Originally Posted by HarryTheSpider (Post 10527862)

Well, I could be wrong as I've only lived in the US for a little over 2 years, and haven't been to every state. I've also not come across any providers that are state owned / operated. So it seems to me the providers at the point of use are private/commercial, rather than public. And given that the AMA and other groups have done an excellent job of nobbling the worst/best of the regulations that matter in Congress, one might forgive me for taking the view that regulation in the US, such as it is, is a very pale form of what might exist, say, in the UK, or even say, Taiwan or Korea...

Private enterprise is not always good at producing what is demanded by 'the market' at a low price. Not as a rule. But perhaps as a generalisation. It is good at deciding what markets it wishes to service, and providing what is demanded at the highest price the market can bear. Afterall, the majority of (quoted/incorporated) businesses exist to make a profit, and few other goals take primacy. Their reality is finding a balance between this aim and the desire of the market for low(er) prices.

And I do not refute that private enterprise cannot produce affordable healthcare - only that it generally doesn't. Not in the US, not for everybody. It's not a belief I hold - I see it as a fact, evidenced by the very different health costs that exist in the US compared to the rest of the G20 and other 'wealthy' nations... Often with the same providers operating in several of these markets.

Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope (Post 10527958)

I assume you mean DesertDubliner - there are at least two others of us (Irishmen) also on this thread.. Anyway that's why most of us have given up arguing with him pointlessly. As long as he continues his substance-free ranting then we can at least enjoy ridiculing his blustering pomposity.

Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope (Post 10527976)

Anyway, here's a thing (I know a certain poster does not like to offer links because they might actually lead to facts being exposed but I think it may be relevant to this "discussion"...):

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News...Countries.aspx

Not exactly a pinko liberal commie Kenyan death panel source either....

Originally Posted by Desert Dubliner (Post 10529039)

Take a guess: there are two most heavily regulated sectors in the US and both are seriously ****ed up. One is banking and the other............. fill in the gap. Taking the point forward, the Messerschmit factory was still in private hands when it was churning out fighter planes in WW2. Question: were the bombs falling on Brits in 1942 a result of a private enterprise making profit?

Originally Posted by HarryTheSpider (Post 10529176)

"Most heavily regulated" and "effectively regulated" are not necessarily the same thing. A sector can be ****ed up without regulation. So far I am seeing classic logical fallacies from you. That doesn't mean you don't have a valid point. In my mind you haven't made it yet. As to your last question - WTF? Really? Slave labour, a fascist dictator at the helm, rule by fear and fiat, an embattled populace - these weren't significant factors? Much of the war materiel produced by all sides in WW2 came from private enterprise. What do these examples have to do with the debate over the efficiency of private vs public/state enterprise in general, let alone in specific cases?

Originally Posted by HarryTheSpider (Post 10529176)

That doesn't mean you don't have a valid point. In my mind you haven't made it yet. As to your last question - WTF? Really?

Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope (Post 10529232)

This is the thing: whatever merit some of his points may have gets lost in his need to dress them up with all the ideological tea-party nonsense and aggressive personal insults. Therefore he ends up making contradictory, inconsistent and incoherent arguments and getting hung up on irrelevant and incorrect side-bars (like the silly point about inter-state insurance which has minimal impact). What an unpleasant humourless angry little man!

Originally Posted by Desert Dubliner (Post 10529089)

Ok, now I will switch to a liberal mode of discussion:

From the 2009 report of the quoted institution setup to serve 'common good'.



Karen Davis, president of this institution was quoted as saying how important it was that America passed ObamaCare. She served in Dept of Health under that crappiest pinko president the US has ever had - Jimmy 'Iranians got it up my arse' Carter.

So, a Liberal 'think-tank', presided over by an ObamaCare activist and former Carter administration official says America has worst health care. I am really astonished.

Now you can go and plug what I quoted into google, find where it came from so you can then shit on my sources. That's how liberals conduct a link-based debate.

Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope (Post 10527976)

Not exactly a pinko liberal commie Kenyan death panel source either....

Originally Posted by Desert Dubliner (Post 10529265)

This is my favorite post:



:rofl: :rofl:

I am sure you spent days and days on proper analysis of the methodology and the interpretation of results, and that you are an expert on the subject, so therefore you are in position to claim the study is robust. But if you did that, why the hell the need to claim that the source is unaffiliated (which turns out to be complete and utter bollox)?

Originally Posted by Desert Dubliner (Post 10529283)

And those Heritage Foundation right-wing nuts must be schizophrenic. Finally they got 'their' healthcare model signed into the federal law and now they want to repeal it. Too much tea, no other explanation.

Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope (Post 10529302)

Because it is an unaffiliated source: an organisation established almost a century ago concerned with effective delivery of healthcare not the promotion of any ideology or political viewpoint. The board is pretty much entirely medical academics some of whom doubtless have political affiliations.

Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope (Post 10529302)

But here's the thing, and why tea-partiers hate science so much: reality has a liberal bias (as Bill Maher has pointed out). Because however hard you try to angrily contort the world to match your pre-ordained perspective it just doesn't fit, does it? No wonder you are constantly spluttering with fury....

Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope (Post 10529302)

And please, gratuitous use of smiley icons in your last few posts does not demonstrate that you have suddenly developed a sense of humour.