First, you note that statistics lie, and then quote them. You and hsifeng have already pointed out that that talking point is only accurate as far as someone not looking at the depth can see. Usually, those numbers are including those men who get prostate cancer late in life, when the treatment will be long term and likely the patient wouldn't be alive in five years anyway. Do we want our elderly to be discarded because they are no longer contributing? Of course not, but there are a lot of doctors already pushing the idea that treating certain diseases in the elderly doesn't really contribute to their quality of life. Admittedly, a socialist medical system does tend to favor providing care to those who contribute to the system, but then again...
We already do the "you're not worth it" thing here in the US. Insurance companies make that decision all the time (even when it's not accurate), and you and I, being uninsured, have already been deemed "not worth it" when the government cut health benefits to the poor to balance the budget. The care you get at the county medical center will be shitty. Only the rich get real medical care now, because only they can afford it.
There are also some left-wing conspiracy theorists out there who believe that the food industry, medical and insurance industries, and Medicare controllers are in league to kill us all slowly once we retire. The processed food we poor get is full of crap that makes us sick, and by the time we get to retirement age, we're in bad shape (typically). Once an American retires, he no longer contributes positively to the system: he does no work (which is not profitable to the corporations), his pension and benefits pay the insurance (again, not profitable), and he's no longer paying taxes. So, the idea is that retirees need to get off the queue faster, and that's most easily accomplished by dying. Bad, underfunded health programs help that along. Is this a reality? I have no idea, but it makes a certain sort of sense.
The idea, that the Right seems to keep harping on but has no real evidence of, is that the Obama administration wants to socialize medicine. The reality is that insurance companies only compete amongst themselves, and along with the rest of Big Business, only cares about being profits for the next 90 days. You and I get screwed by this kind of bullshit. With no competition, the profiteering of the past 30 years just continues. This is the real reason why we are still paying outrageous prices for defunct technologies.
What the writer is really getting at, in my opinion, is that lack of ownership of our country that's been inculcated to us over the past few decades. I saw some moron at the supermarket a few months back who was wearing a shirt that said "Taxes = Slavery." I wanted to ask the in-duh-vidual where he though the money comes from to pay for the roads, the police, the firepeople, the army, etc. We expect all of these things, but we seem to not want to pay the piper. Even Libertarians have to admit we need the government to provide these things. Our infrastructure is starting to collapse, but we are no longer willing to pay to fix it.
Locally, the last mayor of Fresno kept trying to privatize services paid for by the city. In every circumstance, the city employees outperformed the private companies, providing better services for less money and in a more timely manner. The assumption that the government controlling the provision of services will lead to corruption isn't necessarily true. Probably is, but isn't certain. That's been seen here in Fresno as well, such as in the past when asked to cut their budgets, the various city department heads would trot out some sacred cow to sacrifice, and that would (of course) be turned down, and the budget would be be worked to fit.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 10:18 pm (UTC)We already do the "you're not worth it" thing here in the US. Insurance companies make that decision all the time (even when it's not accurate), and you and I, being uninsured, have already been deemed "not worth it" when the government cut health benefits to the poor to balance the budget. The care you get at the county medical center will be shitty. Only the rich get real medical care now, because only they can afford it.
There are also some left-wing conspiracy theorists out there who believe that the food industry, medical and insurance industries, and Medicare controllers are in league to kill us all slowly once we retire. The processed food we poor get is full of crap that makes us sick, and by the time we get to retirement age, we're in bad shape (typically). Once an American retires, he no longer contributes positively to the system: he does no work (which is not profitable to the corporations), his pension and benefits pay the insurance (again, not profitable), and he's no longer paying taxes. So, the idea is that retirees need to get off the queue faster, and that's most easily accomplished by dying. Bad, underfunded health programs help that along. Is this a reality? I have no idea, but it makes a certain sort of sense.
The idea, that the Right seems to keep harping on but has no real evidence of, is that the Obama administration wants to socialize medicine. The reality is that insurance companies only compete amongst themselves, and along with the rest of Big Business, only cares about being profits for the next 90 days. You and I get screwed by this kind of bullshit. With no competition, the profiteering of the past 30 years just continues. This is the real reason why we are still paying outrageous prices for defunct technologies.
What the writer is really getting at, in my opinion, is that lack of ownership of our country that's been inculcated to us over the past few decades. I saw some moron at the supermarket a few months back who was wearing a shirt that said "Taxes = Slavery." I wanted to ask the in-duh-vidual where he though the money comes from to pay for the roads, the police, the firepeople, the army, etc. We expect all of these things, but we seem to not want to pay the piper. Even Libertarians have to admit we need the government to provide these things. Our infrastructure is starting to collapse, but we are no longer willing to pay to fix it.
Locally, the last mayor of Fresno kept trying to privatize services paid for by the city. In every circumstance, the city employees outperformed the private companies, providing better services for less money and in a more timely manner. The assumption that the government controlling the provision of services will lead to corruption isn't necessarily true. Probably is, but isn't certain. That's been seen here in Fresno as well, such as in the past when asked to cut their budgets, the various city department heads would trot out some sacred cow to sacrifice, and that would (of course) be turned down, and the budget would be be worked to fit.