to have insurance that chill's the blood...

How DARE he say that a man should be allowed make a personal choice over an issue that only affects him?!?!

This issue has brought out the dark side to socialism. You can have personal freedom, but only if it fits into the socialist ideal.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

How DARE he say that a man should be allowed make a personal choice over an issue that only affects him?!?!

.

Now whose lying...:mad:

Lets try again. What would Ron the Barbarian's policy be toward a person who couldn't afford insurance and requires immediate medical attention he cannot personally afford to pay for..?

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Now whose lying...:mad:

Lets try again. What would Ron the Barbarian's policy be toward a person who couldn't afford insurance and requires immediate medical attention he cannot personally afford to pay for..?

It's not a policy, it's a choice that a doctor makes. The doctor would treat the patient. He knows this and there would be no need for a policy.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

It's not a policy, it's a choice that a doctor makes. The doctor would treat the patient. He knows this and there would be no need for a policy.

Oh no he doesn't. Not in a Paulian Utopia he wouldn't.

hospitals need to get funding for services renderred.

Now in a survival of the richest Paulian America, a person who cannot fund his treatment and has no insurance can be turned away. Would Prez Paul allow this to happen..?

Matt Holck

what about preventive care check ups ?

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Oh no he doesn't. Not in a Paulian Utopia he wouldn't.

hospitals need to get funding for services renderred.

Now in a survival of the richest Paulian America, a person who cannot fund his treatment and has no insurance can be turned away. Would Prez Paul allow this to happen..?

They can be turned away, but they wouldn't. Not by doctor Paul, not by any other doctor who has any self respect.

Silvio.Dante

Matt Holck wrote: »

what about preventive care check ups ?

What about them..?

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

They can be turned away, but they wouldn't. Not by doctor Paul, not by any other doctor who has any self respect.

Nice attempt at a dodge. If you don't want to rumble the 'Good' doctor I'll do it for you.

Ron the Barbarian if openly in favour of de-regulation and 'open competition' even in Healthcare.

if a hospital turned a sick person away a Paulian administration would do nothing to make the hospital treat him...

Matt Holck

what about preventive care check ups ?
will the government create a system to do that?

I've heard argument preventive care could save people and health costs

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Nice attempt at a dodge. If you don't want to rumble the 'Good' doctor I'll do it for you.

Ron the Barbarian if openly in favour of de-regulation and 'open competition' even in Healthcare.

if a hospital turned a sick person away a Paulian administration would do nothing to make the hospital treat him...

It is ridiculous that you call the only candidate who wants an end to the thousands upon thousands killed in war a barbarian. Doctors treat patients, it's not a career, it's a way of life. My experience in American A&E (pre-Obamacare) was treatment now, then we'll talk about how much it costs.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

was treatment now, then we'll talk about how much it costs.

In general you're right as it stands currently. However Paul has advocated de-regulation of healthcare where Govt has no say in the running of how hospitals treat patients or the criteria of who is treated and when.

Thats one scary policy that is in my view barbaric...

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

In general you're right as it stands currently. However Paul has advocated de-regulation of healthcare where Govt has no say in the running of how hospitals treat patients or the criteria of who is treated and when.

Thats one scary policy that is in my view barbaric...

Doctors are generally good people and I don't think that would change under Paul. If it came to it I'm sure there would be a doctor willing to cover the cost of critical treatment.

Manach

My understanding of the last debate on this, when asked Mr Paul supposed the factual scenario that the patient had the choice of taking out such insurance and then chose not-to. Logically, I'm assuming that after the patient is treated/cured that the Dr. receives all monies owned, failing that legal action.

Hayte

matthew8 wrote: »

It is ridiculous that you call the only candidate who wants an end to the thousands upon thousands killed in war a barbarian. Doctors treat patients, it's not a career, it's a way of life. My experience in American A&E (pre-Obamacare) was treatment now, then we'll talk about how much it costs.

Wait, aren't you like, 15 years old?

Silvio.Dante

Manach wrote: »

My understanding of the last debate on this, when asked Mr Paul supposed the factual scenario that the patient had the choice of taking out such insurance and then chose not-to. Logically, I'm assuming that after the patient is treated/cured that the Dr. receives all monies owned, failing that legal action.

What if a child with Cystic Fibrosis who was born into poverty where her parents depnd on governemnt aid to put bread on the table is brought to a de-regulated hospital under a Paul administration.

The hospital only take on paying patients. Where do they bring their child for treatment in a non NHS style alternative America..?

matthew8

Hayte wrote: »

Wait, aren't you like, 15 years old?

I've been to America and have experienced an American accident and emergency, I think it was in 2007.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

This guy should have been born in the 19th Century Wild west...

Survival of the Greedy Rich policies...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PubWnGFlPE

The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
Sorry about that.

US Politics forum fail

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

1. Total whataboutry. Rather than argue or defend the policy in question on its merits. Typical of your debating tactics really.

2. What the hell are you talking about?

No one in Ireland is going to have to sell their house and everything they own or be forced into destitution because a family member becomes ill.

People aren't going to be left to die if they can't afford to pay.

The irish healthcare system is totally f'ed up, and there are a LOT of problems that arise as a result of the public sector aspect of this. But I would still never trade it for the American one in a million years.

Or maybe you prefer to toss the mentally ill to rot in jail to protect society from them since the majority couldn't afford to pay for their own care.

I await your pedantic and semantic arguments.

FreudianSlippers

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Oh no he doesn't. Not in a Paulian Utopia he wouldn't.

hospitals need to get funding for services renderred.

Now in a survival of the richest Paulian America, a person who cannot fund his treatment and has no insurance can be turned away. Would Prez Paul allow this to happen..?

Wait, what exactly do you think happens at the moment in the US when uninsured patients come in?

FreudianSlippers

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

In general you're right as it stands currently. However Paul has advocated de-regulation of healthcare where Govt has no say in the running of how hospitals treat patients or the criteria of who is treated and when.

Thats one scary policy that is in my view barbaric...

Governments should have no place in the running of private hospitals.

karma_

matthew8 wrote: »

I've been to America and have experienced an American accident and emergency, I think it was in 2007.

So you experienced it once, when you were eleven?

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

It is ridiculous that you call the only candidate who wants an end to the thousands upon thousands killed in war a barbarian. Doctors treat patients, it's not a career, it's a way of life. My experience in American A&E (pre-Obamacare) was treatment now, then we'll talk about how much it costs.

Nice obfucscation there. RP isn't against the war because thousands upon thousands are dying, he is opposed to it because it costs too much. Obviously it would be a shame to let facts get in the way of a good talking point though, so please continue!!

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

I've been to America and have experienced an American accident and emergency, I think it was in 2007.

I am guessing you had travellers insurance?

BluePlanet

have a read though patient experiences from this link:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/hospitals/
click on hospital name.

Shocking the way people are treated there.
It's no wonder everybody else in the world looks at the USA system with disgust.

matthew8

sarumite wrote: »

I am guessing you had travellers insurance?

There were no questions asked about payment until after treatment.

sarumite wrote: »

Nice obfucscation there. RP isn't against the war because thousands upon thousands are dying, he is opposed to it because it costs too much. Obviously it would be a shame to let facts get in the way of a good talking point though, so please continue!!

In 1998 Ron Paul voted for Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that his administration had killed 100s of Afghanistanis in bombings that were totally unconstitutional. Did you know that it's possible to dislike the cost of war while also being angry at the amount of people killed?

karma_ wrote: »

So you experienced it once, when you were eleven?

How is my age relevant? I was just stating a fact based on personal experience that completely falsifies your claims.

matthew8

BluePlanet wrote: »

have a read though patient experiences from this link:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/hospitals/
click on hospital name.

Shocking the way people are treated there.
It's no wonder everybody else in the world looks at the USA system with disgust.

Oh come on. There are stories like this in EVERY SINGLE HEALTH SERVICE IN THE WORLD. One bad experience does not a broken health system make.

FreudianSlippers

matthew8 wrote: »

There were no questions asked about payment until after treatment.

In 1998 Ron Paul voted for Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that his administration had killed 100s of Afghanistanis in bombings that were totally unconstitutional. Did you know that it's possible to dislike the cost of war while also being angry at the amount of people killed?


How is my age relevant? I was just stating a fact based on personal experience that completely falsifies your claims.

Bill Clinton was impeached on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relation to the Jones lawsuit, not anything in relation to unconstitutionality.

matthew8

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Bill Clinton was impeached on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relation to the Jones lawsuit, not anything in relation to unconstitutionality.

Ron Paul said that he would vote for impeachment, but for his own reasons which were the killings of 100s. He actually said that the charges for impeachment were silly compared to other things he had done.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

There were no questions asked about payment until after treatment.

You had travellers insurance, of course there wasn't...you were covered for it.

In 1998 Ron Paul voted for Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that his administration had killed 100s of Afghanistanis in bombings that were totally unconstitutional. Did you know that it's possible to dislike the cost of war while also being angry at the amount of people killed?

Thats your reason he opposed it though. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He is not Anti-War, but anti specific wars.

How is my age relevant? I was just stating a fact based on personal experience that completely falsifies your claims.

Though in all honesty, as an 11 year old, you were more than likely not privy to much of the details surrounding your treatment. As such, your personal experience wouldn't really have been a representative experience.

matthew8

You had travellers insurance, of course there wasn't...you were covered for it.

They didn't know we had that. Perhaps they took an educated guess that a white middle class Irish family would have insurance though.

Thats your reason he opposed it though. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He is not Anti-War, but anti specific wars.

He is against wars that aren't vital to national security.

Though in all honesty, as an 11 year old, you were more than likely not privy to much of the details surrounding your treatment. As such, your personal experience wouldn't really have been a representative experience.

My dad was actually full of praise for the American health system after the treatment, how it was swift and they left everything about money and insurance until after the treatment.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

They didn't know we had that. Perhaps they took an educated guess that a white middle class Irish family would have insurance though.

Thats strange, but I suspect insurance was mentioned. Perhaps not the details, but in my expderience (living int he US) Insurance is usually mentioned pretty early on in the treatment.

He is against wars that aren't vital to national security.

Which is my point. His objections to war have nothing to do with the loss of life, rather the constitutionality of them etc.

My dad was actually full of praise for the American health system after the treatment, how it was swift and they left everything about money and insurance until after the treatment.

So am I. There has never been a question about the quality of American Health care. They have some of the best healthcare in the world....if you can afford it.

FreudianSlippers

This thread seems to be going way off-topic...

the point is that Dr. Paul's position on healthcare does very little to change the current status quo. If you go to a hospital in the US, either you get billed or your insurance company gets billed.

The main problem in the US isn't even people who cannot "afford" insurance - sure, they get the bill and it attaches to them or their home if they can't pay.
The major problem is that illegals get treatment with no insurance and the hospital and insurance companies have to absorb those costs - usually that means no pay for the doctors and the loss passed on to the insured via their premiums.

Matt Holck

I have to cross the border to Mexico for dentistry because I can't afford an hour in the chair in the US

Lockstep

matthew8 wrote: »

They can be turned away, but they wouldn't.

You gotta be kidding me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Matt Holck

Patients in a socialized system are left to die regardless. Males in Scotland have a 60 percent chance of dying within five years of contracting cancer. Males in the USA have a 66 percent chance of still being alive after five years. I assume this means that the NHS is a far superior system to anything in the U.S., because everybody can equally avail of equally mediocre healthcare.

"You have a brain tumor, sir? We'll put you on a waiting list."

private insurance companies put people on the waiting list in US
(not enough medical staff on their payroll ?)

I guess those waiting should have read the cooperate rules when they paid into the system

FreudianSlippers

Matt Holck wrote: »

private insurance companies put people on the waiting list in US
(not enough medical staff on their payroll ?)

I guess those waiting should have read the cooperate rules when they paid into the system

From my experience, almost no (I'd venture to say none even) patients with life-threatening conditions are left waiting unless there is a misdiagnosis.

Sure, brain tumours and others can be left to wait for an appointment, but never where there is a real and immediate danger to their lives.

I cannot say the same thing occurs here unless you're going into the A&E via ambulance.

amacachi

It's wonderful though the difference between here and the UK. I had something done in a hospital in NI (could've been done here but had been waiting 4 years, HSE paid for it) and I couldn't believe the high staffing levels and apparent wastage in a very low-priority ward. Yet in the UK they cover everyone for less money than we spend per person. Really is amazing.

I have little problem with the overall premise of the government being involved in healthcare but really, how anyone could believe for a second that in this country it was ever going to be done properly and efficiently shouldn't be allowed to vote. :pac:

Matt Holck

if they got to vote on how to run the health care system,
they would make all sorts of mistakes
just look at wiki
it's a great encyclopedia

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It doesn't work like that. You can't look at health provision in isolation. It's not about whether this hospital is good or that hospital is good. That's a very myopic way of looking at things. It's the broader questions that are more important. I.E. Access to services. Affordability. Accountability. There are plenty of private hospitals in India for example where you can get as good care as anywhere else in the world, but if you are among the majority of the population that can't afford it, then it doesn't mean jack how good those services are.

It's a basic fundamental difference. Do you believe that everyone should be able to get health care by pooling their resources together or do you believe that we should just fend for ourselves. To me, the libertarian/right wing viewpoint is fundamentally selfish on social issues.

Patients in a socialized system are left to die regardless. Males in Scotland have a 60 percent chance of dying within five years of contracting cancer. Males in the USA have a 66 percent chance of still being alive after five years. I assume this means that the NHS is a far superior system to anything in the U.S., because everybody can equally avail of equally mediocre healthcare.

"You have a brain tumor, sir? We'll put you on a waiting list." :rolleyes:

Isolated statistics are meaningless. There are plenty of socialist systems such as the scandinavian countries that utterly trounce the US in terms of health statistics. Again, your 66% looks good, but does it take into account those that cannot afford insurance, or those whose families are forced into poverty, even if they are alive 5 years later?

Well, I'm glad you're actually willing to acknowledge that.

I can understand the inherent selfishness among right wingers, because people are selfish by and large. What I don't understand is this black and white throwing of the baby out with the bathwater approach. Just because we are doing it suboptimally isn't justification to discard the entire system. If government is failing to check and regulate corporate greed through the corrupting influence of powerful corporations then the answer to that is not to remove government and deregulate (thus satisfying the driving motive behind the corruption.)

I can't figure out whether this line or reasoning is intellectual dishonesty by libertarians or whether they really don't get something that to me seems so obvious and simple.

RDM_83 again

Agreeing with above post I'l quote a reply to Perma from a separate thread last week

Wibbs wrote: »

PS And this is the fault of liberal/social medicine? Cuba has the same cancer survival rates as the US. Indeed slightly higher with colon cancer. They also live longer than the average American(which really grinds the rightwingers gears and they will just dismiss the figures as wrong out of hand). Canada, France and Spain have all got high survival rates too and they've got social type healthcare. It's a question of efficiency and proper allocation of funds for the benefit of all society.

Oh and if you use Scotland as an example of Socialised healthcare failing does that mean I can use Mississippi or District of Columbia to form my opinions of the US model with their life expectancies about 4 years less than Scotland

28064212

matthew8 wrote: »

Doctors are generally good people and I don't think that would change under Paul. If it came to it I'm sure there would be a doctor willing to cover the cost of critical treatment.

...so why buy insurance at all? If there's all these charitable doctors that will just pick up the bill, what's the point of insurance?

Memnoch

28064212 wrote: »

...so why buy insurance at all? If there's all these charitable doctors that will just pick up the bill, what's the point of insurance?

Also, critical treatment means jack ****. Where do you draw the line? If you have a cardiac arrest, they'll treat you, but they won't treat the underlying angina that caused the arrest unless you can pay? What then, how long before the next heart attack which WILL kill you?

BluePlanet

The World Heath Organization ranks USA's health care system 37th.
Ireland even ranks above them.
There is no point copying USA's system since it is so poor.

In my opinion there are only 3 types of people that support USA's system:

1. Americans that defend absolutely anything and everything USA does, they do it from a misguided sense of "patriotic duty".
2. Libertarians. USA's for-profit healthcare appeals to their anarcho-capitalist and selfish tendencies. Despite the unethical nature of profiting from people's illness they support this for "ideological" reasons. They are ideologues.
3. Naive people, some people are just USA boot lickers and want to be just like the number 1's.

sarumite

BluePlanet wrote: »

The World Heath Organization ranks USA's health care system 37th.
Ireland even ranks above them.

It would appear from a basic google search that the data you are using is over a decade out of date. If my basic google search is correct and the data is that old, surely its relevance has been somewhat eroded over the intervening years.

BluePlanet

sarumite wrote: »

It would appear from a basic google search that the data you are using is over a decade out of date. If my basic google search is correct and the data is that old, surely its relevance has been somewhat eroded over the intervening years.

Well, looking at charts of the staggering rise in private (for-profit) health insurance premiums since then, Michael Moore's Sicko, and the fact that health care is a current event in US politics, leads me to believe that USA's health care system continues to fail, and probably fall yet further in world rankings.

sarumite

BluePlanet wrote: »

Well, looking at charts of the staggering rise in private (for-profit) health insurance premiums since then, Michael Moore's Sicko, and the fact that health care is a current event in US politics, leads me to believe that USA's health care system continues to fail, and probably fall yet further in world rankings.

1) VHI doubled their premiums for my parents last year, so rise in health insurance premiums isn't an American phenomena.(though it it is a valid critcism of the American health care model)

2) Michael Moore is a propagandist as much as a film maker. While he certianly knows how to string together a convincing narrative,he doesn't exactly do objective reporting.

3) NHS is constant event in UK politics....does that mean its brand of socialised healthcare is failing?

4) The WHO no longer do world rankings on health care, so it cannot fall further. It should also be noted that their first and only effort in 2000 was deeply criticised for its flaws. For example it looks at life expectancy however it didn't normalise it for homocide or diet, neither of which are a reflection of health care.