Taking back the Republican party

[Arres]

There are a number of people who would agree with your last statement. Although, since paramedics work for Hospitals, which are currently private I think they already are.

I wouldn't agree when it comes to cops and firefighters. As has already been discussed in this thread, cops and firefighters are a public good. The "public good" portion of health care is already provided for by free clinics and the CDC.

[Springy]

I wasn't aware that paramedics worked for hospitals in the states.

But what does it matter: it's hard to deny that there IS a large monetary incentive to finding the cure or a more effective treatment for a common disease. Does that make the important medical breakthrough any less important? I don't see how. But those big companies aren't plunking down millions and millions of dollars simply because they want to rid the world of disease. I'm sure the people within those companies feel good about that kind of thing, but they're doing what they do to turn a profit for their shareholders and themselves. Good can be done in this manner you know; it's not impossible for people to want to help the world and turn a profit.

Didn't the US long ago cease to be the centre for medical advancements?

[The Cid]

I know it continues to contribute advancements in medicine. Many of them. It's not exactly a stagnant industry here. Did my point hinge on that? If we're not, does that at all take away from a thing in what you quoted?

It's not like our medical industry up and left. We're still the home of many cutting-edge biotech companies, all sorts of major and minor pharmaceutical companies, medical technology companies, a number of the greatest hospitals in the world, and so on.

[Springy]

But shouldn't these extra financial incentives that you guys have that countries with socialized medicine don't have mean that your country should be on the cutting edge?

[adciv]

Given that we generally export (sell) a lot of the technology we create, how would we stay ahead of the rest? Most of the first world has the same technology as technology as the US and vice-versa. How are we not on the cutting edge? Or how are the socialized medicine countries more on the cutting edge?

[Mav]

Yeah. I mean, I guess it's been a few months, maybe a year or two since I've read about Canadians coming to the US for medical treatment, but I was assuming they just had bigger stories to cover, like wars and what not.

[JermCool]

The AMA don't want it.

I don't know if I ever posted my list of faults I had with New Zealand's universal healthcare system. Here we have a country of 4 million as opposed to 304 million. So if these problems exist on such a small scale, imagine with me how insane things will get here.

1) New Zealand really had some second-rate doctors. How was this possible when the University of Otago has one of the best medical programs in the world? Once they graduated, they left for a country where they'd get paid. I would say 70-80% of the general practitioners there were from India or Pakistan because New Zealand paid better than their home countries.

2) New Zealand had some insane wait times. Cancer? We'll deal with it in 6 months. Debilitating arthritis? It'll be 5 years. Then the government stepped in and said "Your waiting lists are too long. Fix it." So the district health boards - instead of trying to push people through faster to clear the backlog - just cut people from their lists. Been waiting 4.5 years for surgery? Sucks to be you.

3) The missus was in the hospital for emergency surgery due to an ectopic pregnancy. The original plan was to get her into surgery that day. But because of the doctors strike that was going on (because you need to realize that if this goes through, there will be a medical union, and what fun that will be when they're fighting with the government over pay), they delayed the surgery until her tube burst, causing excruciating pain and internal bleeding. Instead of a laparoscopy which was a small operation with a 1 day recovery, they allowed her to get so bad she needed a laparotomy which requires a week of recovery.

4) I don't know what it was with her and surgeries, but the last 2 times she had one, she got an infection. Granted, if the hospital had done any kind of follow-up, those may have been dealt with sooner. But once she was out the door, they no longer cared. Both of those took over a week to clear up after she was cleared from the hospital in the first place.

If we could have afforded it, I would have happily paid for private healthcare. But since taxes were 33% for the lowest tax bracket, that wasn't really an option.

[Kraggh]

As a human being, I feel as though the Republicans really need to go back to their roots and return to the basic principles that Republicans originally stood for. They need to remember that they like to hold tight budgets with little spending, and other values that make the Republicans what they are. If they went back to basic principles and let go of their attachment to religion (among other things) then I think they'd start to see respect and loyalty again.

Dear Reader,
Personally, I will still vote against gay marriage as a right and abortion. I do this not just as a republican, but out of my beliefs. It happens to be that a lot of Republicans believe in straight and prolife causes. I think that it's too much to ask for a ton of people to change some of their strongest beliefs to be politically correct.

Abortion is not technically the basis of the political party itself, however.

Kraggh

[Deacon]

I think that it's too much to ask for a ton of people to change some of their strongest beliefs to be politically correct.

But you can ask them to change their beliefs to conform to yours?

More importantly, I think it's too much to ask a ton of people to give up their freedom in order to be religiously correct according to your own particular church. How would you like it if I told you we were outlawing pork?

[Ciaroidbh]

The problem with liberals (this includes both Democrats and the majority of modern Republicans) is that their policies are all self-fulfilling prophesies.

In this country, we have people who believe that they should have more than they do, whether or not they have to work for it. Generally, this is people who fall below the poverty line for one reason or another. They vote for politicians that offer entitlement programs (mostly Democrats, but increasingly more Republicans are fiscally and socially liberal). These government officials pass entitlement programs and balloon our budget, raising taxes. The problem with this is that the vast majority of people who take advantage of entitlement programs don't pay taxes. Thus, you are effectively redistributing wealth from the middle and upper classes to the lower class, which raises the poverty line and lowers the average wealth of the nation. Now you have more people needing/wanting these entitlement programs and they in turn vote for more politicians who offer entitlement programs.

Basically, social liberalism is virus, and it's going to kill our economy (if it hasn't already).

Obama's "healthcare reform" is not reform. It's a bandaid, a mask, over the symptoms of what's wrong with our healthcare system. If they really wanted to reform healthcare, the government would stop allowing frivolous lawsuits and work to change the perception of healthcare as a "definite cure" into what it really is: "best effort". Medicine is not an exact science, and people do make mistakes. No surgery is simple and there is ALWAYS an element of risk involved. Until the public realizes this and the government allows people to sue doctors for every little thing, healthcare costs will be high. The way to fix that is to stop frivolous lawsuits. Do that and healthcare costs will become far more affordable. In addition, pharmaceutical costs will go way down. Giving it away is not a fix. The only difference is that now, instead of malpractice insurance companies paying out, it'll be the government.

I think, though, that people are starting to realize that social and fiscal liberalism don't work. Really, all they needed to do was look at Russia, China, and Cuba to see that. I don't understand what it is about humans that cause them to repeat their mistakes over and over again. Socialism doesn't work. It's never worked. Why do people think it'll work here? Oh, right, because they like entitlement programs. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Makh]

Basically, social liberalism is virus, and it's going to kill our economy (if it hasn't already)

What?? Friend, it is precisely social liberalism that allowed USA to create an unprecedented level of wealth following WWII, no matter what party was in power! Why the hell would you say it is a virus?

Until the public realizes this and the government allows people to sue doctors for every little thing, healthcare costs will be high. The way to fix that is to stop frivolous lawsuits. Do that and healthcare costs will become far more affordable. In addition, pharmaceutical costs will go way down.

According to you, the sources of problems in healthcare system have a juridical nature? Meaning you should do a reform in the law system instead? I am not familiar enough with the cost of healthcare in USA, however I believe that "frivolous lawsuits" always constitute a problem, not only in healthcare, but in the society in general.

I think, though, that people are starting to realize that social and fiscal liberalism don't work. Really, all they needed to do was look at Russia, China, and Cuba to see that. I don't understand what it is about humans that cause them to repeat their mistakes over and over again.

I did not know that Russia was socially and fiscally liberal. I was more under the impression that we had a totalitarian regime. But I may be wrong.

Socialism doesn't work. It's never worked. Why do people think it'll work here? Oh, right, because they like entitlement programs. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

The first thing that come in mind when you say socialism is Soviet Union. But Soviet style socialism was defaulting. Maybe that argument worked in the 80s, but now it is a little bit outdated. Because people know what socialism is and its various aspects. Some countries, (some of them very advanced like those in Scandinavia and Western Europe, Kanada, Australia) have many socialist elements and I must say they are doing pretty well for third world countries.

[Deacon]

The problem with liberals (this includes both Democrats and the majority of modern Republicans) is that their policies are all self-fulfilling prophesies.

Examples? Obama said that if we didn't pass IMMEDIATELY his plan to print trillions of dollars and throw them around the country at Democrat ideals, then the unemployment rate would go up by a lot. So they passed it, and it went up not a lot but DOUBLE the increase he was threatening. Doesn't sound self-fulfilling. Sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

In this country, we have people who believe that they should have more than they do, whether or not they have to work for it. Generally, this is people who fall below the poverty line for one reason or another.

This is not at all the case, even with our artificially lofty "poverty line". You ask any person, even most upper middle class individuals, and they'll believe that they should have more than they do. People will find some way to justify selfishness, no matter their level of success.

Obama's "healthcare reform" is not reform. It's a bandaid, a mask, over the symptoms of what's wrong with our healthcare system.

Calling it any of those things is a complement it doesn't deserve. There's no reform involved.

[StruckingFuggle]

In this country, we have people who believe that they should have more than they do, whether or not they have to work for it. Generally, this is people who fall below the poverty line for one reason or another.

This is not at all the case, even with our artificially lofty "poverty line". You ask any person, even most upper middle class individuals, and they'll believe that they should have more than they do. People will find some way to justify selfishness, no matter their level of success.

Hell, you get that even up to the wealthiest of people, which is a huge part of what got us into this mess.

[Ciaroidbh]

In this country, we have people who believe that they should have more than they do, whether or not they have to work for it. Generally, this is people who fall below the poverty line for one reason or another.

This is not at all the case, even with our artificially lofty "poverty line". You ask any person, even most upper middle class individuals, and they'll believe that they should have more than they do. People will find some way to justify selfishness, no matter their level of success.

Hell, you get that even up to the wealthiest of people, which is a huge part of what got us into this mess.

The difference between those people and the people below the poverty line is that the wealthy who want more wealth are willing to go out and get it. The people below the poverty line believe that it should be given to them by the government. Entitlement programs.

Entitlement programs are the self-fulfilling prophecy of liberalism. The creation of the programs, by default, causes more people to need/want them.

[StruckingFuggle]

So... are you actually saying that nothing people above the poverty line do to "go out and get wealth" will create problems?