Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

SWINE FLU turns massively deadly

PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 11:52:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Most of the U.S. is infected, millions are expected to die.

How will the state of our health care system affect such a nightmare scenario?

With our actual health care infrastructure -- hospitals, medical centers, patient beds, number of doctors -- geared toward existing rationing (and many doctors and nurses are already stretched into having to work obscene overtime to still fall short of meeting the demand of health care for the already well-insured), is it ah well, tough luck for those who have no health care?

It might never happen, but its unreasonable, I think, to presume the U.S. will never be struck with a serious outbreak that threatens serious harm.

I, like I think a lot of people, thought building codes had improved and a strong system had been put in place such that large death tolls would never occur from a hurricane like they did a century ago.

Likewise, I think a lot of people -- though I am not, in this case, among them -- believe the medical technology and talents present in the U.S. would prevent a bonafide disease plague calamity. In this mind, a translation to national defense would be the world's most powerful, kick butt and awesome jet fighter, jet bomber, tank and warship -- but only one of each to protect the entire country. Being lucky at not being invaded is just that, lucky. If we were actually invaded by an army of 1 billion Chinese each wielding nothing more than sticks, all that advanced capability in such a shorted capacity would not be all that useful, would it?

Similarly, my perception is we have a critical shortage of infrastructure. Its already so short that even those with the means to have health care get long waiting lists for a lot of routine procedures ... and of course those without the means to have health care aren't even on the waiting lists, they're just locked out.

Setting aside the regular death toll of 45,000 per year from mere lack of preventive care, how many would die from an infectious disease capacity because if something like that took hold quickly, our corporate-rationed health care infrastructure is inadequate to the task of treating the general population?

Does anyone find that more of a concern?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 11:55:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Swine Flu is no worse than the average flu. UHC argument fail, Ratboi. Besides, I'm pretty sure the health companies have prepared for Swine Flu, though it would be stupid for the government to not give free vaccinations.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 12:04:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm unaware of current disease outbreak measures in the United States, but I'm fairly sure that there is a provision that allows the government to overrule private medical facilities and companies in order to accommodate infected patients free of charge. It would only make sense to, since a disease carrier is a threat to the population that would be able to get into hospitals anyways - it is better to deal with everyone that can possibly be infected or is, rather than deny care based on the inability to pay. Cuts down in transmission and spread a lot, and that is more important during a crisis than whether or not companies can make money.

But, regardless of whether it is private or public, medical care is woefully inadequate to handle huge disease outbreaks. I don't think either system is necessarily better to handle it, but it is clear that in the middle of a crisis, you can't force people to pay, not only for the moral reasons involved, but also the strategic.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 12:49:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 11:55:13 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Swine Flu is no worse than the average flu. UHC argument fail, Ratboi. Besides, I'm pretty sure the health companies have prepared for Swine Flu, though it would be stupid for the government to not give free vaccinations.

You missed that its a hypothetical scenario, pandaboi, and you just reinforce the delusion that because there is some good medicine in our country that it is adequate to cover 300 million when it cannot even cover the occasional medical needs of 200 million who have adequate insurance.

It went right over your head!
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 12:57:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 12:04:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm fairly sure that there is a provision that allows the government to overrule private medical facilities ...

My point wasn't so much that. I have no doubt that military and national guard medical resources would be deployed as well, but that comforting ourselves with a rationed health care system like we currently have, to one that is at least able to reasonably handle the regular health care of every American which would require public UHC of some sort, since you can't force an HMO to take a loss by covering those with zero money to pay premiums.

We don't have an adequate medical staff and beds to handle a genuine crisis, and relying on "a crisis can never happen because our medical system is too full of awesome" like Pandaboi deludes himself with is certainly a reckless path, too. It wouldn't matter if the government did commandeer every private hospital, medical care and doctor ... there simply aren't enough of them to meet the need of a huge medical crisis.

Corporate health care is dis-incentivised against preparing for such catastrophes. The safety and well-being of the people as a whole is not their top concern, their bottom line is. When a crisis strikes, it would be too late then for a government takeover to do much to provide adequate capacity, it takes decades to get the infrastructure, especially with bringing the pool of doctors and medical staff up to a feasible level.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:00:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 11:52:56 AM, PervRat wrote:
Most of the U.S. is infected, millions are expected to die.

The highest I have ever heard is 90,000. And that is an extremely high prediction. Who said millions are going to die?

Anyway, since you want to give free swine flu shots to everyone - how about free cancer treatment, free flu shots, free rehab, free everything?!!?!? We can afford it! Keep thinking that.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:01:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 12:49:18 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 11:55:13 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Swine Flu is no worse than the average flu. UHC argument fail, Ratboi. Besides, I'm pretty sure the health companies have prepared for Swine Flu, though it would be stupid for the government to not give free vaccinations.

You missed that its a hypothetical scenario, pandaboi, and you just reinforce the delusion that because there is some good medicine in our country that it is adequate to cover 300 million when it cannot even cover the occasional medical needs of 200 million who have adequate insurance.

It went right over your head!

Ireland has 4 million. America is proportionally richer than Ireland. Ireland can afford the vaccination.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:02:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:01:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/2/2009 12:49:18 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 11:55:13 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Swine Flu is no worse than the average flu. UHC argument fail, Ratboi. Besides, I'm pretty sure the health companies have prepared for Swine Flu, though it would be stupid for the government to not give free vaccinations.

You missed that its a hypothetical scenario, pandaboi, and you just reinforce the delusion that because there is some good medicine in our country that it is adequate to cover 300 million when it cannot even cover the occasional medical needs of 200 million who have adequate insurance.

It went right over your head!

Ireland has 4 million. America is proportionally richer than Ireland. Ireland can afford the vaccination.

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!! Panda is arguing against Socialism! I'd never though I'd see the day.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:03:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:02:47 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/2/2009 1:01:00 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/2/2009 12:49:18 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 11:55:13 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Swine Flu is no worse than the average flu. UHC argument fail, Ratboi. Besides, I'm pretty sure the health companies have prepared for Swine Flu, though it would be stupid for the government to not give free vaccinations.

You missed that its a hypothetical scenario, pandaboi, and you just reinforce the delusion that because there is some good medicine in our country that it is adequate to cover 300 million when it cannot even cover the occasional medical needs of 200 million who have adequate insurance.

It went right over your head!

Ireland has 4 million. America is proportionally richer than Ireland. Ireland can afford the vaccination.

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!! Panda is arguing against Socialism! I'd never though I'd see the day.

I'm arguing against Pervrat socialism.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:06:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:00:29 PM, Nags wrote:
Anyway, since you want to give free swine flu shots to everyone - how about free cancer treatment, free flu shots, free rehab, free everything?!!?!? We can afford it! Keep thinking that.

I like how you're thinking.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:25:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:00:29 PM, Nags wrote:
The highest I have ever heard is 90,000. And that is an extremely high prediction. Who said millions are going to die?

Anyway, since you want to give free swine flu shots to everyone - how about free cancer treatment, free flu shots, free rehab, free everything?!!?!? We can afford it! Keep thinking that.

It was a hypothetical, what-if that went over your head. Sorry, I'll try to remember to translate to goo-goo-ga-ga baby talk for you to understand next time.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:28:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:25:26 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 1:00:29 PM, Nags wrote:
The highest I have ever heard is 90,000. And that is an extremely high prediction. Who said millions are going to die?

Anyway, since you want to give free swine flu shots to everyone - how about free cancer treatment, free flu shots, free rehab, free everything?!!?!? We can afford it! Keep thinking that.

It was a hypothetical, what-if that went over your head. Sorry, I'll try to remember to translate to goo-goo-ga-ga baby talk for you to understand next time.

That won't be necesarry. It would make sense to put a what-if statement if you were talking about a hypothetical. Then again, you don't really make sense. Also, I won't need the "goo-goo-ga-ga baby talk" as I am an educated individual. There is no need to resort to bully tactics - especially if it's coming from a drop-out who is unemployed and always whines.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:57:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:53:10 PM, Puck wrote:
Government in Australia is handing out free vaccination shots atm.

Probably why Australians love PM Kevin Rudd.

http://www.angus-reid.com...
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 5:04:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 1:28:26 PM, Nags wrote:
There is no need to resort to bully tactics

Great, so when can we expect you to stop bullying 50 million Americans out of having health care access?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 6:27:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If he didn't exist, they wouldn't have it.

If no one but those 50 million existed, they wouldn't have it.

You can't bully someone out of something they DON'T HAVE.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 7:12:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 6:27:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If he didn't exist, they wouldn't have it.

If no one but those 50 million existed, they wouldn't have it.

You can't bully someone out of something they DON'T HAVE.

Funny, the rich manage to bully money out of the poor all the time.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 7:45:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 7:12:28 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 6:27:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If he didn't exist, they wouldn't have it.

If no one but those 50 million existed, they wouldn't have it.

You can't bully someone out of something they DON'T HAVE.

Funny, the rich manage to bully money out of the poor all the time.

How do you pull that one off? Presto! Bully someone out of something they ain't in on in the first place!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 7:48:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They take it out in profiting off their work instead of doing the work themselves or paying a fair amount to compensate the people for the time they spend away from their families to generate profit for the already wealthy.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:08:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 7:48:09 PM, PervRat wrote:
They take it out in profiting off their work instead of doing the work themselves or paying a fair amount to compensate the people for the time they spend away from their families to generate profit for the already wealthy.

That makes zero sense.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:11:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:08:08 PM, Nags wrote:
That makes zero sense.

It makes little sense to me, either. Its certainly unjust, unfair and destroys certainty that all wealth is well-earned.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:16:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
He means it makes no financial sense. e.g., you don't make money "off people" when they can walk away from their relationship with you at any time, unless you're offering something they think fair in return :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:16:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:11:59 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 8:08:08 PM, Nags wrote:
That makes zero sense.

It makes little sense to me, either. Its certainly unjust, unfair and destroys certainty that all wealth is well-earned.

Your own statement makes zero sense to yourself? How do you expect us to understand it? You're going to have to elaborate.

I think I get the jist.
- The more money you make, the more lazy you are.
- The less money you make, the more work you do for the higher-ups.
- Thus, the more you make - you have to pay much more in taxes. The less you make - you don't have to pay taxes.

^Yeah, you're delusional.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:21:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 11:52:56 AM, PervRat wrote:
Similarly, my perception is we have a critical shortage of infrastructure. Its already so short that even those with the means to have health care get long waiting lists for a lot of routine procedures ... and of course those without the means to have health care aren't even on the waiting lists, they're just locked out.
Funny, I think I've heard this story somewhere... Oh, yeah. Socialist Canada.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:36:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:16:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He means it makes no financial sense. e.g., you don't make money "off people" when they can walk away from their relationship with you at any time, unless you're offering something they think fair in return :).
Now /that/ makes no sense, you clearly have not thought it through to the perspective of a poor person, as usual.
The working poor are not free to walk away at anytime without consequence. Without the undervalued wages they do get, they can no longer provide for themselves or their family. This is an unfair advantage the employer has over them, in addition to the employer having the ultimate power of the purse.
It has nothing at all to do whether the poor think it is fair or not ... the choice is a meager wage or no wage. The poor have no negotiating power ... take what is offered or accept zero. That, in fact, ensures that it is not fair. The poor worker does not have equal bargaining power, and it is delusional to presume that they do.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:38:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:16:56 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/2/2009 8:11:59 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 8:08:08 PM, Nags wrote:
That makes zero sense.

It makes little sense to me, either. Its certainly unjust, unfair and destroys certainty that all wealth is well-earned.

Your own statement makes zero sense to yourself? How do you expect us to understand it? You're going to have to elaborate.
What the employers do as I described make little sense, as it is ultimately self-defeating. Eventually there's no more blood to draw from the stone and even the businesses start to suffer.

I think I get the jist.
- The more money you make, the more lazy you are.
- The less money you make, the more work you do for the higher-ups.
- Thus, the more you make - you have to pay much more in taxes. The less you make - you don't have to pay taxes.
That's not entirely it, though that's roughly descriptive. Its more along those who have hoarded the most can spare the most that also factors into the last. The wealthy would not be wealthy without a society around them that they then ignore and leave to die.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:39:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:21:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
Funny, I think I've heard this story somewhere... Oh, yeah. Socialist Canada.

Those evil Canadians, thinking everyone deserves access to health care and the greed of the wealthy should not be allowed to kill people!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:43:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Top 5% wealthiest people pay about 60% of the taxes in the US. So you should stop bitching about rich people paying taxes.

Those evil Canadians, thinking everyone deserves access to health care and the greed of the wealthy should not be allowed to kill people!

Right. In some parts of Canada there is a lottery for who gets to see the doctor. Very efficient indeed. Also, Canada doesn't have to spend much on defense as it has the US to defend them.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 8:47:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 8:36:12 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 10/2/2009 8:16:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He means it makes no financial sense. e.g., you don't make money "off people" when they can walk away from their relationship with you at any time, unless you're offering something they think fair in return :).
Now /that/ makes no sense, you clearly have not thought it through to the perspective of a poor person, as usual.
The perspective of the person who has not demonstrated any understanding of how economies work, in other words :)

The working poor are not free to walk away at anytime without consequence. Without the undervalued wages they do get, they can no longer provide for themselves or their family.
Well, gee. Looks like they do get something out of it, don't they? Heck, they get more out of the relationship than they lose, since obviously, if they are so productive, they could get the same amount of wages from the profits of selling their production :)

It has nothing at all to do whether the poor think it is fair or not
They get a greater value than they lose. That is the only thing "Fair" can mean, unless it means an arbitary whim of whoever the speaker happens to not hate in the relationship.

The poor have no negotiating power
Contradiction. Their production is their negotiating power-- if they are the only productive people in the relationship, this means they have all the power, if not, then your statement that the rich produce nothing is false.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.