Sunday, November 22, 2009

Is There Anybody Out There Who Still Doubts That "National Health Care" Is A Plantation Medicine Trick? Anybody?

6 comments:

CNu said...

I doubt it.

National Healthcare;

1. Medical industrial reform

2. National Insurance reform

Are not plantation medicine tricks.

One need only consider the % of GDP squandered on a grossly inefficient care delivery/care payment system in the U.S. vs. the % of GDP spent for the same services in the U.K. or Canada

or

Consider the shockingly higher annual per capita costs incurred under U.S. healthcare vs. U.K. or Canadian healthcare

and it becomes very simple to understand why the federal government MUST involve itself (size, scale, universality of problem) in the construction of a system that is more efficient, more sustainable, and more fairly and uniformly administered. (phuk compassion)

The current embodiment of plantation socialism - by comparison - has few {if any} redeeming values you could extol.

Denmark Vesey said...

Again, another A student who knows how to build a clock.

But doesn't know what time it is.

Canada, GDP, per capita, annual, UK, KRS-1, BDP, SWV ... it really it aint that deep.

All talk.

The problem, young grasshopper, is that the meme "National Healthcare" contains three lies in two words.

1) "National" implies this system is a product of a "nation" of people. This 'imagined community' of like people, with a common historical narrative managed by a representative government, no longer really exists. It is a corporate menagerie.

The American people are to the Federal Government what users are to Facebook.

2) "Health" implies the ability of this system to provide health. It cannot provide health. 90% of what this system provides is drugs. The rest is triage and bad advice.

The last thing anyone can say about the consumers of Plantation Medicine and Plantation Foods is that they are healthy.

3) "Care" is a comfort word that implies patronage. Plantation occupants, like children, are most comfortable handing the responsibility for their individual health over to an institutional massa.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]One need only consider the % of GDP squandered on a grossly inefficient care delivery/care payment system in the U.S. vs. the % of GDP spent for the same services in the U.K. or Canada[/quote]

WHY do you and others keep arguing this FRAUDULENT angle??

SO WHAT if our health care system COSTS MORE?
IF I have a private health care insurance and CHOOSE to go to a physician that has a HIGHER PRICE ---- what DAMNED business is it of yours?


YOU NEED to look at Southwest Atlanta Medical Center. IT is a case study of how CUT RATE GOVERNMENT health care causes injury.

This hospital that is nestled in the Black community between the wealthy "Cascade Heights" section which is fully of Negroes with private health care and "MLK Blvd" which had projects and low income apartments and thus Medicare and Medicaid patients on the other side.

When the Negroes with private insurance turned up their nose and started driving to Buckhead and Midtown for their hospital care - this hospital was stuck with mostly GOVERNMENT PAID FOR clientèle.

This newly refurbished building now sits CLOSED.

Despite the reimbursement control implemented by the Federal Government - this proved not enough for MAINTAINING AN OPERATING HOSPITAL.

Constructive Feedback said...

Denmark Vesey:

I appraise the value of any plan that purports to benefit our community upon two issues:

MINDS and MONEY

* MINDS - With the call that "Black People Need Health Care" - WHAT exactly is contained in these government bills that would have BLACK PEOPLE to express our own worth by participating more in the delivery of care for our people?

One would think that we'd see a call for the quintupling of PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS that are extracted from the Black community.

* MONEY - What of the "Black Communities" MONEY is drawn upon to ante up and thus "show and prove" that we care about our HEALTH CARE SERVICES for our people more than some of the alternatives that we have to spend our discretionary funds upon.

This is EXCLUSIVELY a GOVERNMENT CONTROL BILL where society is being asked to PROVE that it cares for those without care by aggregating private capital into a pot and having the central arm of the government to distribute the resources appropriately.

CNu said...

1) "National" implies this system is a product of a "nation" of people. This 'imagined community' of like people, with a common historical narrative managed by a representative government, no longer really exists. It is a corporate menagerie.

Wrong.

We all depend upon the same underlying, nationally bounded and underwritten energy sources and distribution infrastructures.

The American people are to the Federal Government what users are to Facebook.

Wrong.

The Federal Government is to the American people what the webservers on which Facebook runs are to its users.

That you are merely a consumer of Facebook distraction rather than a producer of Facebook gadgets is all on you.

Now then, if you have a trillion to blow on military adventurism and a trillion to blow on a smart and pervasive healthcare delivery infrastructure, which of the two modes of taxpayer funded interventionism do you elect to support?

Both constitute HUGE portions of GDP - however - one "the medical industrial" is potentially constructive, while the other, the military-industrial, is an insane and exclusively destructive national boondoggle.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]
We all depend upon the same underlying, nationally bounded and underwritten energy sources and distribution infrastructures.[/quote]

KC Nulan - WHY don't you ever tie in the LEFTIST RHETORIC that is so frequently heard with real world problems?

IF the cry of "People over Profits" and "Money is not everything" are true then WHY IS IT that these massive national financial realignment schemes are necessary BEFORE:

* The key institutions that educate our children can be made to turn out individuals with the KNOWLEDGE to provide medical care?

* Absence of money received by the TEACHER or the MEDICAL PRACTITIONER be used to deny people access to care. And thus have the INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE rather than the SOCIETY, backed by CAPITALISM to be the key determining force in care?


It seems to me that you and others need to convince the masses about accepting leftist/socialist constructs rather than forcing corporations and rich people to do so.