Very disturbing. Shows more than anything else that Greece is in dire straits indeed. A great example of how when societies collapse, services and institutions collapse as well.
Should serve as a warning whichever one’s political persuation, no?
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Very disturbing. Shows more than anything else that Greece is in dire straits indeed. A great example of how when societies collapse, services and institutions collapse as well.
Should serve as a warning whichever one’s political persuation, no?[/quote]
There should be warnings on both carts and horses, stating that the latter is not to be put before the former.
Every time I watch or listen to the US talk about ‘socialised healthcare’ it’s kind of funny.
In Australia we have had the public and private system operating side by side for 30+ years. About 15 years ago the government in power at the time started the process of giving aid to teh private sector so they could stay afloat. it’s not a sector that should be able to make money after all…
In the meantime obviously there has been a great amount of data collected and statistics run and not one of the promises of private healthcare was delivered upon. Private health systems are not more effecient, not more customer focused and do not take the load from emergency and priority healthcare offered by the public system.
There are so many cases around the world where a sane government operating a sane healthcare system provides better, cheaper healthcare than the US private healthcare system. It’s actually scary when you start looking into procedural costs (sorry, I mean charges) from private US hospitals versus the exact same or better from international systems. Same equipment, same expertise.
I think to take Greece as an example of why public health doesn’t work, is like taking Russia as an example of why nuclear power doesn’t work. Honestly, it’s quite retarded.
[quote]ozzyaaron wrote:
Every time I watch or listen to the US talk about ‘socialised healthcare’ it’s kind of funny.
In Australia we have had the public and private system operating side by side for 30+ years. About 15 years ago the government in power at the time started the process of giving aid to teh private sector so they could stay afloat. it’s not a sector that should be able to make money after all…
In the meantime obviously there has been a great amount of data collected and statistics run and not one of the promises of private healthcare was delivered upon. Private health systems are not more effecient, not more customer focused and do not take the load from emergency and priority healthcare offered by the public system.
There are so many cases around the world where a sane government operating a sane healthcare system provides better, cheaper healthcare than the US private healthcare system. It’s actually scary when you start looking into procedural costs (sorry, I mean charges) from private US hospitals versus the exact same or better from international systems. Same equipment, same expertise.
I think to take Greece as an example of why public health doesn’t work, is like taking Russia as an example of why nuclear power doesn’t work. Honestly, it’s quite retarded. [/quote]
So you think it is “quite retarded” to point out that if times get though you are more likely to lose a leg than that the state cuts back on civil servants.
I will stay retarded, thank you.
Also, most medical research today is carried out in the US. To compare systems that are almost incapable of innovation themselves to one of the few that does might be a little, dare I say it, retarded.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I don’t find the news that bad. And neither do you, Orion. After all, the reality of socialized medicine in Greece now stands unvarnished.
I’m a fan of socialized medcine - to a degree, however.
Only basic treatment, and that includes amputation in some cases, should be available to all.
(too much) fancy shit means you pay.[/quote]
You pay either way.
Only in this case, it appears it really could cost one an arm and a leg!
[/quote]
Hey, hope you’re well.
I need to send you an email.
Have you had the pleasure of utilizing the acclaimed Japanese health care system yet? I’m keeping a list of things that “We don’t do in Japan” :
Give men Arimidex
Measure DHT
Measure pregnenolone
Provide hCG in any form other than 5,000 units / dose
Provide Test Cyp
Allow Self T injections
and others I’d rather not mention.
Socialized medicine is wonderful![/quote]
Hey Chushin, good to hear from you, bud.
You forgot my favorite one:
Provide a full panel blood test (not covered: test, free test, FSH, LH, E2, and on and on).
And we get taxed out the wazoo every month for our “free” insurance and then still have to pay 20-30% of the cost of any dr. visit. Yay socialized medicine.
Now don’t get me started on the “CO2” brainwashing…grrr!!!
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…[/quote]
That would be awesome yes.
Trade guilds had doctors that were constantly on call, you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity and charity was the second biggest item of the household budget right after food.
Plus, 1/40 of the crime right now, no drug laws and booming economy that benefitted all.
Can I haz neo-victorian please?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…[/quote]
That would be awesome yes.
Trade guilds had doctors that were constantly on call, you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity and charity was the second biggest item of the household budget right after food.
Plus, 1/40 of the crime right now, no drug laws and booming economy that benefitted all.
Can I haz neo-victorian please?[/quote]
…and where would you live orion? Would you live in filth like the victorian poor did? The only clothes you owned were the ones on your back, and you had to share your underground dwelling with rats, lice and countless other unfortunate people like you…
…you wouldn’t grow very old ofcourse. Cholera, dysentery, rickets, influenza; they’d get you before old age would. Would you beg for a hand-out because you hadn’t eaten in days? Or would you resort to crime to feed yourself?
…but maybe i’m just thinking Victorian England and things were much different in the area that was Austria at the time. All i know, during the 1800s life for the poor man was as bad in urban Netherlands as it was in London or Manchester…
…which is it orion?
And there’s nothing not to love about privatized health care.
When my wife had a softball sized tumor attached to her adrenal gland it only took about 15 ER, primary doctor, and specialty doctor visits for them to figure that out. That was after they misdiagnosed her about 6 times, and were a heartbeat away from giving her a medication that would have killed her.
After a $50,000 surgery and thousands more in misc medical bills, she’s better. Awesome!
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…[/quote]
That would be awesome yes.
Trade guilds had doctors that were constantly on call, you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity and charity was the second biggest item of the household budget right after food.
Plus, 1/40 of the crime right now, no drug laws and booming economy that benefitted all.
Can I haz neo-victorian please?[/quote]
…and where would you live orion? Would you live in filth like the victorian poor did? The only clothes you owned were the ones on your back, and you had to share your underground dwelling with rats, lice and countless other unfortunate people like you…
…you wouldn’t grow very old ofcourse. Cholera, dysentery, rickets, influenza; they’d get you before old age would. Would you beg for a hand-out because you hadn’t eaten in days? Or would you resort to crime to feed yourself?
…but maybe i’m just thinking Victorian England and things were much different in the area that was Austria at the time. All i know, during the 1800s life for the poor man was as bad in urban Netherlands as it was in London or Manchester…
…which is it orion?
[/quote]
Are you confusing the state of science and economic development on purpose with the strenght of a civil society? WHat has on to do with the other, even the poorest of the poor were better of than anywhere else in the world back then and this is really the only yardstick that matters.
Bottom line, they had less AND gave relatively more.
Thank God capitalism got rid of the things you mentioned, now it should be even easier to care for the poor.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…[/quote]
That would be awesome yes.
Trade guilds had doctors that were constantly on call, you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity and charity was the second biggest item of the household budget right after food.
Plus, 1/40 of the crime right now, no drug laws and booming economy that benefitted all.
Can I haz neo-victorian please?[/quote]
…and where would you live orion? Would you live in filth like the victorian poor did? The only clothes you owned were the ones on your back, and you had to share your underground dwelling with rats, lice and countless other unfortunate people like you…
…you wouldn’t grow very old ofcourse. Cholera, dysentery, rickets, influenza; they’d get you before old age would. Would you beg for a hand-out because you hadn’t eaten in days? Or would you resort to crime to feed yourself?
…but maybe i’m just thinking Victorian England and things were much different in the area that was Austria at the time. All i know, during the 1800s life for the poor man was as bad in urban Netherlands as it was in London or Manchester…
…which is it orion?
[/quote]
Are you confusing the state of science and economic development on purpose with the strenght of a civil society? WHat has on to do with the other, even the poorest of the poor were better of than anywhere else in the world back then and this is really the only yardstick that matters.
Bottom line, they had less AND gave relatively more.
Thank God capitalism got rid of the things you mentioned, now it should be even easier to care for the poor.
[/quote]
…bullshit. Victorian London - Houses and Housing - Housing of the Poor - Slums read this, altough it’s a wall of text, but Victorian London was not to be envied, at all…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…[/quote]
That would be awesome yes.
Trade guilds had doctors that were constantly on call, you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity and charity was the second biggest item of the household budget right after food.
Plus, 1/40 of the crime right now, no drug laws and booming economy that benefitted all.
Can I haz neo-victorian please?[/quote]
…and where would you live orion? Would you live in filth like the victorian poor did? The only clothes you owned were the ones on your back, and you had to share your underground dwelling with rats, lice and countless other unfortunate people like you…
…you wouldn’t grow very old ofcourse. Cholera, dysentery, rickets, influenza; they’d get you before old age would. Would you beg for a hand-out because you hadn’t eaten in days? Or would you resort to crime to feed yourself?
…but maybe i’m just thinking Victorian England and things were much different in the area that was Austria at the time. All i know, during the 1800s life for the poor man was as bad in urban Netherlands as it was in London or Manchester…
…which is it orion?
[/quote]
Yo… the economic difficulties of the poor in the late 19th Century England, France and Germany was aggravated and made permanent by the fact that only male property owners with wealth could vote. Plus there were other institutional ways (that veried between each country) that also limited the political leverage of the poor/middle class folk. So the big industrial and pre-existing wealthy nobility could protect their interest (no labor laws, no anti-trust law, high tariffs for competitive imports and low tariffs for raw materials, etc, etc). Thus the poor and middle class had to resort to violence and only extreme political ideas had revelance to them. Ex: the revolutions of 1848, and 1870’s, and the rise of Socialism and Anarchism as political ideologies.
Marx’s however saw this whole thing as some kind of dialectical relationship between the ones who hold the means of production and those who don’t… In short, a very simplistic and myopic way of understanding his own country and history in general.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…[/quote]
That would be awesome yes.
Trade guilds had doctors that were constantly on call, you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity and charity was the second biggest item of the household budget right after food.
Plus, 1/40 of the crime right now, no drug laws and booming economy that benefitted all.
Can I haz neo-victorian please?[/quote]
…and where would you live orion? Would you live in filth like the victorian poor did? The only clothes you owned were the ones on your back, and you had to share your underground dwelling with rats, lice and countless other unfortunate people like you…
…you wouldn’t grow very old ofcourse. Cholera, dysentery, rickets, influenza; they’d get you before old age would. Would you beg for a hand-out because you hadn’t eaten in days? Or would you resort to crime to feed yourself?
…but maybe i’m just thinking Victorian England and things were much different in the area that was Austria at the time. All i know, during the 1800s life for the poor man was as bad in urban Netherlands as it was in London or Manchester…
…which is it orion?
[/quote]
Are you confusing the state of science and economic development on purpose with the strenght of a civil society? WHat has on to do with the other, even the poorest of the poor were better of than anywhere else in the world back then and this is really the only yardstick that matters.
Bottom line, they had less AND gave relatively more.
Thank God capitalism got rid of the things you mentioned, now it should be even easier to care for the poor.
[/quote]
…bullshit. Victorian London - Houses and Housing - Housing of the Poor - Slums read this, altough it’s a wall of text, but Victorian London was not to be envied, at all…
[/quote]
And it was better… where?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Are you confusing the state of science and economic development on purpose with the strenght of a civil society? WHat has on to do with the other, even the poorest of the poor were better of than anywhere else in the world back then and this is really the only yardstick that matters.
Bottom line, they had less AND gave relatively more.
Thank God capitalism got rid of the things you mentioned, now it should be even easier to care for the poor.
[/quote]
…bullshit. Victorian London - Houses and Housing - Housing of the Poor - Slums read this, altough it’s a wall of text, but Victorian London was not to be envied, at all…
[/quote]
And it was better… where?
[/quote]
…you tell me…
[quote]Neospartan wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…[/quote]
That would be awesome yes.
Trade guilds had doctors that were constantly on call, you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity and charity was the second biggest item of the household budget right after food.
Plus, 1/40 of the crime right now, no drug laws and booming economy that benefitted all.
Can I haz neo-victorian please?[/quote]
…and where would you live orion? Would you live in filth like the victorian poor did? The only clothes you owned were the ones on your back, and you had to share your underground dwelling with rats, lice and countless other unfortunate people like you…
…you wouldn’t grow very old ofcourse. Cholera, dysentery, rickets, influenza; they’d get you before old age would. Would you beg for a hand-out because you hadn’t eaten in days? Or would you resort to crime to feed yourself?
…but maybe i’m just thinking Victorian England and things were much different in the area that was Austria at the time. All i know, during the 1800s life for the poor man was as bad in urban Netherlands as it was in London or Manchester…
…which is it orion?
[/quote]
Yo… the economic difficulties of the poor in the late 19th Century England, France and Germany was aggravated and made permanent by the fact that only male property owners with wealth could vote. Plus there were other institutional ways (that veried between each country) that also limited the political leverage of the poor/middle class folk. So the big industrial and pre-existing wealthy nobility could protect their interest (no labor laws, no anti-trust law, high tariffs for competitive imports and low tariffs for raw materials, etc, etc). Thus the poor and middle class had to resort to violence and only extreme political ideas had revelance to them. Ex: the revolutions of 1848, and 1870’s, and the rise of Socialism and Anarchism as political ideologies.
Marx’s however saw this whole thing as some kind of dialectical relationship between the ones who hold the means of production and those who don’t… In short, a very simplistic and myopic way of understanding his own country and history in general. [/quote]
…okay… so we’ve determined the cause and how seeking to overcome inequality that existed at that time by creating a polar opposite doesn’t work either. Ofcourse i’m not suggesting anything like Marx’ ideals at all, but what are you suggesting?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Are you confusing the state of science and economic development on purpose with the strenght of a civil society? WHat has on to do with the other, even the poorest of the poor were better of than anywhere else in the world back then and this is really the only yardstick that matters.
Bottom line, they had less AND gave relatively more.
Thank God capitalism got rid of the things you mentioned, now it should be even easier to care for the poor.
[/quote]
…bullshit. Victorian London - Houses and Housing - Housing of the Poor - Slums read this, altough it’s a wall of text, but Victorian London was not to be envied, at all…
[/quote]
And it was better… where?
[/quote]
…you tell me…
[/quote]
No, you tell me, because if you cantm they actually did the best with the resources they had.
Which is my whole point.
Just claiming that life was worse 100 years ago does nothing towards making your point.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Neospartan wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…orion would rather see a neo-Victorian era where, if you’re too poor to pay for healthcare, you depend on charity or simply die from easily cured diseases…[/quote]
That would be awesome yes.
Trade guilds had doctors that were constantly on call, you could not throw a stone without hitting a charity and charity was the second biggest item of the household budget right after food.
Plus, 1/40 of the crime right now, no drug laws and booming economy that benefitted all.
Can I haz neo-victorian please?[/quote]
…and where would you live orion? Would you live in filth like the victorian poor did? The only clothes you owned were the ones on your back, and you had to share your underground dwelling with rats, lice and countless other unfortunate people like you…
…you wouldn’t grow very old ofcourse. Cholera, dysentery, rickets, influenza; they’d get you before old age would. Would you beg for a hand-out because you hadn’t eaten in days? Or would you resort to crime to feed yourself?
…but maybe i’m just thinking Victorian England and things were much different in the area that was Austria at the time. All i know, during the 1800s life for the poor man was as bad in urban Netherlands as it was in London or Manchester…
…which is it orion?
[/quote]
Yo… the economic difficulties of the poor in the late 19th Century England, France and Germany was aggravated and made permanent by the fact that only male property owners with wealth could vote. Plus there were other institutional ways (that veried between each country) that also limited the political leverage of the poor/middle class folk. So the big industrial and pre-existing wealthy nobility could protect their interest (no labor laws, no anti-trust law, high tariffs for competitive imports and low tariffs for raw materials, etc, etc). Thus the poor and middle class had to resort to violence and only extreme political ideas had revelance to them. Ex: the revolutions of 1848, and 1870’s, and the rise of Socialism and Anarchism as political ideologies.
Marx’s however saw this whole thing as some kind of dialectical relationship between the ones who hold the means of production and those who don’t… In short, a very simplistic and myopic way of understanding his own country and history in general. [/quote]
…okay… so we’ve determined the cause and how seeking to overcome inequality that existed at that time by creating a polar opposite doesn’t work either. Ofcourse i’m not suggesting anything like Marx’ ideals at all, but what are you suggesting?
[/quote]
Maybe what the original liberals suggested?
No privileges for the aristocracy, the abolition of tariffs and equality before the law?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Are you confusing the state of science and economic development on purpose with the strenght of a civil society? WHat has on to do with the other, even the poorest of the poor were better of than anywhere else in the world back then and this is really the only yardstick that matters.
Bottom line, they had less AND gave relatively more.
Thank God capitalism got rid of the things you mentioned, now it should be even easier to care for the poor.
[/quote]
…bullshit. Victorian London - Houses and Housing - Housing of the Poor - Slums read this, altough it’s a wall of text, but Victorian London was not to be envied, at all…
[/quote]
And it was better… where?
[/quote]
…you tell me…
[/quote]
No, you tell me, because if you cantm they actually did the best with the resources they had.
Which is my whole point.
Just claiming that life was worse 100 years ago does nothing towards making your point.
[/quote]
…nice try slick, but it was you who’d like to see that kind of society again. We have it so much better now, than they had it back then. You’re a fool for thinking otherwise…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay… so we’ve determined the cause and how seeking to overcome inequality that existed at that time by creating a polar opposite doesn’t work either. Ofcourse i’m not suggesting anything like Marx’ ideals at all, but what are you suggesting?
[/quote]
Maybe what the original liberals suggested?
No privileges for the aristocracy, the abolition of tariffs and equality before the law?
[/quote]
…if that’s what NeoSpartan was going to suggest, i’d say “fine by me”…