Health

Rave

Insurance issues explained by napkins

Posted 30 months ago|13 comments|632 views
Written by
The link at the left is an amusing - and insightful - depiction of the current debate about health insurance, rendered in napkin drawings (actually an amusing slideshow). Whether you're upset at the corporatist pigs keeping us in the insurance industry's pockets, or the communist pinkos trying to destroy America, you should take a look. Cuts through a lot of the noise.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
30 months ago: Just what we need. Now it's napkin care. Great. The slide show is another socialist opinion page. Government is not the hero.
30 months ago: Heynn.
That's wrong.
Actually, what's broken is the government has attached so many strings to Medicare and Medicaid that it has corrupted the doctor patient relationship. If Government goes away from health care, most of the problems will be solved.
30 months ago: Ummm, redstateguy? I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Medicare and Medicaid are government programs. Are you saying they should exist, but the government should have no say in how the money is spent? That's not a health insurance program, that's just wealth redistribution.

Wait... Are you a communist?
30 months ago: heynn.
It's hard for you and I to communicate clearly with each other.
Let me try it this way.
Medicare and Medicaid generally suck, and they harm the entire medical system in our country.
30 months ago: Then why are they so consistently rated higher than other insurance programs? Why do we use a similar system for our veterans? Why do countries that provide similar services to all of their citizens consistently rate better than the United States on the World Health Organization's list of best healthcare systems? You can't just say they "suck" without some backing data. You personally may think they suck for idealogical reasons - I was kidding about the "communist" thing - but you don't have any empirical data to back it up.

Look... I get that you think it's socialism, and that you automatically equate anything socialized with failure. But with the sheer number of functioning medical systems out there that exceed ours in quality - when by rights, ours ought to be the best in the world - perhaps it's time to entertain the notion that your ideology, in this case, may be wrong.
30 months ago: heynnn.
You are correct a bunch of the time.
Other than knowing the VA health system is a corrupt fiasco, I do not have any data or personal knowledge about the rest of the world.
I am confident, however, that government can do nothing well. Period.
Assuming other countries have better medical services (which I do not believe), get our government out of the pictures completely and watch it blossom.
30 months ago: Again, that's ideology, not empirical fact. And redstateguy, how consistent are you with that ideology? Does the government do military poorly?

And when you say it can do nothing well, well in comparison to what? Our current insurance industry is terrible. If the government handles insurance better than the insurance industry, even if only by a little bit, wouldn't that negate your argument?
29 months ago: heynnn.
The government could do military a whole lot better. There are flaws.
Government is needed ONLY when large amounts of cash are necessary. That is military. PERIOD.
We can agree to disagree whether or not the government can handle insurance better than private enterprise.
History reflects government is good at nothing.
Period.
(I mean, look at it. Look who makes up "government". A bunch of no-overhead paying, no-work your fingers to the bone just to try to get by, I'm smarted than everyone else in the world, DC elite....)
29 months ago: Compared to the "market", government has no redeeming qualities at all.
29 months ago: @redstateguy

Paying for health care for everyone is very expensive. Wouldn't that pass your "large amounts of cash are necessary" qualification?

And I can practically smell the anti-intellectualism rising off your comments. Look... Smart people - the kind of smart people you denigrate - built your bridges, invented your automobiles, figured out your electricity, developed your internet... You owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the intellectuals you mock.
29 months ago: redstateguy: (I mean, look at it. Look who makes up "government". A bunch of no-overhead paying, no-work your fingers to the bone just to try to get by, I'm smarted than everyone else in the world, DC elite....)

Apt description of the Republican party. These are the guys *you* vote for. For comparison's sake:

Obama: Grew up poor. Put in his time in community organizing and activism. Was not and is not wealthy.

Bush Jr.: Born into wealth.

Clinton: Grew up poor, raised by a single mother.

Bush Sr.: Born into wealth.

Reagan: Born into wealth.

Seriously, you vote for the privileged class. It's by no means universal, of course, but let's face it: Being a Republican politician today means you were probably born into money.
29 months ago: Heynnn.

I agree any politician, repubes or dewhits, are egotistical and the smartest man (or woman) in the room. They also do not realize they have inferiority complexes. They all are clowns and fools.

If you define "prvileged class" as those who got off their butts every time they were knocked onto it and worked hard to etch out a living, yep, that's who I look to vote for.
29 months ago: Don't take this the wrong way, redstateguy, but did you read my previous post? I defined "privileged class" already. Born into wealth, never having to work a real job. You know, Republicans.

On the other hand, "those who got off their butts every time they were knocked onto it and worked hard to etch out a living" sounds a lot like, you guessed it, Democrats. So you're voting Democrat now, bluestateguy? ;)

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.