Universal health care in a universe created by God

[Will Bouwman]

the inherent veniality of human nature.

There are no "special good" human beings. We're all fallen and flawed.

Well, nobody's perfect, but you are over egging it. Either you are a Christian because you are misanthropic, or you are misanthropic because you are a Christian. My own view is that your poor regard for humanity is based on your feelings for the example you know best.

[Immanuel Can]

Unless there is some dystopian cesspool that you have had the misfortune to end up in, the above is hyperbolic, hand waving, gossipy bollocks.

It depends where you look. There are areas of any country that are beautiful, and where there are healthy, happy people. But as with London, there are areas where things are very dark indeed. To point out the latter isn't to imply that the former don't exist.

So don't be jaded and disproportionate. All I'm saying is that if you were here, you'd certainly be able to find people in both states. At the same time, you'd see that many -- particularly the mentally ill, the homeless, and the addicted -- are not being served by the healthcare system, or by any particular system at all. In your own town, go and wander through Brixton, or saunter over to Tower Hamlets. Does that mean that the Lake District or Windsor don't exist? Or does it just mean that bad things tend to be concentrated in specific areas?

I think you know.

As for dystopian cesspools, I note that the report on the grooming gangs has just been released. Perhaps not all is as sunny and wonderful in the UK as you'd like us to believe. It would seem that your governmental organizations aren't always doing their job, either.

[Immanuel Can]

the inherent veniality of human nature.

There are no "special good" human beings. We're all fallen and flawed.

Well, nobody's perfect, but you are over egging it.

I don't think I am. All of us are divided by our better and worse impulses. There are those who know that, and those who pretend it's not so; but there are no people in which it IS not so.

[MikeNovack]

I don't think I am. All of us are divided by our better and worse impulses. There are those who know that, and those who pretend it's not so; but there are no people in which it IS not so.

But you do realize that is a SPECIFIC religious view. To give a counter example, there is another religion where it is believed that at any given time there are 36 righteous persons.

[Impenitent]

not to mention the religious angles with 90 degrees of righteousness...

-Imp

[phyllo]

That's not very acute

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think I am. All of us are divided by our better and worse impulses. There are those who know that, and those who pretend it's not so; but there are no people in which it IS not so.

But you do realize that is a SPECIFIC religious view. To give a counter example, there is another religion where it is believed that at any given time there are 36 righteous persons.

There's a more important question: is it true? Does it accurately describe the world as we find it to be?

I would say, "Yes." And I think any fair evaluation of human conduct inevitably arrives at the same conclusion.

If it's true, it doesn't matter how many "religions" do or do not agree with it. Truth is truth.

[Impenitent]

universal health care... change high school to 14 years

grades 13 and 14 force everyone to earn their LPN license

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

I don't think I am. All of us are divided by our better and worse impulses. There are those who know that, and those who pretend it's not so; but there are no people in which it IS not so.

But you do realize that is a SPECIFIC religious view. To give a counter example, there is another religion where it is believed that at any given time there are 36 righteous persons.

There's a more important question: is it true? Does it accurately describe the world as we find it to be?

I would say, "Yes." And I think any fair evaluation of human conduct inevitably arrives at the same conclusion.

If it's true, it doesn't matter how many "religions" do or do not agree with it. Truth is truth.

I'm losing your train of argument. Are you saying "yes" there are 36 righteous persons at any given time?

[Immanuel Can]

But you do realize that is a SPECIFIC religious view. To give a counter example, there is another religion where it is believed that at any given time there are 36 righteous persons.

There's a more important question: is it true? Does it accurately describe the world as we find it to be?

I would say, "Yes." And I think any fair evaluation of human conduct inevitably arrives at the same conclusion.

If it's true, it doesn't matter how many "religions" do or do not agree with it. Truth is truth.

I'm losing your train of argument. Are you saying "yes" there are 36 righteous persons at any given time?

No, Gary. I'm saying that it doesn't matter what they think. What matters is what is true.

[Will Bouwman]

Unless there is some dystopian cesspool that you have had the misfortune to end up in, the above is hyperbolic, hand waving, gossipy bollocks.

It depends where you look.

Well, the hyperbolic, hand waving, gossipy bollocks in question is this:

Yet healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

It is not true. You are wrong and cannot admit it; which makes this tragicomic:

So don't be jaded and disproportionate.

It's projection. On balance, I laugh at your vainglory more than I pity you for it.
Were it not for the fact that history demonstrates you will do neither, I would suggest you deal with the issue, or fūck off.

[Immanuel Can]

Yet healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

It is not true.

It certainly is. Go and see. You won't miss it: take a walk in any of the homeless areas in a major city. See if they have any medical care there. See how many are in dire circumstances and in need of long-term interventions. It's quite inescapable that adding them to the lists of universal-care patients would explode the costs -- and things like treatment for fentanyl or mental illness are definitely not cheap and not short term...and sadly, rarely successful, too.

This is the problem. The proponents of universal health care refuse to think of the costs. They refuse to think of the limitations of ability to serve. They just think they can wave their magic wand, and the health care system will expand to any size they need, and suddenly be capable of taking care of everybody for free. Like so many Socialists, they have zero care for or understanding of basic economics, and think such things can be supplanted with good wishes and hopes, because they think the government has its own money, and that that money is in infinite supply. They imagine it's just the mean people who are keeping them from having everything they can imagine -- free and abundant health care for all, with no economic limitations at all.

They couldn't manage a lemonade stand. They shouldn't be dictating something as hugely important as health-care economics.

[Will Bouwman]

Yet healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

It is not true.

It certainly is. Go and see. You won't miss it: take a walk in any of the homeless areas in a major city. See if they have any medical care there. See how many are in dire circumstances and in need of long-term interventions. It's quite inescapable that adding them to the lists of universal-care patients would explode the costs...

By how much? Without any figures, it is just shrieking hyperbole.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not true.

It certainly is. Go and see. You won't miss it: take a walk in any of the homeless areas in a major city. See if they have any medical care there. See how many are in dire circumstances and in need of long-term interventions. It's quite inescapable that adding them to the lists of universal-care patients would explode the costs...

By how much? Without any figures, it is just shrieking hyperbole.

Not a bit. If you go and look, you'll find thousands and thousands of such cases, and not just in every major city but in smaller, more rural ones.

Nobody knows exactly how bad the demand will be: astronomically high, for sure, but nobody has a final number, because we can't number all the street people, can't know in advance how long they will need treatment, and cannot know what it will take to get them out of the system again -- even if we can. Mental illness is not always resolvable; sometimes, ongoing clinical management is the best that can be done. What we do know is that to get even one fentanyl addict off the drug, it takes a lot of money and resources, and professional help. Even AI can't venture an estimated figure on that, because it varies so widely. But we do know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it's a lot.

But how much money do our wonderful Socialist think we need to infuse to the government to pay for what they want? That's a really good question. And if you imagine we should have a figure for what I say, we surely need a figure for that, as well. What is it?

[FlashDangerpants]

Making the perfect the enemy of the good isn't usually a winning strategy.