It should be noted, since there's a lot of talk about "free healthcare" going around, that the term is a misnomer.
It isn't free. It's universal, yes. It's available to everyone, yes. It's funded, however, by taxes. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It often comes out cheaper than most health care plans we have in this country, and is generally as good if not better.
Nothing's free, however, and that's an important distinction to make.
As for the waiting lists, that's also a misnomer. In the Canadian system, those who need life-saving medical care get it. Those who don't need it immediately, such as people with the sniffles, can choose to go to a private doctor and pay for it, or go to a clinic and wait in line. You wouldn't be dying of a heart attack in a clinic waiting room, and you wouldn't be treated for a cold in the ER.
Of course, Obamacare's neither of those things, and Healthcare.gov is neither of those things. Healthcare.gov is an unholy union of our current private healthcare system and a fat government stimulus package. The same plans are offered, from the same companies, with the government picking up some of the tab for those who can't afford it.
That's it. That's how mediocre this "revolutionary" Obamacare is. It's a joke, and it's not even funny.
[QUOTE=Toyhobo;42703383]Maybe you need to say wether you mean economically or politically.[/QUOTE]
Knowing him he's using the original definition from the cold war era. Then Sweden was considered third world. However the definition has changed and in no way could Sweden be considered third world.
Explosions doesn't realize that language and meanings can change. We wen't over this when he decided that the Netherlands was racist.
[editline]explosions is dumb[/editline] I also don't even know how Sweden was relevant the the post he was replying to.
[QUOTE=Toyhobo;42703383]Maybe you need to say wether you mean economically or politically.[/QUOTE]
Economically the word has no meaning. It makes no sense. How does the Three World system make sense economically?
[QUOTE=Stents*;42703423]Knowing him he's using the original definition from the cold war era. Then Sweden was considered third world. However the definition has changed and in no way could Sweden be considered third world.
Explosions doesn't realize that language and meanings can change. We wen't over this when he decided that the Netherlands was racist.
[editline]explosions is dumb[/editline] I also don't even know how Sweden was relevant the the post he was replying to.[/QUOTE]
The meaning of the word doesn't change to something that makes no sense at all. I simply used Sweden as an example.
Also I never said the Netherlands was racist. I said blackface was racist.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;42701633]And then he dies on a waiting list.
Oh wait, no, those are a libertopian conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE]
What in the almighty fuck is your problem? People with life threatening illnesses or emergency treatments requirements are bumped up waiting lists pretty fucking instantly. Yeah there will still be a wait for certain aspects of aftercare, but I'd much rather be on a waiting list knowing I will receive treatment [B]with[/B] the option of just saying "fuck it" and using private insurance, over being left bankrupt and half way through my treatment because my insurer is run by heartless bastards.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42703778]Economically the word has no meaning. It makes no sense. How does the Three World system make sense economically?
The meaning of the word doesn't change to something that makes no sense at all. I simply used Sweden as an example.
Also I never said the Netherlands was racist. I said blackface was racist.[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you're on about, it makes perfect sense; especially considering "Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed upon definition of the Third World".
"Because many Third World countries were extremely poor, and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to poor countries as "third world countries", yet the "Third World" term is also often taken to include newly industrialized countries like India, Brazil or China. Historically, some European countries were part of the non-aligned movement and a few were and are very prosperous, including Switzerland and Austria."
You know what he is referring to, I know what he is referring to, everyone knows what he is referring to. Stop being semantic.
[QUOTE=woolio1;42703419]It should be noted, since there's a lot of talk about "free healthcare" going around, that the term is a misnomer.
It isn't free. It's universal, yes. It's available to everyone, yes. It's funded, however, by taxes. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It often comes out cheaper than most health care plans we have in this country, and is generally as good if not better.
Nothing's free, however, and that's an important distinction to make.[/QUOTE]
While it isn't exactly free (unless you are of non-taxble age and income), it's still free in the sense you aren't massively restricted to what you receive. You are able to walk in to a clinic, get checked up for absolutely anything, and it won't change the tax rate you receive in the slightest. It's free, just not in the economical sense.
[QUOTE=Stents*;42703423]Knowing him he's using the original definition from the cold war era. Then Sweden was considered third world. However the definition has changed and in no way could Sweden be considered third world.
Explosions doesn't realize that language and meanings can change. We wen't over this when he decided that the Netherlands was racist.
[editline]explosions is dumb[/editline] I also don't even know how Sweden was relevant the the post he was replying to.[/QUOTE]
He's just being pedantic to show off how smart he is
As much as I like the idea of free healthcare for all in the U.S I don't think it would work. I've seen first hand how bad it gets in the U.K because of all the people dragging it down. My grandfather almost bled out and died (who's a british citizen) waiting in a lobby for 5 hours.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;42703902]He's just being a pedantic to show off how smart he is[/QUOTE]
Watch as hes rates all of your posts dumb.
Why is a nationalised and mostly free healthcare system going against the grain so much anyway?
Okay, granted ours isn't perfect but at least it doesn't only cater to those with adequate funding/insurance..
[QUOTE=Saxon;42703954]As much as I like the idea of free healthcare for all in the U.S I don't think it would work. I've seen first hand how bad it gets in the U.K because of all the people dragging it down. My grandfather almost bled out and died (who's a british citizen) waiting in a lobby for 5 hours.[/QUOTE]
This kind of neglect cannot be attributed to politicians, but rather inexperienced / negligent / or just simply awful healthcare staff.
And before you say that the hospital simply didn't have the resources I would have to disagree, they should always have resources to care for the most vulnerable of patients who ought to have the highest of priorities.
Paying for potentially life saving medical is simply barbaric!
What's sad is, I doubt we'll be getting universal healthcare anytime soon, here. Between the fortunes that insurance companies are making off of people, and the jackpot that hospitals hit when they realized they could just markup whatever they wanted as high as possible, no one with any control is interested in universal healthcare. Completely screwing two massive industries out of their primary (if ill-gotten) income is not going to sit well with said industries, and they have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent universal healthcare from killing the cash cow.
It's utterly fucking pathetic, but that's just how it is here in the good ol' USA. Good luck getting anyone to pass universal healthcare through a wall of people who profit off of a lack of said healthcare, and are willing to line any pockets necessary to keep the status quo.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;42703902]He's just being a [I]pedant[/I]* to show off how smart he is.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Adman;42703829]Not sure what you're on about, it makes perfect sense; especially considering "Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed upon definition of the Third World".
"Because many Third World countries were extremely poor, and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to poor countries as "third world countries", yet the "Third World" term is also often taken to include newly industrialized countries like India, Brazil or China. Historically, some European countries were part of the non-aligned movement and a few were and are very prosperous, including Switzerland and Austria."
You know what he is referring to, I know what he is referring to, everyone knows what he is referring to. Stop being semantic.[/QUOTE]
You just grouped China and Zimbabwe into the same category by using that definition.
I know what he means by saying "third world country," but even in the context he used the term it made little sense. Some of the nations on the map he posted would be called "third world countries" yet they were colored green. This is why the term is ridiculous. It is not concrete and means something different to everyone. Use the term "developing country" or "undeveloped country" if you want to talk about economic and industrial development. Using a seemingly economic term to talk about a social policy like health care doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes it is semantics. Semantics means focusing on the meanings of words so, yes, I am being semantic by definition.
And call me pedantic if you will; I don't care. I was just banned for posting a image macro/meme two days ago. But I will tell you that I am not trying to "show off how smart I am."
[QUOTE=Explosions;42704398]You just grouped China and Zimbabwe into the same category by using that definition.
I know what he means by saying "third world country," but even in the context he used the term it made little sense. Some of the nations on the map he posted would be called "third world countries" yet they were colored green. This is why the term is ridiculous. It is not concrete and means something different to everyone. Use the term "developing country" or "undeveloped country" if you want to talk about economic and industrial development. Using a seemingly economic term to talk about a social policy like health care doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes it is semantics. Semantics means focusing on the meanings of words so, yes, I am being semantic by definition.
And call me pedantic if you will; I don't care. I was just banned for posting a image macro/meme two days ago. But I will tell you that I am not trying to "show off how smart I am."[/QUOTE]
The image was of countries that have government provided healthcare, not of third world countries.........
[QUOTE=Stents*;42704446]The image was of countries that have government provided healthcare, not of third world countries.........[/QUOTE]
I know that. As I said, some of the countries on the map would [b]probably[/b] be considered "third world countries" by some. Hence, the post doesn't even make logical sense. I say probably because, as I explained, there is no real definition of the term outside of the antiquated, cold war context.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42704475]I know that. As I said, some of the countries on the map would [b]probably[/b] be considered "third world countries" by some. Hence, the post doesn't even make logical sense. I say probably because, as I explained, there is no real definition of the term outside of the antiquated, cold war context.[/QUOTE]
Then why didn't you say that in you're first post instead of just calling Sweden a third world country?
The post you were replying too was obvious using the term "third world country" in the sense of wealth/economic stability. He was saying that we have the economic stability/wealth to pay for it. The map was to show that the [B]majority[/B] (not all) of countries that didn't have healthcare are third world countries.
[QUOTE=Stents*;42704559]Then why didn't you say that in you're first post instead of just calling Sweden a third world country?
The post you were replying too was obvious using the term "third world country" in the sense of wealth/economic stability. He was saying that we have the economic stability/wealth to pay for it. The map was to show that the [B]majority[/B] (not all) of countries that didn't have healthcare are third world countries.[/QUOTE]
Still doesn't make sense. Why would the term be used to describe a social policy?
And I used Sweden to show why it's ridiculous to use the term "third world" in today's time.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;42700767]just get free healthcare already, you're not a third world country.
[img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/international/mf%20healthcaremap%20p.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Doesn't North Korea have Free "Healthcare" as well?
[QUOTE=Explosions;42704671]Still doesn't make sense. Why would the term be used to describe a social policy?
And I used Sweden to show why it's ridiculous to use the term "third world" in today's time.[/QUOTE]
Because language changes, there's a reason Latin is a dead language.
And you didn't make that clear enough in you first post.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;42701859]What about the Canadian Death Panels?
[editline]30th October 2013[/editline]
I don't know why we continue to use Canada as an example for universal healthcare. There are other countries with better universal healthcare systems than Canada.[/QUOTE]When my girlfriend's gran had a scan done and cancer was found within her abdomen, surgery was done within a month (may have been much sooner can't remember).
[QUOTE=The mouse;42704716]Doesn't North Korea have Free "Healthcare" as well?[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's disputing whether it's free, it's disputing whether it is actually healthcare.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;42705347]I don't think it's disputing whether it's free, it's disputing whether it is actually healthcare.[/QUOTE]
I think they'll charge your family for the bullet and the manpower to move your corpse.
[QUOTE=stomppah;42704128]Why is a nationalised and mostly free healthcare system going against the grain so much anyway?
Okay, granted ours isn't perfect but at least it doesn't only cater to those with adequate funding/insurance..
This kind of neglect cannot be attributed to politicians, but rather inexperienced / negligent / or just simply awful healthcare staff.
And before you say that the hospital simply didn't have the resources I would have to disagree, they should always have resources to care for the most vulnerable of patients who ought to have the highest of priorities.
Paying for potentially life saving medical is simply barbaric![/QUOTE]
Except they didn't have the manpower at all, the hospital felt like a goddamn triage center in a third world country. I'm not saying that its terrible in all aspects, it works for some countries. But doing it on a large size scale for a country like the U.S would be a logistics disaster. Its not like they would dump him out in the street if he coulnd't afford it here either.
[QUOTE=Saxon;42703954]As much as I like the idea of free healthcare for all in the U.S I don't think it would work. I've seen first hand how bad it gets in the U.K because of all the people dragging it down. My grandfather almost bled out and died (who's a british citizen) waiting in a lobby for 5 hours.[/QUOTE]
There are issues with the NHS, and there always will be, but the NHS literally saved my life, saved my old man's life, and sort of saved my mum's life. On the whole, it does a good job.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;42701633]And then he dies on a waiting list.
Oh wait, no, those are a libertopian conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE]
Look dude I'm certain it's awful in the possibly socialist Latin American country you live in but 1st World nations don't have some comical conservative narrated world of waiting list healthcare.
Why can't there be a mix of both systems. If you don't want to go to a public hospital, should you not be able to go to a private one? If you can't afford a private hospital, should you not be able to go to a public one?
[QUOTE=Incoming.;42706897]Why can't there be a mix of both systems. If you don't want to go to a public hospital, should you not be able to go to a private one? If you can't afford a private hospital, should you not be able to go to a public one?[/QUOTE]
Most countries with these systems do this. Rather than having separated private/ public hospitals most private healthcare just entitles you to better wards and private rooms in public hospitals, along with lower waiting times and sometimes better doctors.
I thought that's exactly what the NHS (Britain) is.
[QUOTE=Saxon;42703954]As much as I like the idea of free healthcare for all in the U.S I don't think it would work. I've seen first hand how bad it gets in the U.K because of all the people dragging it down. My grandfather almost bled out and died (who's a british citizen) waiting in a lobby for 5 hours.[/QUOTE]
This would never happen in the US since if someone dies in the lobby, its on their watch and liability. Hospitals hate paying out to people.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;42701231]Actually if we're talking about actual universal healthcare then the map looks more like this
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Universal_health_care.svg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
brazil should be green in that map, health care is a constitutional right(even is our free healthcare is shit, it IS there for everyone).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
