POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[warble]

me after this healthcare vote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp8ib-PA_Ss

[Ad Bot]

[otto-san]

it is probably true that more people having access to healthcare means more people will end up in healthcare, but it also means that more people will get treatment before conditions become too serious, which, in the long run, places less of a burden on existing public healthcare infrastructure. we also need to be responsible in making sure that we're meeting the capacity demands here. i think that it's more important that people are able to afford treatment, and increased demand only represents this goal being achieved. but, if there just aren't enough doctors and rooms to go around, then that is definitely a problem worth talking about, because it decreases the efficiency of our healthcare system and causes harm to the people we're trying to protect, and i would support an actual in-depth brown townysis of our current healthcare system to see if the resources are available to support a single-payer system, and if not, a plan should be considered to provide them

[Tactical Nuke]

Cutting health insurance coverage is not an effective solution to an under-resourced healthcare system

and making enough resources in time is impossible

speaking of deaths due to wait times, you can look at the VA for help on that statistic

[Darryl McKoy]

and making enough resources in time is impossible

How so?

[Master Matthew²]

me after this healthcare vote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp8ib-PA_Ss

Check this stuff out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBDCBOjDwk

[otto-san]

and making enough resources in time is impossible

speaking of deaths due to wait times, you can look at the VA for help on that statistic

"in time" implies you're expecting significant immediate spike in demand. if we treat healthcare as a simple service, then it makes sense, but people only get healthcare if they have a condition they need treatment for. there will be an increase in demand, but i'd contend that it isn't as significant as you might think, and the initial spike will probably be the greatest as people previously unable to afford treatment begin seeking it for their current conditions, but after that it'd level off. that's just my personal speculation though

[Tactical Nuke]

How so?

MRIs are one of the things that Canada is very very slow on
buying a new one completely functional would cost $3 million
per unit

that and people are complaining about the price of treatment already
where do you think that comes from?

"in time" implies you're expecting significant immediate spike in demand. if we treat healthcare as a simple service, then it makes sense, but people only get healthcare if they have a condition they need treatment for. there will be an increase in demand, but i'd contend that it isn't as significant as you might think, and the initial spike will probably be the greatest as people previously unable to afford treatment begin seeking it for their current conditions, but after that it'd level off. that's just my personal speculation though

the Canadian system treats all "conditions" the same before treatment, so you could be waiting an unnecessarily long time for a scan for cancer while other people are there to check to see if their wrist is broken
a lot can happen during that time

[Tophat2]

Nice. I don't really comment on politics, but type 1 diabetic here. Wasn't born with it, but did develop a nasty seizure at the age of 7 so it's basically been with me my whole life. woo.

[otto-san]

that and people are complaining about the price of treatment already
where do you think that comes from?

a lot of places, not the least of which are companies that hold patents on treatments artificially spiking the prices for profit, or people who sell treatments realizing that the demand for treatment is highly inelastic, so they can overcharge fairly safely. you are right in saying that equipment is expensive, but these are one-time costs on the part of the business owners that are necessary for business operation

[Darryl McKoy]

Canada

What about America?

[Tactical Nuke]

What about America?

Canada is the system that all the lefties strive for but America doesn't have. I've already said this.

I've also said that if you want to see how many deaths occur under socialized government healthcare specifically in America, you could easily look at the VA.

[otto-san]

the Canadian system treats all "conditions" the same before treatment, so you could be waiting an unnecessarily long time for a scan for cancer while other people are there to check to see if their wrist is broken
a lot can happen during that time

right, but the point stands that increased accessibility to healthcare doesn't lead to any significant increase in the development of conditions that require treatment. people who currently have conditions who can't afford treatment are the ones we're trying to help; arguing that these people will clog up the system isn't as compelling an argument against helping them, but it is certainly a compelling argument to making sure we are able to meet the demands incurred by a single-payer system, and i definitely agree that is a worthwhile concern

[Darryl McKoy]

I've also said that if you want to see how many deaths occur under socialized government healthcare specifically in America, you could easily look at the VA.

Isn't veteran healthcare distinct from general public heathcare in the US? From what I read it's the Veterans Health Administration that manages that process. Is that really something that can be generalized?

[Tactical Nuke]

Isn't veteran healthcare distinct from general public heathcare in the US? From what I read it's the Veterans Health Administration that manages that process. Is that really something that can be generalized?

It's the Veteran's Health Administration. AKA, a government agency. In other words, the veterans' healthcare is managed by the government. General public healthcare is also run by the government. What difference is there?
The conditions being treated? Maybe veterans will have higher tendencies to have different conditions, but really there isn't anything that's uniquely veteran-had. In fact, you could make the case that veterans dying from having their PTSD go untreated because of wait times proves my point.
The sample size? That would also prove my point; if you can't do it on a smaller scale, then why would you even try going bigger?

[Red Spy]

but type 1 diabetic here.

Type 1 buddies