I should've posted more of his crying outbursts. Then there was the time he played with dolls on the O'Reilly Factor.
I think that "GET OFF MY PHONE PINHEAD" would make an awesome ringtone or voicemail notification.
Also at the end, Beck is hyping his new book as being the best book ever. I was going to construct a time machine so I could go to the future just to read his book because it is the best ever. Too bad I am saddled with all these hospital bills because I don't have the health insurance because substitute teachers get no benefits.
GOD BLESS GLEN BECK ! ..............SOMEONE WITH SOME FRICKEN' COMMON SENSE ! there isn't many people left.
wow .... just wow ... I always thought he was a douche bag, but this is astounding.
And people coming here from other countries know they can just buy their way to the "front of the line." You can't even do that here unless you have the money for it, and universal health care in no way takes those options away. The point is to allow people, if they want to pay the price, can get the private care they want, but we're still going to fund the basic health care we all deserve in an advanced nation like ours. And one problem these other countries face is lack of technology and specialists, at least to the number we have. Why? Because people are greedy, and can come to America to earn tons of money being a specialist. Again, the point of universal health care is for -basic care-, you know, like family doctors. We actually have a shortage of those in our own medical system, and I watched part of a conference (researchchannel.org) where significant figures (from a political perspective) in medicine--doctors themselves, some still paying off their education--were arguing why we need not only a universal health care system, but incentives to go along with it to make people able to get better funding if they go into family practice, get loan reductions if they work as a family care doctor, etc. Whether it is overseas or in our own country, the flight of doctors is toward high paying specialties, because they know there are rich assholes in LA (or that will go there) to dish out big bucks to save their crappy lives. That is hardly the case, as Beck makes it, for why our medical system is great. It is, on the contrary, why it is crap. Universal health care in other countries have concentrated on the important part of medical care: the family doctor. What we need is basic care, preventative medicine, etc. Not greedy, drug focused nonsense that we have today.
And I don't have medical insurance because I can't afford it. At least I will get enrolled in a program (that I pay for) with my grad school.
Well, it's obvious most of you haven't listened to Glenn for more than the time he's been the Evil Darling for the Left to attack.....such a shame, you'd understand him better, and his way of hadling who he judges idiots, and his talk of things that make blood shoot out of his eyes or getting the duct tape out for his head so it doesn't explode, if you listened to him longer than where ever you found this one thing or the cherry picked bits that make him sound as if it's the only way he ever sounds.. You know, like the sound bites of Rev. Wright totally misrepresented him?
Also funny how a lot of the things that he's been called crazy over have actually come to pass, but let's not talk about those.
And he says it's the best book 'we've' ever done, not the 'best book ever'...small point, but still the truth....
dude it's funnier/sadder than O'Reilly's. especially when his voice goes higher.
Dude is a winner.
dude is an entertainer.
....Wow. That's... I don't even need to say anything.
Wow...I think a couple of brain cells just committed suicide.
You have good points, but your conclusion that government health care is the answer misunderstands the origin of the problem. Yes, there are some doctors concerned only with making money, and they become highly paid specialists, but that is not the only, or even the main, reason for the shortage of family doctors. What is the reason? Malpractice insurance. It's less an issue of greedy-doctors, and more an issue of greedy-everyone-else in this lawsuit-happy country. Yeah, there's things wrong with our system, but to claim that government health care would be an improvement across the board is a drastic oversimplification and misunderstand of the real underlying problems.
Good points. With the exception of bryangoodrich, all the remarks have been entirely ad hominem. Like him or not, as abrasive as he is, he makes good points that few people ever bother evening considering.
If it looks like a douche, smells like a douche, acts like a douche...
You're right, except for the fact that the shortage of family doctors arises without malpractice in the first place. The lack of family doctors is present before they're even doctors! They specialize in their education and go out into their specialty. Malpractice suits aren't driving their educational and career choices. So no, I have not missed the critical issue here. That is an institutional issue having to do with insurance agencies and legal practices, not with the government and medical institutions in question. You're trying to say, essentially then, that the real issue is outside of the issue at hand! The issue is about the proxy of medical services through private insurance companies. While a universal health care does not rule them out (might drive up their price, but oh well!), it does provide basic care that every American citizen should have available without question. This is not available now. No matter what, putting medical access in the hands of private insurers is the problem, among other things (the shortage of family doctors and quality care, malpractice suits, etc.). No matter what, a private system like we have no denies access to American citizens. That is unacceptable.
"except for the fact that the shortage of family doctors arises without malpractice in the first place." Something like that needs to be proven to be believed.
"The lack of family doctors is present before they're even doctors!" I have my suspicions of the point you're trying to make, but I can't say I completely understand you. That didn't make any sense. The issue of malpractice suits isn't a secret, unknown to doctors until they practice for several years - it's a social trend that's been around as part of the ever-increasing waves of lawsuits. Of course they specialize while they're still in school. That's kind of the point.
"Malpractice suits aren't driving their educational and career choices." That's just silly. Just because they haven't been personally sued doesn't mean that they haven't taken the possibility into account in making their decision. Are we really to believe that all doctors' motivation for specializing is greed, as you've said? Surely you can admit that the causes are more numerous and much more complex than you have suggested.
"You're trying to say, essentially then, that the real issue is outside of the issue at hand!" No, I'm not. I'm saying that you're oversimplifying the issue by assuming that there is a single cause which can be remedied to solve all the problems.
"No matter what, a private system like we have no denies access to American citizens" Blanket statements like that stem from purely theoretical analysis without substance. There is a family doctor 25 minutes from where I live who doesn't take insurance for "basic care" - he takes $25 cash for a standard check up. If your claims and assertions about what is and isn't possible under our current system were actually true, that doctor a wouldn't exist. But he does.
Make your points if you like, but don't overgeneralize to the point of neutering your own arguments with false or misleading conclusions.
And just because there is one doctor willing to give out basic care for $25 bucks we are supposed to expect this to solve the problem of lack of access to medical care? Such are few, and you're trying to use that as an example to ... what? Yes, the point is a theoretic one that everyone in America should have access to basic care. Do you expect an empirical analysis to result in normative claims? Don't be silly. While it is perfectly possible for a private system to give access to people for cheap, just like the $25 basic care fee, that is not institutionalized. Most access stems from the actual medical institutions we have, namely through insurance companies and HMOs. Unless there is a requirement that says "all medical providers need to establish a basic care fee for any and all citizens" then it has no bearing on this debate. Furthermore, if such a thing were instituted ... that'd be universal health care, and exactly the point of why we need government involved.
While it is certainly accessible knowledge that malpractice occurs, your argument requires an implicit assumption to even make sense. That assumption would say something to the effect that specialization as a career choice decreases their chance of malpractice, since, after all, your argument is predicated here on malpractice being a driving factor in their education and career choice. Otherwise, your point is moot.
Here's a lot of information I found on the subject since I am not familiar with the details. Some of the important findings that I will not cite here (just search the page):
"There were significant differences in rates of adverse events among categories of clinical specialties (P less than .0001), but no differences in the percentage due to negligence."
"Specialty was strongly associated with claims rate, with neurosurgery, orthopedics, and obstetrics/gynecology having 7 to 12 times the number of claims per year as psychiatry, the specialty with the fewest claims. The rate of claims varied with age (p < .001) and peaked at approximately age 40. No association was evident between claims rate and a physician's site of training or type of degree"
"Routine physician-patient communication differs in primary care physicians with vs without prior malpractice claims. In contrast, the study did not find communication behaviors to distinguish between claims vs no-claims surgeons ... Physicians can use these findings as they seek to improve communication and decrease malpractice risk."
The fact is, there is no basis for your required assumption, and it certainly isn't provided by any evidence. If you have such evidence, I would love to see it. The fact is, there seems to be trivial differences between actual malpractice between varying specialties, even if the rate of claims may vary. There also does not seem to be any evidence I could find that primary care physicians were at higher risk of malpractice, which would motivate people to move toward specialties. Without that point substantiated, your entire point about malpractice is moot.
"nd just because there is one doctor willing to give out basic care for $25 bucks we are supposed to expect this to solve the problem of lack of access to medical care?"
You were making blanket statements as though they were facts - I gave an example to dispel your sweeping assumptions. Don't act like the single example I gave is the only one in existence.
"There also does not seem to be any evidence I could find that primary care physicians were at higher risk of malpractice, "
I never claimed such a correlation. People pursue higher paying specialties to offset the required malpractice insurance costs. In the business world, that's called increasing the profit margin. It's quite logical, if you're willing to think about it without the presuppositions you began with.
That's what people seem to be missing - health care is provided by health care professionals. They should get paid, and it should be a free market. If the government wants to hire their own doctors and call them health care agents, then that's fine. But health care professionals (and all the related insurances and drug companies) should get just as much free market freedom as other professionals.
I was not making sweeping generalizations, since nothing in what I said inferred that a private doctor can provide basic care for $25 bucks. Your example was trite, and adds nothing to the discussion. Also talking about being professionals leads you no where. So the fact I'm a government employee would mean I cannot be a professional? I don't get paid by the market? When did the government become excluded from market practices? That kind of dichotomy is just misplaced.
As for incentives for career and education choices, you seem to have slipped into moot points now. You're drawing a connection between malpractice outcomes and and pursuits of higher paying specialties to offset -those- costs. There are many costs they are trying to offset, and there is no indication that malpractice rates of claims or outcomes leads to job insecurity as is indicated by the connection you require. If there is that evidence, again, let us see it. Otherwise, you're conjecturing some empirical claims without any empirical evidence to support it. Nevertheless, you have not even begun to address the issues I raised. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
Yeah, you said, "No matter what, a private system like we have no[w] denies access to American citizens."
That's a pretty broad, sweeping generalization, which made my example of easily-accessible private health care completely relevant.
"As for incentives for career and education choices, you seem to have slipped into moot points now."
Then you've not understood what the argument is about.
"There are many costs they are trying to offset, and there is no indication that malpractice rates of claims or outcomes leads to job insecurity as is indicated by the connection you require."
Your lack of personal experience does not necessitate a conclusion to the contrary. I'm not claiming that what I've said applies to all doctors - but that it does apply to some. As I've already said, I'm trying to point out that there are many more factors involved than you are willing to admit.
"Otherwise, you're conjecturing some empirical claims without any empirical evidence to support it."
Oh, you mean like when you said, "No matter what, a private system like we have no[w] denies access to American citizens"? Empirically baseless claims like that? (Yeah, I hit that quote twice, but you seem to be in denial about how you began this discussion, so I thought I'd bring it up again.)
"Nevertheless, you have not even begun to address the issues I raised."
What issues?
WOW... What a f*cking prick... This made me so angry. I think the highlight mark should have been at 3:30, where - when he's not crying like a baby - he's just screaming like one. I didn't know it was legal to let children have their own programs.
I can't stand these rantings and ravings where people just react and don't reflect. No one listens. Everything is said to create reactions - positive and/or negative. It's all for theatrical effects. I can't believe this guy. I've never seen him before, but after this, I don't want to again. (I don't have a TV)
Glenn Beck is an asshole. I have never liked him, even years ago when he was a moderate on CNN.
That is the quote you're strung up on? You must not be able to track the quantifier use because all that quote says is that in our private system today there are American citizens that are being denied access. If we take your misinterpretation to be valid, then I must have said no one has medical access in our system. Obviously that is absurd, and you caricature my statement. No, what I said was that at least one person (e.g., me and many other people I know, QED) is being denied access on this system, and have already concluded that everyone should have access. This is the point of a universal health care: to give access to basic health care to every American citizen. Even better would be to every human being. Pointing out that someone can get basic health care in our current system is moot. This is why your example of the $25 basic care doctor is moot.
I'm trying to point out that there are many more factors involved than you are willing to admit.
No, actually, what you said was, "What is the reason [for a shortage of basic care physicians]? Malpractice insurance." I have no problem considering the factor it plays. What you said was that it is the "real underlying problem." That empirical statement is not supported, and the articles I quoted suggest a whole dynamic of relationships that malpractice plays in the medical system; none of which even hinted that basic care physicians are in any way more likely to get malpractice claims, or underpaid to handle the insurance against malpractice claims. Your point is entirely unsubstantiated.
What issues?
For one, that the private system we have now denies access to American citizens. No, not every American citizen, otherwise we wouldn't even have a medical system to talk about. It denies access to basic health care for millions of Americans. Just because some doctors will take the chance of offering basic health care for, say, $25 does not refute the point that the institution of our medical practices still routinely deny access to millions of Americans that cannot obtain it elsewhere, or if it is available, e.g., by your example, they may not even know about it to obtain that access. This is why Obama, and the majority of Americans, want a universal health care system, and to open transparency about what is out there.
It seems my play on semantics was lost on you. You were arguing against the literal interpretation of my words while expecting a generous understanding of your own. You began with a very decisively firm generalization, so I replied with an equally absurd declaration of specific cause, expecting the mirrored contradiction to be the most obvious aspect of my reply. Unfortunately, you're still arguing against my intentionally overstated and overburdened example instead of seeing the point.
"No, what I said was that at least one person ... is being denied access on this system, and have already concluded that everyone should have access. "
The idealistic opinion that everyone should have access is entirely different from the conclusion that such a goal is actually possible, or rightly pursued. I agree; the best possible scenario would have excellent health care provided to everyone. However, such a thing is an ideal. Much like socialism, it's sounds great in theory but breaks down quickly in practice.
America became what it is because it was a land of opportunity, not entitlement. People flocked to this country for a chance to fend for themselves and earn their modest living without government imposition. Now, however, we have immigration (legal and otherwise) founded on getting hand-outs. (Sure, there are other motivations, but to deny the social shift towards entitlement would be turn expose severe ignorance of reality.) - And yes, I consider universal health care to be a hand-out. Is this a tangent or a moot point? Hardly. I mention it to convey not what I believe is the cause for all the problems, but the underlying mentality which leads so many people to think that universal health care is a solution.
The viability of it is not ever the issue seriously considered - it's the alleged entitlement that reigns the discussion, but no one ever questions that presumption.
So you're saying your argument was a farce and that I was right, your entire point is moot. Agreed. Of course, your "play on semantics" (though, that's an incorrect use of the term) was a baseless statement, and did not reflect my generalization whatsoever. I made a general statement indicating that people are lacking access to health care, and this is unacceptable. Your point about viability is an important issue. However, you are absolutely wrong in your critique since aspects of universal health care are practiced today in other countries, just as aspects of socialism are practiced today in other countries. Both socialism and universal health care have shown great success without faced with the overburden of "viability." That is, unless you want to say that the literary and mortality rates that reflect how well off these countries are, while maintaining stable economies and flourishing people does not reflect this. It seems you have an uphill battle against the evidence. If you want the facts, I suggest looking through the United Nations Statistical Division then.
Why is it that a globally poor (advanced for India in general) state like Kerala can have such high literacy and life expectations (at birth) compared to black Americans? (Sen. 1999. "Development as Freedom" pg. 21-3)
Why is it that a child born in Cuba (esp. women), Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and New Zealand can expect to receive more years of education than in America? (UNSD social indicators: education)
Why is it that each of Gibraltar, Iceland, Singapore, Sweden, Japan, Finland, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Norway, Isle of Man, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark, Republic of Korea, Ireland, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, China, Israel, Canada, United Kingdom, and Cuba can expect less infants to die before reaching the age of one than in America? (ibid.: health)
Yeah, God bless America. If we were more socialist we might end up healthier, more educated and live longer.
"So you're saying your argument was a farce and that I was right, your entire point is moot."
Good grief man, you're only hearing what you want to hear, and you're calling everything moot as a cop out. As seems to be your MO, you're oversimplifying to the point of error. No, my argument wasn't a farce- it just as true as yours and just as overstated as yours. That was the point, as I've already plainly said. Please don't play dumb any more, and stop overusing the word "moot."
"Both socialism and universal health care have shown great success without faced with the overburden of "viability.""
Viability is not an burden, it's an absolute necessity. You're making it very clear that you're only considering your ideas as theories and are not considering their application.
"It seems you have an uphill battle against the evidence."
Actually, no, I don't. It's easy to make a case when you ignore the contradicting evidence. Universal health care is not a solution; it's merely a different set of problems. You can't compare our system with mere statistics, because it's apples to oranges. In our current system, if you have the money you get treated in a timely manor. Under a universal system "everyone" may get treated, but it's on a timetable that isn't desirable for anyone involved. Lay your idealistic views aside for a moment and read this article for a better perspective on the real problems that we'd be trading for. -And read it closely - there are real statistics regarding "unacceptable" (to use your vernacular) waiting times for treatment, and examples of countries with universal healthcare which is failing to the point that private sector intervention is needed to help it limp along.
If the word is used correctly, I suggest you quit bitching about it. If your claim was moot, then I will say it was moot. Throwing out worthless statements or arguments are your problem, not mine. And that sure takes a lot to say my ideas are only theories without application when I say viability is a burden. You've just used it like a categorical error for universal health care or socialism. It isn't. The problem of viability comes in degrees, which is why it is a burden. You don't ask "is that viable?" You ask "how viable is it?" The practice of socialism and universal health care as present in a number of those countries I referenced with those social indicators evidences the fact that you can do pretty well in a number of ways, including health care, while having a lower national income.
What is the source of the statistics provided in the first link you provide? Is it the WHO statistic? I couldn't find it. They don't mention any other sources. I'd trust the WHO statistics and what they are supposedly concealing about the truth than some random douche bags opinionated statistics. Especially don't trust a "data set" that doesn't even compare the values for all the countries being evaluated. Where is the US waiting times? How many Americans do not get cancer treatment simply due to no access to medical care? The author talks about "his organization" in reference to the CMPI. I can only assume he is a participant then? That's also a rather shady group considering they are partly funded by drug companies, and take a biased view of things. Gee, is America more pro-pharmaceuticals or is Canada and the UK?
Your second link is also as obscure. They claim that "Expensive health care has also hit workers in the pocketbook: it’s one of the reasons that median family income fell between 2000 and 2005." Okay, evidence? Research? Citation? Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim. That inference isn't hard to make if you can do a regression analysis on the representative variables. It's all freely available on FRED. Yet, where is the citation? It makes no sense to just take their opinion at face value if they cannot justify their point. Either give the raw data that presents the facts of the matter, or provide the argument evaluated by experts that makes the inference for you. Your sources are jerk-off media outlets that offer nothing but biased views and little meaningful inference. That would be as stupid as me trying to take "Sicko" as a testament to how good universal health care is! That would be absurd.
As for comparing apples and oranges, that is not the case. Universal health care does solve the underlying problem, while also bringing new issues to the table. What is comparing apples and oranges is the caricature (i.e., the straw man) that universal health care is equivalent to "doing the Canadian model." No one has ever tried to push that into politics. While we can reference our neighbors and their health care programs, no one says "let us just take the cookie cutter and plant their medical system into our country." This is the same kind of moronic caricature people give of socialism, "it's just another Russia." Well, no. Every institution is conditioned to the country it is in, and if we became socialist in America, then it would be uniquely American socialism, nuanced to the American way, and its evolution as an American institution. The same holds for health care. We're not going to ever have a universal health care like Canada. I believe we will, however, have a kind of universal health care that is uniquely American. It will begin soon under this administration, no doubt. Will it be like Canada? Only in the most superficial ways, which are beside the point.
I guess the statistics are meaningless. Being healthier, more educated and living longer, as evidenced by these socialist-like countries and their socialist-like programs, have nothing to do with their institutions. Maybe it is the climate? Otherwise, your argument is that basically saying we're better off being lower on the social indicator ranking, which for all intents and purposes is the best source for a welfare standard we can derive. Instead, focus on the horror stories of these countries while ignoring the horror stories within our own! Focus on minutiae of the applications instead, as if their errors are representative of the categorical error of universal health care, while our nuanced differences are only representative of how greedy liberals are taxing the hard working citizens with their malpractice claims. Your argument is laughable, and yes, your points are also moot. Your evidence is a joke. It can be summed up by the actual facts of the matter and your perspective. You advocate our private system above and beyond the socialist like institutions utilized in numerous countries that lead to significant improvements in livelihoods compared with that of Americans. You're saying Cuba has got it wrong, even though their women are more educated and their infants less likely to die. Apparently we're better off, even though Cuba of all countries is kicking our ass in those and other statistics. That makes a whole lot of sense. You can have the last word. I'm done with this.
You're arguing against a great many things I never said, still based on your own assumptions of what "the" problem is.
You're not even paying attention to the words being exchanged between us. Go read how our remarks have progressed. You actually believed me when I said my "What is the reason? Malpractice insurance" remark was in response to your generalization that "No matter what, a private system like we have no denies access to American citizens," but that's the opposite of what really happened.
If I can get away with such a blatant fallacy in regard to the simple order of events in our argument, then it's quite clear that you aren't even comprehending (or perhaps aren't taking the time to pay attention to) the actual content of our exchanged arguments. Instead, you throw "moot" around like it's your rosary, and spout off arguing things I never said. (Ex: "You're saying Cuba has got it wrong..." - I never said a word about Cuba.)
In the end, I'm sure you're quite satisfied with yourself, but the arrogance of your opinions has neutered your ability to intelligently debate them.
Well, I couldn't resist two glaring stupidities in what you say. First off, no you didn't say anything about Cuba. It's called a logical consequence. You say X, and then you don't realize what follows from that statement. If you say it, then it also applies to the evidence that we can compare with Cuba. Therefore, you did not say anything about Cuba, but your statements still have implications to the effect I indicated. Secondly, you think you tried some intelligent quip about my supposedly gross generalization. What you said is in no way comparable. You misinterpret my statement as only a caricature. Like I said, if I error in my quantification as you seem to believe, then what I said was that no American gets medical care. Obviously that is not the case. As I have already explained, there are millions of American citizens that cannot get access to basic health care due to the institutions we have in place. That is what I said in that statement. The fact you think I have stated some alternative generalization shows your lack of logical comprehension of the English language. As I said initially, you failed to track the quantifier involved. While I am well aware I have talked passed you on some points, that is deliberate. I cannot say the same for you, however. You have not only changed your position, you have argued farce statements that you believe are analogous to mine (they're not) and you have failed to substantiate anything you have said. I have provided evidence that completely runs contrary to your generalizations about socialism. You provide bias media statements from dipshits who have no problem saying "the statistics may indicate these countries are better off in health care, but the truth says otherwise." I paraphrase, of course. The truth is that they believe what they want to hear, and latch on only to the facts that satisfy their prejudice. Like them, you seem to also hold such evidential bias. You will spit in the face of perfectly real descriptive statistics that present the facts of the matter, as if the institutions they have are categorically bad because they're socialist. While only looking at outcomes is limited, it doesn't change the fact there is no defeating information that somehow diminishes or cancels out the fact that these socialist institutions practiced throughout many poor and rich nations throughout the world seem to do a damn good job at improving social welfare beyond the levels America can achieve. You have yet to respond to my questions as to how that can be if, based on your prejudices about socialism, that can hold.
eh, the last sentence should read: You have yet to respond to my questions as to how that can be if, based on your prejudices about socialism, socialism "breaks down in practice."
Comments (40)
lol
"GET OFF MY PHONE!" Can people actually take this shrill, tantrum-prone manchild seriously?
Oh man, if this had been on TV and not the radio, it'd rival O'Reilly's now famous "Fuck it, we'll get it live!"
@XxSignInLockxX -
I hope you are laughing at Glenn Beck
@godfatherofgreenbay -
i am!
@GodlessLiberal -
I should've posted more of his crying outbursts. Then there was the time he played with dolls on the O'Reilly Factor.
I think that "GET OFF MY PHONE PINHEAD" would make an awesome ringtone or voicemail notification.
Also at the end, Beck is hyping his new book as being the best book ever. I was going to construct a time machine so I could go to the future just to read his book because it is the best ever. Too bad I am saddled with all these hospital bills because I don't have the health insurance because substitute teachers get no benefits.
GOD BLESS GLEN BECK ! ..............SOMEONE WITH SOME FRICKEN' COMMON SENSE ! there isn't many people left.
wow .... just wow ... I always thought he was a douche bag, but this is astounding.
And people coming here from other countries know they can just buy their way to the "front of the line." You can't even do that here unless you have the money for it, and universal health care in no way takes those options away. The point is to allow people, if they want to pay the price, can get the private care they want, but we're still going to fund the basic health care we all deserve in an advanced nation like ours. And one problem these other countries face is lack of technology and specialists, at least to the number we have. Why? Because people are greedy, and can come to America to earn tons of money being a specialist. Again, the point of universal health care is for -basic care-, you know, like family doctors. We actually have a shortage of those in our own medical system, and I watched part of a conference (researchchannel.org) where significant figures (from a political perspective) in medicine--doctors themselves, some still paying off their education--were arguing why we need not only a universal health care system, but incentives to go along with it to make people able to get better funding if they go into family practice, get loan reductions if they work as a family care doctor, etc. Whether it is overseas or in our own country, the flight of doctors is toward high paying specialties, because they know there are rich assholes in LA (or that will go there) to dish out big bucks to save their crappy lives. That is hardly the case, as Beck makes it, for why our medical system is great. It is, on the contrary, why it is crap. Universal health care in other countries have concentrated on the important part of medical care: the family doctor. What we need is basic care, preventative medicine, etc. Not greedy, drug focused nonsense that we have today.
And I don't have medical insurance because I can't afford it. At least I will get enrolled in a program (that I pay for) with my grad school.
Well, it's obvious most of you haven't listened to Glenn for more than the time he's been the Evil Darling for the Left to attack.....such a shame, you'd understand him better, and his way of hadling who he judges idiots, and his talk of things that make blood shoot out of his eyes or getting the duct tape out for his head so it doesn't explode, if you listened to him longer than where ever you found this one thing or the cherry picked bits that make him sound as if it's the only way he ever sounds.. You know, like the sound bites of Rev. Wright totally misrepresented him?
Also funny how a lot of the things that he's been called crazy over have actually come to pass, but let's not talk about those.
And he says it's the best book 'we've' ever done, not the 'best book ever'...small point, but still the truth....
dude it's funnier/sadder than O'Reilly's. especially when his voice goes higher.
Dude is a winner.
dude is an entertainer.
....Wow.
That's...
I don't even need to say anything.
Wow...I think a couple of brain cells just committed suicide.
I need to use the term "pinhead" more often.
He scares me... a lot.
o_o;
Wicko!
@bryangoodrich -
You have good points, but your conclusion that government health care is the answer misunderstands the origin of the problem. Yes, there are some doctors concerned only with making money, and they become highly paid specialists, but that is not the only, or even the main, reason for the shortage of family doctors. What is the reason? Malpractice insurance. It's less an issue of greedy-doctors, and more an issue of greedy-everyone-else in this lawsuit-happy country. Yeah, there's things wrong with our system, but to claim that government health care would be an improvement across the board is a drastic oversimplification and misunderstand of the real underlying problems.
@Eroticus_Maximus -
Good points. With the exception of bryangoodrich, all the remarks have been entirely ad hominem. Like him or not, as abrasive as he is, he makes good points that few people ever bother evening considering.
If it looks like a douche, smells like a douche, acts like a douche...
@ElijahDH -
You're right, except for the fact that the shortage of family doctors arises without malpractice in the first place. The lack of family doctors is present before they're even doctors! They specialize in their education and go out into their specialty. Malpractice suits aren't driving their educational and career choices. So no, I have not missed the critical issue here. That is an institutional issue having to do with insurance agencies and legal practices, not with the government and medical institutions in question. You're trying to say, essentially then, that the real issue is outside of the issue at hand! The issue is about the proxy of medical services through private insurance companies. While a universal health care does not rule them out (might drive up their price, but oh well!), it does provide basic care that every American citizen should have available without question. This is not available now. No matter what, putting medical access in the hands of private insurers is the problem, among other things (the shortage of family doctors and quality care, malpractice suits, etc.). No matter what, a private system like we have no denies access to American citizens. That is unacceptable.
@bryangoodrich -
"except for the fact that the shortage of family doctors arises without malpractice in the first place." Something like that needs to be proven to be believed.
"The lack of family doctors is present before they're even doctors!"
I have my suspicions of the point you're trying to make, but I can't say I completely understand you. That didn't make any sense. The issue of malpractice suits isn't a secret, unknown to doctors until they practice for several years - it's a social trend that's been around as part of the ever-increasing waves of lawsuits. Of course they specialize while they're still in school. That's kind of the point.
"Malpractice suits aren't driving their educational and career choices."
That's just silly. Just because they haven't been personally sued doesn't mean that they haven't taken the possibility into account in making their decision. Are we really to believe that all doctors' motivation for specializing is greed, as you've said? Surely you can admit that the causes are more numerous and much more complex than you have suggested.
"You're trying to say, essentially then, that the real issue is outside of the issue at hand!"
No, I'm not. I'm saying that you're oversimplifying the issue by assuming that there is a single cause which can be remedied to solve all the problems.
"No matter what, a private system like we have no denies access to American citizens"
Blanket statements like that stem from purely theoretical analysis without substance. There is a family doctor 25 minutes from where I live who doesn't take insurance for "basic care" - he takes $25 cash for a standard check up. If your claims and assertions about what is and isn't possible under our current system were actually true, that doctor a wouldn't exist. But he does.
Make your points if you like, but don't overgeneralize to the point of neutering your own arguments with false or misleading conclusions.
@ElijahDH -
And just because there is one doctor willing to give out basic care for $25 bucks we are supposed to expect this to solve the problem of lack of access to medical care? Such are few, and you're trying to use that as an example to ... what? Yes, the point is a theoretic one that everyone in America should have access to basic care. Do you expect an empirical analysis to result in normative claims? Don't be silly. While it is perfectly possible for a private system to give access to people for cheap, just like the $25 basic care fee, that is not institutionalized. Most access stems from the actual medical institutions we have, namely through insurance companies and HMOs. Unless there is a requirement that says "all medical providers need to establish a basic care fee for any and all citizens" then it has no bearing on this debate. Furthermore, if such a thing were instituted ... that'd be universal health care, and exactly the point of why we need government involved.
While it is certainly accessible knowledge that malpractice occurs, your argument requires an implicit assumption to even make sense. That assumption would say something to the effect that specialization as a career choice decreases their chance of malpractice, since, after all, your argument is predicated here on malpractice being a driving factor in their education and career choice. Otherwise, your point is moot.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:210910
Here's a lot of information I found on the subject since I am not familiar with the details. Some of the important findings that I will not cite here (just search the page):
"There were significant differences in rates of adverse events among categories of clinical specialties (P less than .0001), but no differences in the percentage due to negligence."
"Specialty was strongly associated with claims rate, with neurosurgery, orthopedics, and obstetrics/gynecology having 7 to 12 times the number of claims per year as psychiatry, the specialty with the fewest claims. The rate of claims varied with age (p < .001) and peaked at approximately age 40. No association was evident between claims rate and a physician's site of training or type of degree"
"Routine physician-patient communication differs in primary care physicians with vs without prior malpractice claims. In contrast, the study did not find communication behaviors to distinguish between claims vs no-claims surgeons ... Physicians can use these findings as they seek to improve communication and decrease malpractice risk."
The fact is, there is no basis for your required assumption, and it certainly isn't provided by any evidence. If you have such evidence, I would love to see it. The fact is, there seems to be trivial differences between actual malpractice between varying specialties, even if the rate of claims may vary. There also does not seem to be any evidence I could find that primary care physicians were at higher risk of malpractice, which would motivate people to move toward specialties. Without that point substantiated, your entire point about malpractice is moot.
@bryangoodrich -
"nd just because there is one doctor willing to give out basic care for $25 bucks we are supposed to expect this to solve the problem of lack of access to medical care?"
You were making blanket statements as though they were facts - I gave an example to dispel your sweeping assumptions. Don't act like the single example I gave is the only one in existence.
"There also does not seem to be any evidence I could find that primary care physicians were at higher risk of malpractice, "
I never claimed such a correlation. People pursue higher paying specialties to offset the required malpractice insurance costs. In the business world, that's called increasing the profit margin. It's quite logical, if you're willing to think about it without the presuppositions you began with.
That's what people seem to be missing - health care is provided by health care professionals. They should get paid, and it should be a free market. If the government wants to hire their own doctors and call them health care agents, then that's fine. But health care professionals (and all the related insurances and drug companies) should get just as much free market freedom as other professionals.
@ElijahDH -
I was not making sweeping generalizations, since nothing in what I said inferred that a private doctor can provide basic care for $25 bucks. Your example was trite, and adds nothing to the discussion. Also talking about being professionals leads you no where. So the fact I'm a government employee would mean I cannot be a professional? I don't get paid by the market? When did the government become excluded from market practices? That kind of dichotomy is just misplaced.
As for incentives for career and education choices, you seem to have slipped into moot points now. You're drawing a connection between malpractice outcomes and and pursuits of higher paying specialties to offset -those- costs. There are many costs they are trying to offset, and there is no indication that malpractice rates of claims or outcomes leads to job insecurity as is indicated by the connection you require. If there is that evidence, again, let us see it. Otherwise, you're conjecturing some empirical claims without any empirical evidence to support it. Nevertheless, you have not even begun to address the issues I raised. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
@bryangoodrich -
"I was not making sweeping generalizations"
Yeah, you said, "No matter what, a private system like we have no[w] denies access to American citizens."
That's a pretty broad, sweeping generalization, which made my example of easily-accessible private health care completely relevant.
"As for incentives for career and education choices, you seem to have slipped into moot points now."
Then you've not understood what the argument is about.
"There are many costs they are trying to offset, and there is no indication that malpractice rates of claims or outcomes leads to job insecurity as is indicated by the connection you require."
Your lack of personal experience does not necessitate a conclusion to the contrary. I'm not claiming that what I've said applies to all doctors - but that it does apply to some. As I've already said, I'm trying to point out that there are many more factors involved than you are willing to admit.
"Otherwise, you're conjecturing some empirical claims without any empirical evidence to support it."
Oh, you mean like when you said, "No matter what, a private system like we have no[w] denies access to American citizens"? Empirically baseless claims like that? (Yeah, I hit that quote twice, but you seem to be in denial about how you began this discussion, so I thought I'd bring it up again.)
"Nevertheless, you have not even begun to address the issues I raised."
What issues?
WOW... What a f*cking prick... This made me so angry. I think the highlight mark should have been at 3:30, where - when he's not crying like a baby - he's just screaming like one. I didn't know it was legal to let children have their own programs.
I can't stand these rantings and ravings where people just react and don't reflect. No one listens. Everything is said to create reactions - positive and/or negative. It's all for theatrical effects. I can't believe this guy. I've never seen him before, but after this, I don't want to again. (I don't have a TV)
Glenn Beck is an asshole. I have never liked him, even years ago when he was a moderate on CNN.
I fucking hate Glenn Beck. What an ignorant fuck.
@ElijahDH -
That is the quote you're strung up on? You must not be able to track the quantifier use because all that quote says is that in our private system today there are American citizens that are being denied access. If we take your misinterpretation to be valid, then I must have said no one has medical access in our system. Obviously that is absurd, and you caricature my statement. No, what I said was that at least one person (e.g., me and many other people I know, QED) is being denied access on this system, and have already concluded that everyone should have access. This is the point of a universal health care: to give access to basic health care to every American citizen. Even better would be to every human being. Pointing out that someone can get basic health care in our current system is moot. This is why your example of the $25 basic care doctor is moot.
I'm trying to point out that there are many more factors involved than you are willing to admit.
No, actually, what you said was, "What is the reason [for a shortage of basic care physicians]? Malpractice insurance." I have no problem considering the factor it plays. What you said was that it is the "real underlying problem." That empirical statement is not supported, and the articles I quoted suggest a whole dynamic of relationships that malpractice plays in the medical system; none of which even hinted that basic care physicians are in any way more likely to get malpractice claims, or underpaid to handle the insurance against malpractice claims. Your point is entirely unsubstantiated.
What issues?
For one, that the private system we have now denies access to American citizens. No, not every American citizen, otherwise we wouldn't even have a medical system to talk about. It denies access to basic health care for millions of Americans. Just because some doctors will take the chance of offering basic health care for, say, $25 does not refute the point that the institution of our medical practices still routinely deny access to millions of Americans that cannot obtain it elsewhere, or if it is available, e.g., by your example, they may not even know about it to obtain that access. This is why Obama, and the majority of Americans, want a universal health care system, and to open transparency about what is out there.
@bryangoodrich -
It seems my play on semantics was lost on you. You were arguing against the literal interpretation of my words while expecting a generous understanding of your own. You began with a very decisively firm generalization, so I replied with an equally absurd declaration of specific cause, expecting the mirrored contradiction to be the most obvious aspect of my reply. Unfortunately, you're still arguing against my intentionally overstated and overburdened example instead of seeing the point.
"No, what I said was that at least one person ... is being denied access on this system, and have already concluded that everyone should have access. "
The idealistic opinion that everyone should have access is entirely different from the conclusion that such a goal is actually possible, or rightly pursued. I agree; the best possible scenario would have excellent health care provided to everyone. However, such a thing is an ideal. Much like socialism, it's sounds great in theory but breaks down quickly in practice.
America became what it is because it was a land of opportunity, not entitlement. People flocked to this country for a chance to fend for themselves and earn their modest living without government imposition. Now, however, we have immigration (legal and otherwise) founded on getting hand-outs. (Sure, there are other motivations, but to deny the social shift towards entitlement would be turn expose severe ignorance of reality.) - And yes, I consider universal health care to be a hand-out. Is this a tangent or a moot point? Hardly. I mention it to convey not what I believe is the cause for all the problems, but the underlying mentality which leads so many people to think that universal health care is a solution.
The viability of it is not ever the issue seriously considered - it's the alleged entitlement that reigns the discussion, but no one ever questions that presumption.
@ElijahDH -
So you're saying your argument was a farce and that I was right, your entire point is moot. Agreed. Of course, your "play on semantics" (though, that's an incorrect use of the term) was a baseless statement, and did not reflect my generalization whatsoever. I made a general statement indicating that people are lacking access to health care, and this is unacceptable. Your point about viability is an important issue. However, you are absolutely wrong in your critique since aspects of universal health care are practiced today in other countries, just as aspects of socialism are practiced today in other countries. Both socialism and universal health care have shown great success without faced with the overburden of "viability." That is, unless you want to say that the literary and mortality rates that reflect how well off these countries are, while maintaining stable economies and flourishing people does not reflect this. It seems you have an uphill battle against the evidence. If you want the facts, I suggest looking through the United Nations Statistical Division then.
Why is it that a globally poor (advanced for India in general) state like Kerala can have such high literacy and life expectations (at birth) compared to black Americans? (Sen. 1999. "Development as Freedom" pg. 21-3)
Why is it that a child born in Cuba (esp. women), Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and New Zealand can expect to receive more years of education than in America? (UNSD social indicators: education)
Why is it that each of Gibraltar, Iceland, Singapore, Sweden, Japan, Finland, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Norway, Isle of Man, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark, Republic of Korea, Ireland, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, China, Israel, Canada, United Kingdom, and Cuba can expect less infants to die before reaching the age of one than in America? (ibid.: health)
Yeah, God bless America. If we were more socialist we might end up healthier, more educated and live longer.
@bryangoodrich -
"So you're saying your argument was a farce and that I was right, your entire point is moot."
Good grief man, you're only hearing what you want to hear, and you're calling everything moot as a cop out. As seems to be your MO, you're oversimplifying to the point of error. No, my argument wasn't a farce- it just as true as yours and just as overstated as yours. That was the point, as I've already plainly said. Please don't play dumb any more, and stop overusing the word "moot."
"Both socialism and universal health care have shown great success without faced with the overburden of "viability.""
Viability is not an burden, it's an absolute necessity. You're making it very clear that you're only considering your ideas as theories and are not considering their application.
"It seems you have an uphill battle against the evidence."
Actually, no, I don't. It's easy to make a case when you ignore the contradicting evidence. Universal health care is not a solution; it's merely a different set of problems. You can't compare our system with mere statistics, because it's apples to oranges. In our current system, if you have the money you get treated in a timely manor. Under a universal system "everyone" may get treated, but it's on a timetable that isn't desirable for anyone involved. Lay your idealistic views aside for a moment and read this article for a better perspective on the real problems that we'd be trading for. -And read it closely - there are real statistics regarding "unacceptable" (to use your vernacular) waiting times for treatment, and examples of countries with universal healthcare which is failing to the point that private sector intervention is needed to help it limp along.
@ElijahDH -
If the word is used correctly, I suggest you quit bitching about it. If your claim was moot, then I will say it was moot. Throwing out worthless statements or arguments are your problem, not mine. And that sure takes a lot to say my ideas are only theories without application when I say viability is a burden. You've just used it like a categorical error for universal health care or socialism. It isn't. The problem of viability comes in degrees, which is why it is a burden. You don't ask "is that viable?" You ask "how viable is it?" The practice of socialism and universal health care as present in a number of those countries I referenced with those social indicators evidences the fact that you can do pretty well in a number of ways, including health care, while having a lower national income.
What is the source of the statistics provided in the first link you provide? Is it the WHO statistic? I couldn't find it. They don't mention any other sources. I'd trust the WHO statistics and what they are supposedly concealing about the truth than some random douche bags opinionated statistics. Especially don't trust a "data set" that doesn't even compare the values for all the countries being evaluated. Where is the US waiting times? How many Americans do not get cancer treatment simply due to no access to medical care? The author talks about "his organization" in reference to the CMPI. I can only assume he is a participant then? That's also a rather shady group considering they are partly funded by drug companies, and take a biased view of things. Gee, is America more pro-pharmaceuticals or is Canada and the UK?
Your second link is also as obscure. They claim that "Expensive health care has also hit workers in the pocketbook: it’s one of the reasons that median family income fell between 2000 and 2005." Okay, evidence? Research? Citation? Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim. That inference isn't hard to make if you can do a regression analysis on the representative variables. It's all freely available on FRED. Yet, where is the citation? It makes no sense to just take their opinion at face value if they cannot justify their point. Either give the raw data that presents the facts of the matter, or provide the argument evaluated by experts that makes the inference for you. Your sources are jerk-off media outlets that offer nothing but biased views and little meaningful inference. That would be as stupid as me trying to take "Sicko" as a testament to how good universal health care is! That would be absurd.
As for comparing apples and oranges, that is not the case. Universal health care does solve the underlying problem, while also bringing new issues to the table. What is comparing apples and oranges is the caricature (i.e., the straw man) that universal health care is equivalent to "doing the Canadian model." No one has ever tried to push that into politics. While we can reference our neighbors and their health care programs, no one says "let us just take the cookie cutter and plant their medical system into our country." This is the same kind of moronic caricature people give of socialism, "it's just another Russia." Well, no. Every institution is conditioned to the country it is in, and if we became socialist in America, then it would be uniquely American socialism, nuanced to the American way, and its evolution as an American institution. The same holds for health care. We're not going to ever have a universal health care like Canada. I believe we will, however, have a kind of universal health care that is uniquely American. It will begin soon under this administration, no doubt. Will it be like Canada? Only in the most superficial ways, which are beside the point.
I guess the statistics are meaningless. Being healthier, more educated and living longer, as evidenced by these socialist-like countries and their socialist-like programs, have nothing to do with their institutions. Maybe it is the climate? Otherwise, your argument is that basically saying we're better off being lower on the social indicator ranking, which for all intents and purposes is the best source for a welfare standard we can derive. Instead, focus on the horror stories of these countries while ignoring the horror stories within our own! Focus on minutiae of the applications instead, as if their errors are representative of the categorical error of universal health care, while our nuanced differences are only representative of how greedy liberals are taxing the hard working citizens with their malpractice claims. Your argument is laughable, and yes, your points are also moot. Your evidence is a joke. It can be summed up by the actual facts of the matter and your perspective. You advocate our private system above and beyond the socialist like institutions utilized in numerous countries that lead to significant improvements in livelihoods compared with that of Americans. You're saying Cuba has got it wrong, even though their women are more educated and their infants less likely to die. Apparently we're better off, even though Cuba of all countries is kicking our ass in those and other statistics. That makes a whole lot of sense. You can have the last word. I'm done with this.
Who's Glenn Beck?
@kachino -
He's an American political commentator. At one point he claimed to be a moderate.
@bryangoodrich -
You're arguing against a great many things I never said, still based on your own assumptions of what "the" problem is.
You're not even paying attention to the words being exchanged between us. Go read how our remarks have progressed. You actually believed me when I said my "What is the reason? Malpractice insurance" remark was in response to your generalization that "No matter what, a private system like we have no denies access to American citizens," but that's the opposite of what really happened.
If I can get away with such a blatant fallacy in regard to the simple order of events in our argument, then it's quite clear that you aren't even comprehending (or perhaps aren't taking the time to pay attention to) the actual content of our exchanged arguments. Instead, you throw "moot" around like it's your rosary, and spout off arguing things I never said. (Ex: "You're saying Cuba has got it wrong..." - I never said a word about Cuba.)
In the end, I'm sure you're quite satisfied with yourself, but the arrogance of your opinions has neutered your ability to intelligently debate them.
@ElijahDH -
Well, I couldn't resist two glaring stupidities in what you say. First off, no you didn't say anything about Cuba. It's called a logical consequence. You say X, and then you don't realize what follows from that statement. If you say it, then it also applies to the evidence that we can compare with Cuba. Therefore, you did not say anything about Cuba, but your statements still have implications to the effect I indicated. Secondly, you think you tried some intelligent quip about my supposedly gross generalization. What you said is in no way comparable. You misinterpret my statement as only a caricature. Like I said, if I error in my quantification as you seem to believe, then what I said was that no American gets medical care. Obviously that is not the case. As I have already explained, there are millions of American citizens that cannot get access to basic health care due to the institutions we have in place. That is what I said in that statement. The fact you think I have stated some alternative generalization shows your lack of logical comprehension of the English language. As I said initially, you failed to track the quantifier involved. While I am well aware I have talked passed you on some points, that is deliberate. I cannot say the same for you, however. You have not only changed your position, you have argued farce statements that you believe are analogous to mine (they're not) and you have failed to substantiate anything you have said. I have provided evidence that completely runs contrary to your generalizations about socialism. You provide bias media statements from dipshits who have no problem saying "the statistics may indicate these countries are better off in health care, but the truth says otherwise." I paraphrase, of course. The truth is that they believe what they want to hear, and latch on only to the facts that satisfy their prejudice. Like them, you seem to also hold such evidential bias. You will spit in the face of perfectly real descriptive statistics that present the facts of the matter, as if the institutions they have are categorically bad because they're socialist. While only looking at outcomes is limited, it doesn't change the fact there is no defeating information that somehow diminishes or cancels out the fact that these socialist institutions practiced throughout many poor and rich nations throughout the world seem to do a damn good job at improving social welfare beyond the levels America can achieve. You have yet to respond to my questions as to how that can be if, based on your prejudices about socialism, that can hold.
eh, the last sentence should read: You have yet to respond to my questions as to how that can be if, based on your prejudices about socialism, socialism "breaks down in practice."
@godfatherofgreenbay -
LOL, really? Alright, thanks for the info.
Comments are closed.