boingboing at April 23rd, 2014 15:08 — #1
spunkytws at April 23rd, 2014 15:17 — #2
Wait, why isn't Hollingsworth Hound preventing the doctor from giving Lucky Ducky "free" medical care? I'm sure he agrees with Ben Stein that Lucky Ducky's inability to afford insurance is merely the result of poor personal decisions, and that the real solution is religion.
thrull1 at April 23rd, 2014 16:26 — #3
Wait, what? You have to be trolling me. It is amazing what you guys to the south have to put up with.
I have to constantly reassure myself that US politics is notoriously noisy and that "Americans will always do the right thing — after exhausting all the alternatives"
knoxblox at April 23rd, 2014 16:37 — #4
Don't forget Kansas!
spunkytws at April 23rd, 2014 16:37 — #5
Do you genuinely believe that ""Americans will always* do the right thing" or are you just demonstrating the usual Canadian politeness?
*Emphasis added by me.
nadreck at April 23rd, 2014 16:50 — #6
And, of course, the emergency ward trip costs the state at least an order of magnitude more than what it would cost to pay for minimal preventative care. This cost, by unicorns and magic pixie dust, is always considered not to exist by critics of publicly run healthcare. Just like the cost of bankruptcies due to the extreme inefficiencies of private sector health care, the number one cause of bankruptcies in the US, magically don't exist.
Everybody's required to have car insurance because society got sick of the carnage and massive property damage caused by uninsured drivers which used to be picked up by that good old sucker "The Taxpayer". I have yet to hear why that situation is different for healthcare or gun ownership.
thrull1 at April 23rd, 2014 16:55 — #7
Perhaps I should have written "American's will eventually do the right thing" to generalize even further without absolutes. Because nobody likes absolutes anyway.
In all seriousness, I genuinely hope that this is true. I believe that people are generally good but I despair at the destructiveness and harm that I see perpetrated on the american population by their government.
brainspore at April 23rd, 2014 18:07 — #8
Yes, but denying access to emergency medical services would be barbaric whereas paying a smaller sum to keep people from needing those emergency medical services is OMG SOCIALISM.
kimmo at April 23rd, 2014 18:34 — #9
What an utterly sad and demented scenario.
quinquennial at April 23rd, 2014 19:06 — #10
I believe he's paraphrasing Winston Churchill who said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
steven_patz at April 23rd, 2014 20:47 — #11
it doesn't cost the states anything RIGHT now. But in 10 years? Who's the say.
carlmud at April 23rd, 2014 21:08 — #12
Yeah, it's much better to let your state's citizens suffer through more deficiencies of health care for another 10 years by not accepting free money on the off chance that it will cost more than free later?
I think that's the new health care plan from the GOP: Your illness and injury might go away in 10 years, so wait that long and then we'll treat it if it's still a problem. Oh, you died from that? Well, I guess we don't have to worry about paying to treat that symptom in 10 years! Sorry you weren't born into a wealthier family!
dloburns at April 23rd, 2014 23:44 — #13
THE WORD of Ronald Regan means that trying new things and deviating from an imagined ideal of the 50's (that never existed) is SOCIALISM
moioci at April 24th, 2014 01:59 — #14
Folks here seem to think that in the US the government picks up the tab for uninsured ER patients. This is not the case. The cost is borne by the hospital and the physicians who wind up providing services for free. Basically these costs are then passed on to those with insurance, driving up the cost for everyone else.
brainspore at April 24th, 2014 02:02 — #15
Yes, which is why all those hard-working insurance havers should be demanding a public system that pays for preventative care so fewer people end up in the ER.
kimmo at April 24th, 2014 03:57 — #16
How about, FUCK the concept of splitting health care among haves and have-nots in the first place - if the whole business wasn't a vile racket for a bunch of useless middlemen, there'd be plenty of care for everybody.
Why is it so unthinkable to try guaranteeing a certain minimum standard of living? I would way prefer to feel like I'm living in a civilised society than to actively create a permanent underclass; what's the fucking point of that anyway? Treat em mean to keep em keen, so shoes are shined cheap, guv'nor? WTF @ that Dickensian goddamn nightmare.
It's the work of arseholes.
phuzz at April 24th, 2014 04:54 — #17
If it bothers you that you country doesn't have public health care, when the UK does, don't worry! The Conservative party is doing their best to privatise our NHS so it more closely resembles the US system.
It makes sense if you're already using 1984 as a manual rather than a warning.
foolishowl at April 27th, 2014 23:21 — #18
I think the most important thing to remember about US politics is that politicians still consider the policy of "mutually assured destruction" to have been a great success -- that is, they believe in risking utter destruction in order to win a minor tactical victory. With regard to US health care, I think they're quite happy to risk devastating epidemics or worse, to avoid any injury to the insurance industry.
othermichael at April 28th, 2014 11:30 — #19
othermichael at April 28th, 2014 11:32 — #20
The portion of my friends that froths over Obamacare and waves Ron Paul books at me also has sharp words for freedom-stifling forced auto insurance, not that they'd ever skimp on such a thing....
next page →