2012 US Presidential Election

[raspberry jam]

Money is not the same as supply. Say I have 100 potatoes to feed 1000 people, I can cut the potatoes into chips and fry them or just tell people to boil them, which is significantly cheaper. However, it does not change the fact that there are not enough potatoes to feed everyone. Just because you spend more does not mean you have enough to supply your population, in other words, you face the difficulty of determining to what extent should people be allowed to die and refused treatment. Money is a relatively good tool in this case, because it allows sustainability of the healthcare system. No matter how many potatoes you have, it will do little good to eat them raw.

But actually, in places with public healthcare (such as where I live), there are enough doctors to treat everyone. Sure, people must wait for months or (in rare cases) years to get surgery and what not, but practically no one dies while waiting.

[Giggles]

@Kael Valeran

I fail to see what you're trying to compare here. The US (which is what I'm assuming you're comparing things to) has a for profit healthcare system that is overspending more then any other country in the world, that is not adequately covering or caring for it's populace and you're trying to compare it to a finite amount of potatoes and how they should be cooked? If you're short on doctors and nurses then you probably need to hire more. If it's a money problem either you need to look at what you're spending money on (drug costs are a huge one right now because of the Pharmaceutical industry holding patents so there's no cheap generics), find what wasteful practices or find better ways to deliver care like preventative care. I'm sure there's many other things that you can do as well. None of this has anything to do with a public or for profit health care system. They'd both have to deal with this. The difference is if you're working for a for profit system, then they're going to want to make money. That's a pretty bad conflict of interest going on there.

[RD]

Just because you spend more does not mean you have enough to supply your population, in other words, you face the difficulty of determining to what extent should people be allowed to die and refused treatment. Money is a relatively good tool in this case, because it allows sustainability of the healthcare system. No matter how many potatoes you have, it will do little good to eat them raw.

I kind of don't understand your point here, but I for sure don't think people (especially insurance providers) should have the decision of who should be treated and who should not be.

Also, if you guys think no one will vote for Santorum, you are underestimating the number of stupid people in the US. I do not think he will win (and I freaking hope not), but he'll get votes. McCain got votes even with that retard he had in tow (and she's now considered one of the least favorable Republicans.)

[Alaris]

The conflict of interest is with (1) the insurance companies not wanting to pay up when you need it, (2) the doctors not wanting to treat patients that cannot afford the healthcare costs, and (3) pharmaceuticals not wanting to lower costs of meds even if doing so would save lives.

You could in theory have a private healthcare system that covers the population provided you find a good way to make sure everyone can afford it. I think Obama's plan is a decent one, that is, making sure everyone has basic coverage. That fixes #1-2, but not #3.

-----

@RD: yeah, Santorum will get votes, enough to make Obama actually work for his win. Bush got elected TWICE. TWICE! When I see people like that actually being viable candidates for presidency, it makes my faith in the US population drop by quite a bit. (disclaimer: I still don't know much about Santorum, my rant is based on the assumption of what was posted above being largely true)

[Zalis]

There are a lot of people who will vote for anyone that isn't Obama. So, all the Republican front-runner has to do is keep their nose clean and... well, not be Obama.

That doesn't mean they'll necessarily win, but there's enough general discontent to make it a good start for them. Kind of like how Kerry wasn't that great of a candidate.

[RD]

Ugh, pharma..... They are just as bad. I wouldn't be surprised, not even a little bit, if they eventually keep a cure for cancer from being readily available.

[Alaris]

Surely they would patent it and sell it for $$$

Also, they are plenty who vote republican regardless of who is the candidate.

[Zalis]

Also, they are plenty who vote [party lines] regardless of who is the candidate.

Fixed that for you.

[Alaris]

@Zalis: agreed, but I was referring to Santorum getting "free votes" in particular. I'm sure Clinton, Obama, et al also got their fair share of free votes. I heard though that a greater proportion of republican votes were regardless of candidate, whereas democrat votes tend to be less so. Honestly though, I am not sure how they'd go about measuring that.

I do want to see less partisanship and less media lying... perhaps when that happens the US can really turn around and start fixing itself.

[Art]

Red or blue, the choice is yours.

-Art