That last article made me laugh & cry. The WWW is becoming more and more centralized as individual companies/websites become monopolies on the particular utility they provide. Eg. Amazon is the centralized market place, eBay is the centralized auction centre, and Craigslist is nearly the centralized classifieds ads. Facebook is the centralized social network. Google the centralized search engine, etc...
Plus in the light of the NSA spying scandal it is impossible to argue that the gov't is incapable of running large scale IT systems or that centralized IT systems are impossible.
The problem is that gov't large scale IT projects aren't centralized enough! If the project was completely centralized: designed & developed by a single company/gov't entity rather than broken up and handed out to several independent contractors and getting imput from dozens of independent consultants/lobbyists there would be far fewer problems.
Almost always? More like always, unless science has invented artificial sperm. I'd like to respond to the logic here, but I'm having trouble properly putting it into words. Sorry.
artificial insemination. Sperm donors are anonymous for a reason, which is to prevent them ending up being held up for child support.
So why should they be held up for maternity care through a backdoor?
Of course such is the natural consequence of a one size fits all package.
Alternative would be different packages based on sex, race, marital status, age, etc. which would be even more unwieldy as the whole thing already is (and likely lead to screams about sexism, racism, and age discrimination as many specific groups of people who are not young single white men will end up with either reduced coverage and/or higher premiums because they are more susceptible (in fact often uniquely susceptible) to specific and often expensive to treat conditions that young single white men are not subject to (there are diseases that specifically target blacks, maternity care specifically targets women, etc.).
The problem is that gov't large scale IT projects aren't centralized enough! If the project was completely centralized: designed & developed by a single company/gov't entity rather than broken up and handed out to several independent contractors and getting imput from dozens of independent consultants/lobbyists there would be far fewer problems.
don't you love having to spread out the dollars to as many congressional districts as possible to buy as many votes as possible...
Most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.”
Rick Santorum speaking at a Young Americans for Freedom event Friday at the Reagan Ranch. The video for this amazing clip can be seen here
So according to Rick, Obama is giving everyone free health care (it isn't free) because if he doesn't, poor people will get sick and die and not be able to vote against him.
Outstanding!
Wow, that's crazy. It's crazy that these people can listen back on what they said and probably can't even see how insane they sound.
This makes me think of this classic speech:
"The Republican health-care plan: 'Don't get sick! And if you do get sick... Die quickly!'"
-- Alan Grayson, Rep.(D-FL)
So according to Rick, Obama is giving everyone free health care (it isn't free) because if he doesn't, poor people will get sick and die and not be able to vote against him.
No, he's stating that that's how Obama is trying to sell the ACA to his constituency, that it means they're getting free healthcare and that "the rich" are going to pay for it through higher taxes and premiums (his intended constituency of unemployed, low income, etc. etc. people are all getting such high subsidies on their premiums under the ACA they're effectively getting free healthcare, at least free health insurance which will often turn out to not cover the care they need when they need it).
It's the same way government run healthcare and health insurance is sold to the electorate in many countries, telling people "it's free" when in fact it's anything but.
Ask most people in the UK and they'll tell you the NHS provides "free healthcare". They've forgotten that that healthcare is paid for out of their taxes over the decades.
Same in Canada.
In the Netherlands, many people think their doctors are basically free. But they're not, they just get their healthcare paid for out of their health insurance completely and transparently, never seeing a bill, and the insurance bill is automatically taken from their bank accounts so they never see it (except once a year when a new policy arrives listing the new premiums).
etc. etc. etc.
Yes, someone has to pay for it sometime -- the docctors, nurses, hospital staff, etc don't all work for free, they have to make a living too otherwise they'd do something else such as digging ditches. I've heard for years that the top dollar-makers leave the UK because if high taxes.
So according to Rick, Obama is giving everyone free health care (it isn't free) because if he doesn't, poor people will get sick and die and not be able to vote against him.
I'm confused, isn't Rick's point that nationalized ('free') healthcare doesn't make people better, but instead wants them to die so they can't complain about it?
Because in the original quote:
If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done. Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health…When Thatcher ran for prime minister she said — remember this, this is the Iron Lady — she said, ‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands.’ She wasn’t going to take on health care, because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them. And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.
Isn't Rick using the "you die and you don't vote" to explain why Margaret Thatcher had to claim to protect and not privatize the UK's National Health System?
I had similar "what on earth are you talking about?" feelings about the Alan Grayson clip. It's like they are trying to explain things to a 5 year old.
Next week tune in for: "Replicans want to kill your mom" vs "Democrats are going steal your piggy bank"
It's the same way government run healthcare and health insurance is sold to the electorate in many countries, telling people "it's free" when in fact it's anything but.
Ask most people in the UK and they'll tell you the NHS provides "free healthcare". They've forgotten that that healthcare is paid for out of their taxes over the decades.
?????
Free means its availablility is not dependent on your personal ability to pay for it.
The closest thing to objectively/absolutely free is the air we breath but the act of breathing using energy which comes from food which cost money so even that is not completely free.
PS Both Canada and the UK have elections every four years in which one of the major issues is invariably healthcare spending so we are under no illusion that healthcare doesn't cost money through taxes.
No, he's stating that that's how Obama is trying to sell the ACA to his constituency
According to Santorum, by denying affordable health care to poor people they will get sick and die and not vote for the Democrats. So if I understand what he meant to say then he is basically claiming that both sides are trying to game the system to their advantage. The difference is, if it is gamed in favour of the Republicans, poor people die.
Many studies (such as this one) over the years have tied life expectancy to economic status. Whether availability of heal insurance has anything to do with it, I don't know. But I would expect it to have some influence. Example: I probably would have died about 8 years ago had it not been for my health insurance paying for heart doctor putting stints in my heart. Someone without heart insurance probably would have just died.
To me, Santorum's words are very clear. He is saying that providing 'free' healthcare to all is a ploy by the Democrats to save the lifes of a bunch of people (poor and middle-class) who would normally die under the current system, and that those people who will benefit greatly from this system will be forever grateful and inclined to keep voting for the Democrats and never allow a repeal of the 'free' healthcare system. In other words, "we're done", as he says, referring to the Republican party and the TEA party's anti-healthcare agenda. Then, he describes the "clever system" that has worked for the GOP for so long, which is to let people die so quickly and ruthlessly that they can never really have the energy or the means to fight for a better healthcare system, and at the same time, reducing the population that is likely to vote for a party that seems (on the surface) to advocate for better healthcare. (but, of course, both parties receive about as much donations and bribes from the big healthcare players (pharma, insurers, providers, etc.), making this whole thing a rather pointless political circus anyway)
These really are insane words, but what else would you expect from Santorum.
As for that speech by Alan Grayson, that was basically him (Dem.) attacking the Republicans by stating (with a punchline) the de-facto GOP position on this issue, which is the same thing that Santorum described as the GOP strategy in his speech. That's the thing with the GOP, all you need to do is repeat exactly what they say, and people will accuse you of viciously ridiculing them.
No the more times I read and re-read Santorum's comment the more I'm sure your interpretation is not right.
He says:
If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done.
It's unclear whether he's referring to the Republican Party or specifically people who oppose Obamacare. I acknowledge these are nearly synonymous but the distinction is whether the discussion is specifically about the healthcare issue or whether it is a wider political strategy discussion.
Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health…
Ok this sentence reinforces that he is talking about Nationalized Healthcare not the Republican approach to healthcare nor Obamacare.
When Thatcher ran for prime minister she said — remember this, this is the Iron Lady — she said, ‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands.’ She wasn’t going to take on health care,
Ok so now he refers to Thatcher who was the UK equivalent to Reagan representing an epitome of conservatism. He points out that she was unwilling to attack the UK Nationalized Healthcare System.
(we can also use this to further understand his previous statements because despite the existence of nationalized healthcare in the UK a very right-wing politician (equivalent to a Republican) was elected several times in the UK. So "we're done" probably refers to all opponents of nationalized healthcare rather than specifically the Republican Party.)
because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them.
Here he reinforces his point that once you implement a nationalized healthcare system it is very difficult politically to get rid of it (implicitly because of a public backlash). Then he goes on to say:
And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system.
So clearly this is meant to explain why it is hard to get rid of nationalized healthcare once it has been implemented. It has nothing to do with the Republican plan for healthcare.
If you consider the rest of Republican rhetoric about Obamacare and gov't provided healthcare it is clear one of their core beliefs (mistake though it is) is that government supplied healthcare just doesn't work - it doesn't make people better, rather they die on waitinglists or because of long lines at A&E or because the gov't is unwilling to pay for the new-fangled drug that would have saved them (ie: they don't recieve healthcare). That is the motivations for the "death-panel" comments and the endless comments by Bill O'Reilly that gov't healthcare "doesn't work".
Thus I conclude what he means is that the reason nationalized healthcare is so hard to get rid of is because the people who experience the failures and problems of the system die so they are not around to vote for privatization.
He then concludes with:
Take care of the people who can vote and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.
He is trying to reinforce his point above that given that gov't healthcare is bad and kills/hurts more people than privatized healthcare (Note: >100,000 die of medical mistakes with the current privatized healthcare system in the USA) and that the people who suffer the consequences of the poor quality healthcare all/mostly die and thus don't vote against it.
I assume by "Take care of the people who can vote" he means providing preventative/basic/cheap stuff that healthy people use. The second half of that sentence doesn't make any sense what so-ever (why do you need to kill-off people who can't vote to prevent them voting against you? if they can't vote then they can't vote against you anyway...).
Of course this argument is fundamentally flawed on many levels:
1) Why don't the family and friends of the people who die from the "bad gov't healthcare" vote against it?
2) The assumption that nationalized healthcare is of lower quality than private healthcare is not supported by facts: statistics show that countries with nationalized healthcare have longer life-expectancies and lower child mortality than countries of similar economic development without nationalized healthcare.
3) Lots of people who suffer from medical mistakes don't die from it (hence the huge number of lawyers advertising to fight your medical malpractice case)
4) The same argument can be used to argue for why privatized healthcare self-perpetuates (the poor who can't afford health insurance die & can't vote against it).
No the more times I read and re-read Santorum's comment the more I'm sure your interpretation is not right.
He says:
If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done.
It's unclear whether he's referring to the Republican Party or specifically people who oppose Obamacare. I acknowledge these are nearly synonymous but the distinction is whether the discussion is specifically about the healthcare issue or whether it is a wider political strategy discussion.
Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health…
Ok this sentence reinforces that he is talking about Nationalized Healthcare not the Republican approach to healthcare nor Obamacare.
When Thatcher ran for prime minister she said — remember this, this is the Iron Lady — she said, ‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands.’ She wasn’t going to take on health care,
Ok so now he refers to Thatcher who was the UK equivalent to Reagan indicating an epitome of conservatism. He points out that she was unwilling to attack the UK Nationalized Healthcare System.
(we can also use this to further understand his previous statements because despite the existence of nationalized healthcare in the UK a very right-wing politician (equivalent to a Republican) was elected several times in the UK. So "we're done" probably refers to all opponents of nationalized healthcare rather than specifically the Republican Party.)
because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them.
Here he reinforces his point that once you implement a nationalized healthcare system it is very difficult politically to get rid of it (implicitly because of a public backlash). Then he goes on to say:
And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote.
So clearly this is meant to explain why it is hard to get rid of nationalized healthcare once it has been implemented. It has nothing to do with the Republican plan for healthcare.
If you consider the rest of Republican rhetoric about Obamacare and gov't provided healthcare it is clear one of their core beliefs (mistake though it is) is that government supplied healthcare just doesn't work - it doesn't make people better, rather they die on waitinglists or because of long lines at A&E or because the gov't is unwilling to pay for the new-fangled drug that would have saved them. That is the motivations for the "death-panel" comments and the endless comments by Bill O'Reilly that gov't healthcare "doesn't work".
Thus I conclude what he means is that the reason nationalized healthcare is so hard to get rid of is because the people who experience the failures and problems of the system die so they are not around to vote for privatization.
He then concludes with:
It’s actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.
Again just reinforcing his point above that given that gov't healthcare is bad and kills/hurts more people than privatized healthcare (Note: >100,000 die of medical mistakes with the current privatized healthcare system in the USA) and that the people who suffer the consequences of the poor quality healthcare all/mostly die and thus don't vote against it.
Of course this argument is fundamentally flawed on many levels:
1) Why don't the family and friends of the people who die from the "bad gov't healthcare" vote against it?
2) The assumption that nationalized healthcare is of lower quality than private healthcare is not supported by facts: statistics show that countries with nationalized healthcare have longer life-expectancies and lower child mortality than countries of similar economic development without nationalized healthcare.
3) Lots of people who suffer from medical mistakes don't die from it (hence the huge number of lawyers advertising to fight your medical malpractice case)
4) The same argument can be used to argue for why privatized healthcare self-perpetuates (the poor who can't afford health insurance die & can't vote against it).
No the more times I read and re-read Santorum's comment the more I'm sure your interpretation is not right.
He says:
If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done.
It's unclear whether he's referring to the Republican Party or specifically people who oppose Obamacare. I acknowledge these are nearly synonymous but the distinction is whether the discussion is specifically about the healthcare issue or whether it is a wider political strategy discussion.
Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health…
Ok this sentence reinforces that he is talking about Nationalized Healthcare not the Republican approach to healthcare nor Obamacare.
When Thatcher ran for prime minister she said — remember this, this is the Iron Lady — she said, ‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands.’ She wasn’t going to take on health care,
Ok so now he refers to Thatcher who was the UK equivalent to Reagan indicating an epitome of conservatism. He points out that she was unwilling to attack the UK Nationalized Healthcare System.
(we can also use this to further understand his previous statements because despite the existence of nationalized healthcare in the UK a very right-wing politician (equivalent to a Republican) was elected several times in the UK. So "we're done" probably refers to all opponents of nationalized healthcare rather than specifically the Republican Party.)
because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them.
Here he reinforces his point that once you implement a nationalized healthcare system it is very difficult politically to get rid of it (implicitly because of a public backlash). Then he goes on to say:
And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system.
So clearly this is meant to explain why it is hard to get rid of nationalized healthcare once it has been implemented. It has nothing to do with the Republican plan for healthcare.
If you consider the rest of Republican rhetoric about Obamacare and gov't provided healthcare it is clear one of their core beliefs (mistake though it is) is that government supplied healthcare just doesn't work - it doesn't make people better, rather they die on waitinglists or because of long lines at A&E or because the gov't is unwilling to pay for the new-fangled drug that would have saved them. That is the motivations for the "death-panel" comments and the endless comments by Bill O'Reilly that gov't healthcare "doesn't work".
Thus I conclude what he means is that the reason nationalized healthcare is so hard to get rid of is because the people who experience the failures and problems of the system die so they are not around to vote for privatization.
He then concludes with:
Take care of the people who can vote and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.
He is trying to reinforce his point above that given that gov't healthcare is bad and kills/hurts more people than privatized healthcare (Note: >100,000 die of medical mistakes with the current privatized healthcare system in the USA) and that the people who suffer the consequences of the poor quality healthcare all/mostly die and thus don't vote against it.
I think the whole "vote"/"can't vote" distinction is because he is addressing youth, so he is trying to say "Because youth can't vote, nationalized healthcare systems won't provide you good healthcare - they will prioritize healthcare resources to older people who can vote, and to prevent you from living until you get to vote when you will vote against it they will try to get rid of you by letting you die" - I think, the whole getting rid of people who can't vote to prevent them voting against you is extremely confusing.
Of course this argument is fundamentally flawed on many levels:
1) Why don't the family and friends of the people who die from the "bad gov't healthcare" vote against it?
2) The assumption that nationalized healthcare is of lower quality than private healthcare is not supported by facts: statistics show that countries with nationalized healthcare have longer life-expectancies and lower child mortality than countries of similar economic development without nationalized healthcare.
3) Lots of people who suffer from medical mistakes don't die from it (hence the huge number of lawyers advertising to fight your medical malpractice case)
4) The mortality rate of youth/young people is extremely low in developped countries so it is stupid to think that giving them crappy healthcare would actually kill them off.
5) The same argument can be used to argue for why privatized healthcare self-perpetuates (the poor who can't afford health insurance die & can't vote against it).
Thanks for that detailed explanation! I hadn't read it like that, but I understand his twisted logic now. Under the insane assumption that a nationalized healthcare system somehow kills off all sick people at incredible speed and somehow induces mass-amnesia for all friends and family of the departed, then, yeah, what he says makes perfect sense.
Oh.. what a fool I was to assume that the reason Tatcher couldn't touch the NHS was that everyone clearly knew that it works orders of magnitude better than a privatized system. Same reason no one would dare to touch this system in Canada either. How foolish of me to think that! :rolleyes:
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.