Health Care for Everyone

[ryzno]

Seriously man?!

 

[Sander 001]

So I take it you're not interested in having a conversation and instead just want to post screenshots?

I am not wasting more time with your semantics argument or his strawmen.

 

[Danoff]

his strawmen.

 

[BobK]

So you're telling me that my service in the armed forces was socialism?

 

[PeterJB]

I am not wasting more time with your semantics argument or his strawmen.

If Trump loses access to that healthcare plan when he leaves the White House then it's not socialised, it's just one of the many perks of the job. In the UK you don't have to work in order to be able to use the NHS, you just have to live here.

 

[Sander 001]

If Trump loses access to that healthcare plan when he leaves the White House then it's not socialised, it's just one of the many perks of the job. In the UK you don't have to work in order to be able to use the NHS, you just have to live here.

Thank you for your interpretation of socialized, I appreciate
it
Here's what I was going with

 

[Joey D]

If Trump loses access to that healthcare plan when he leaves the White House then it's not socialised, it's just one of the many perks of the job. In the UK you don't have to work in order to be able to use the NHS, you just have to live here.

So I investigated this more. Apparently, the president has to pay for health insurance. They can get any plan they want, but if they want 75% of their expenses covered, they need to buy a plan through the Affordable Care Act. They do get free healthcare if they go to a military hospital, but it's not free if they go to a private hospital. Obama paid $400 a month for his health insurance.

There's also a fully staffed medical center within the White House too. I'm not sure what the equivalent is in the UK, but it's sort of like an urgent care, which is sort of a walk-in clinic for non-life-threatening injuries and ailments.

So despite what @Sander 001 is trying to say, it's not socialized medicine at all. The president gets free care if they use military medical services, which pretty much all people serving in the military get (the president is apart of the military), but if they want to get care elsewhere, they have to pay up.

I'm not sure if you can access the LA Times where you are, but here's an article on it from 2017: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-trump-presidential-healthcare-20170322-story.html

 

[Danoff]

So despite what @Sander 001 is trying to say, it's not socialized medicine at all. The president gets free care if they use military medical services, which pretty much all people serving in the military get (the president is apart of the military), but if they want to get care elsewhere, they have to pay up.

...and even in the case where the President does not have to pay, it is not socialized healthcare. A socialized benefit is one that society is entitled to from the government. It is not payment for services rendered, or part of employment compensation.

I feel like this has been beaten to death at this point.

 

[ryzno]

I feel like this has been beaten to death at this point

And he still ain't listening...

 

[Sander 001]

So despite what @Sander 001 is trying to say, it's not socialized medicine at all.

 

[Joey D]

So you're just going to keep spamming the same picture over and over again while still trying to force your incorrect point? How about actually forming some sort of response that isn't a picture or a Tweet?

 

[Sander 001]

So you're just going to keep spamming the same picture over and over again while still trying to force your incorrect point? How about actually forming some sort of response that isn't a picture or a Tweet?

Are you just going to keep spamming a semantics argument because you can't admit that your personal interpretation doesn't align?

 

[ryzno]

You know what, I'll give it to you man. You stand by your Tweets no matter how incorrect they are. More power to ya bro.

 

[Famine]

Are you just going to keep spamming a semantics argument because you can't admit that your personal interpretation doesn't align?

What you're posting literally disagrees with you. It clearly states that "socialized healthcare (= government control of healthcare)". While what Trump experienced was paid for through taxation (because it's funded by the DOD and the White House) it was not part of a socialized healthcare program, and government does not have control of healthcare in the USA - it merely has some healthcare provision that you are neither required to pay for or use.

You've posted the same image four times now and it's either genuine ignorance that stops you seeing this or it's deliberate and you're just trolling. Either way, you're spamming this image, and it's for no good reason.


In addition, as the USA does not have a hypothecated taxation system (which I tried to spell out for you), the amount of personal income tax Trump paid (which I also tried to spell out for you) is not relevant to the healthcare he received even if he weren't the actual President. The Tweet tries to make a point to the contrary, and it's merely one of the rebuttals @Danoff issued in response - which you claimed is a strawman, even though it address the actual argument made in the Tweet and not one he made up.

 

[Sander 001]

What you're posting literally disagrees with you. It clearly states that "socialized healthcare (= government control of healthcare)". While what Trump experienced was paid for through taxation (because it's funded by the DOD and the White House) it was not part of a socialized healthcare program, and government does not have control of healthcare in the USA - it merely has some healthcare provision that you are neither required to pay for or use. You've posted the same image four times now and it's either genuine ignorance that stops you seeing this or it's deliberate and you're just trolling. Either way, you're spamming this image, and it's for no good reason.


In addition, as the USA does not have a hypothecated taxation system (which I tried to spell out for you), the amount of personal income tax Trump paid (which I also tried to spell out for you) is not relevant to the healthcare he received even if he weren't the actual President. The Tweet tries to make a point to the contrary, and it's merely one of the rebuttals @Danoff issued in response - which you claimed is a strawman, even though it address the actual argument made in the Tweet and not one he made up.

"Provided by or paid for by the government."

That's all I meant and that's what it is.

 

[Famine]

"Provided by or paid for by the government."

That's all I meant and that's what it is.

Cool. The rest of the definition provides an example use which clearly states the concept of government control in the context of socialized healthcare.

You're disagreeing with your own source.

 

[Sander 001]

Cool. The rest of the definition provides an example use which clearly states the concept of government control in the context of socialized healthcare.

You're disagreeing with your own source.

Control has a very broad meaning and the definition would not contradict itself.

 

[Joey D]

Are you just going to keep spamming a semantics argument because you can't admit that your personal interpretation doesn't align?

You don't have a fundamental understanding of what a benefit of employment is, or socialism for that matter. You're saying that anything paid for with tax dollars or provided by the government is "socialized". By that definition, every war ever fought by the US is a socialized war that used socialized guns, socialized drones, and socialized guided missiles.

Trump is getting his healthcare from Walter Reed because it's a perk of the job. If he were to go anywhere other than a military hospital, he'd have to pay. So he's only getting "free healthcare" at one particular facility, or set of facilities. I get a similar perk as part of my employment as long as I go to a clinic operated by the health system I work for. If I go anywhere else I have to pay a significantly higher rate.

 

[Famine]

Control has a very broad meaning and the definition would not contradict itself.

And again, in this context - because it literally gives a context - it means that healthcare is controlled by government. Not a hospital, not some doctors, not some drugs, but actual healthcare. It straight up says that in the image you keep spamming the site with.

You are disagreeing with your own source.

 

[Sander 001]

And again, in this context - because it literally gives a context - it means that healthcare is controlled by government. Not a hospital, not some doctors, not some drugs, but actual healthcare. It straight up says that in the image you keep spamming the site with.

You are disagreeing with your own source.

Government control precludes the use of doctors and hospitals? I don't understand what you mean

 

[Famine]

Government control precludes the use of doctors and hospitals? I don't understand what you mean

That's odd, as I already explained it to you.

While what Trump experienced was paid for through taxation (because it's funded by the DOD and the White House) it was not part of a socialized healthcare program, and government does not have control of healthcare in the USA - it merely has some healthcare provision that you are neither required to pay for or use.

Government control of healthcare is government control of healthcare. It is not government control of a particular hospital, nor is it government control of a particular staff body of doctors (and nurses, and medical assistants, and associated staff). It is government control of healthcare.

 

[ryzno]

Government control precludes the use of doctors and hospitals? I don't understand what you mean

What does government control have to do with the fact he received treatment as a benefit of his job?

 

[Sander 001]

That's odd, as I already explained it to you.

Government control of healthcare is government control of healthcare. It is not government control of a particular hospital, nor is it government control of a particular staff body of doctors (and nurses, and medical assistants, and associated staff). It is government control of healthcare.

So it's indirect control. Hands off. Administrative

 

[Famine]

So it's indirect control. Hands off. Administrative

No.

 

[Sander 001]

What does government control have to do with the fact he received treatment as a benefit of his job?

He wouldn't get the treatment at all if it wasn't arranged by the government and funded by taxpayers.

That's all I was saying.

 

[BobK]

He wouldn't get the treatment at all if it wasn't arranged by the government and funded by taxpayers.

That's all I was saying.

...which has nothing whatsoever to do with socialized medicine.

 

[Famine]

...which has nothing whatsoever to do with socialized medicine.

Or personal income tax, as the US doesn't have a hypothecated tax system.

 

[Sander 001]

...which has nothing whatsoever to do with socialized medicine.

The president's care was paid for by taxes, provided by the government.

What implications does it really have if you name it one thing or another?

 

[UKMikey]

I don't quite follow this line of conversation. Is Air Force One public transport because it's paid for by the public? It sounds like the country provides it for the President's use so he doesn't have to travel on Greyhound.

Let me know if the above isn't an acceptable analogy but I'm sure there are sounder arguments for universal health care than "Trump has his own hospital". I personally wouldn't choose to "die on this hill".

 

[Famine]

The president's care was paid for by taxes, provided by the government.

What implications does it really have if you name it one thing or another?

You clearly thought it was important enough to name it one thing, given the incessant image spamming. The original Tweet you posted referred to socialized healthcare, and you persistently posted a definition of "socialized" which disagreed with the concept both the Tweet and you were trying to convey - and which renders both the Tweet and your defence of it inaccurate at best; the US government does not control healthcare, thus it is not socialized healthcare, regardless of whether Trump was treated at a military (DOD/WH-funded) hospital or not.

The fact that the USA does not have a hypothecated tax system renders the Tweet utterly irrelevant in its entirety; why is the amount of personal income tax previously paid by someone who is now a government employee relevant to the point that a government employee receives care at a government facility, given that the tax system is not hypothecated? I've mentioned this three or four times now, and it seems to have gone completely un-noticed.

Again, this was what @Danoff brought up originally, and you inaccurately referred to his post as a strawman despite the fact that they directly address the comments made in the Tweet and refute them. Purely, it seems, on the fact that you either didn't understand the response or didn't like it.

The Tweet boils down to "Government employee who rejects the concept of federal control of healthcare before he was a government employee now, as a government employee, receives medical treatment at a government facility. Also he didn't pay a lot of personal income tax before he was a government employee, as if that's relevant."


I'm sure it seemed pithy enough when it appeared on your screen, but it's two nonsensical points jammed together as if they're making a coherent single point.