The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[Sander 001]

Let's try this with political candidates. I can't defend Trump on his own merits so I say "what about Hillary, she's bad too". Yup, checks out.




It's illegal to charge for anything offered by the national healthcare system in Canada.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/health-care-for-everyone.23843/page-39#post-12930620

Just so people don't get the wrong information, this is false. There is full service private healthcare in Canada that people can pay for and nobody has to break any laws to get it.

[And thanks for another delightful strawman]

 

[Danoff]

Just so people don't get the wrong information, this is false. There is full service private healthcare in Canada that people can pay for and nobody has to break any laws to get it.

About as misleading as you can be at this point.

 

[Sander 001]

About as misleading as you can be at this point.

Misleading? Nope, it's outright false to say "It's illegal to charge for anything offered by the national healthcare system in Canada."

 

[Danoff]

Misleading? Nope, it's outright false to say "It's illegal to charge for anything offered by the national healthcare system in Canada."

I've quoted you up and down, and sideways. Try this one:

8. Pay out of pocket
Seven years ago, Chapman went into the hospital to have a baby and came out needing reconstructive surgery. She was in debilitating pain, but the specialist advised her to wait six months to see if things got better.

When her condition continued to deteriorate, Chapman sought medical attention in another country. Chapman paid $3,500 (not including flights) for a consultation and tests at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, MD. After getting a diagnosis, she went back to Canada and got the surgery she desperately needed.

If you can afford it, says Chapman, paying for tests privately allows you to skip a step. And you don't necessarily have to go out of the country. Access to private health care varies from province to province. New Brunswick and Newfoundland have few or no private clinics and, in Ontario, private health-care providers offer only tests and procedures that aren't considered medically necessary. British Columbia and Alberta each have 60 or more clinics, some of them performing multiple types of surgery. And Quebec, the private-health-care capital of Canada, has more than 300 providers. For information on options, check out findprivateclinics.ca.

Explain to me how you're not misleading in view of this. I get that you might not have understood everything, it's not exactly made transparent by the Canadian government.

So in some part of canada they are more open to private options than in other parts, and in those parts, there are a few options. Not much though.

 

[Leo Thorne]

 

[Sander 001]

I've quoted you up and down, and sideways. Try this one:




Explain to me how you're not misleading in view of this. I get that you might not have understood everything, it's not exactly made transparent by the Canadian government.

So in some part of canada they are more open to private options than in other parts, and in those parts, there are a few options. Not much though.

Market demand. Our public health systems are quite good that demand is low. And even within public health, you can choose your doctor and specialist.

 

[Danoff]

Market demand. Our public health systems are quite good that demand is low. And even within public health, you can choose your doctor and specialist.

Huh? Are you talking about Canada? Because they expressly regulate all healthcare providers (private or public, and most of them are "private" providing public services), to operate under the public regulations (including price). That's not market demand.

In Canada, you could theoretically see a specialist without going through your PCP gatekeeper, but you're not going to because your specialist gets fined for doing so. I suppose that's "market demand" too?

 

[Sander 001]

Huh? Are you talking about Canada? Because they expressly regulate all healthcare providers (private or public, and most of them are "private" providing public services), to operate under the public regulations (including price). That's not market demand.

In Canada, you could theoretically see a specialist without going through your PCP gatekeeper, but you're not going to because your specialist gets fined for doing so. I suppose that's "market demand" too?

There are private healthcare facilities which are tax funded and there are private healthcare facilities which are not, patients pay out of pocket.

But there aren't that many privately funded because there's not a huge demand.

 

[Danoff]

There are private healthcare facilities which are tax funded and there are private healthcare facilities which are not, patients pay out of pocket.

...for non-essential services, which I'm sure is big business in Canada. For example, Lasik surgery was for a long time not covered by insurance and deemed "non-essential" or whatever because glasses exist. So Lasik was big business all over the place. Patients paid out of pocket*.

* For all I know this is still the case

But there aren't that many privately funded because there's not a huge demand.

It seems like there are plenty which are privately funded which cover non-essential services (like Lasik I would guess). The Canadian Medicare system says that they need doctors, there's a doctor shortage (if headlines are to be believed, which is probably not safe). They therefore make sure that the most doctors can make for services covered by Medicare is through Medicare. They make it such that there is no other option really but to use the system. Technically, maybe there is a way, but they make it so painful that nobody will do it.

As a result, you can't get out of line. And that was the idea to begin with.

Edit:

To sum up. It is illegal in almost all of Canada to accept private health insurance. And while private providers exist in Canada, they are regulated under medicare (including the rate charged) if they offer services offered by medicare. Bypassing those regulations results in state fines for the provider.

You can choose your "doctor" but only to the extent that you must choose a PCP doctor if you're getting essential services offered by medicare. And if you're getting an essential service, you're getting it through medicare (for much of Canada) because medicare has squashed the alternatives (in much of Canada). You cannot choose to see a specialist through the medicare program, you must first convince your PCP that you need one, and their function is to be the gatekeeper.

You can technically go to a specialist directly, but they'll get docked pay if you do, so they won't take you. You can't find a provider for essential services that is entirely private (and by this I mean is bypassing the wait lists) because they're banned from accepting insurance and regulated under medicare anyway (in most of Canada). And that's exactly what people want to stop, folks from buying their way around the wait list.

So... for much of Canada... it is as I said. If you're transgender (aspiring?) and want a gender change, you need to convince your PCP that it's medically necessary. And if you can't, you're shopping out of country (or at least, somewhat similarly, out of province). If you can, get in line.

Edit:

I mentioned this issue to my wife and she brought up an excellent point (this was yesterday). Breast reduction surgery could be an essential service. But it could also be entirely cosmetic. Does this mean that if one doesn't need breast reduction surgery in Canada that they cannot get it? Because it's considered "covered" but also not prescribed for that patient? Surely there's a way around the cosmetic surgery that's sometimes-required-but-sometimes-not problem right?

 

[Sander 001]

...for non-essential services, which I'm sure is big business in Canada. For example, Lasik surgery was for a long time not covered by insurance and deemed "non-essential" or whatever because glasses exist. So Lasik was big business all over the place. Patients paid out of pocket*.

* For all I know this is still the case



It seems like there are plenty which are privately funded which cover non-essential services (like Lasik I would guess). The Canadian Medicare system says that they need doctors, there's a doctor shortage (if headlines are to be believed, which is probably not safe). They therefore make sure that the most doctors can make for services covered by Medicare is through Medicare. They make it such that there is no other option really but to use the system. Technically, maybe there is a way, but they make it so painful that nobody will do it.

As a result, you can't get out of line. And that was the idea to begin with.

Edit:

To sum up. It is illegal in almost all of Canada to accept private health insurance. And while private providers exist in Canada, they are regulated under medicare (including the rate charged) if they offer services offered by medicare. Bypassing those regulations results in state fines for the provider.

You can choose your "doctor" but only to the extent that you must choose a PCP doctor if you're getting essential services offered by medicare. And if you're getting an essential service, you're getting it through medicare (for much of Canada) because medicare has squashed the alternatives (in much of Canada). You cannot choose to see a specialist through the medicare program, you must first convince your PCP that you need one, and their function is to be the gatekeeper.

You can technically go to a specialist directly, but they'll get docked pay if you do, so they won't take you. You can't find a provider for essential services that is entirely private (and by this I mean is bypassing the wait lists) because they're banned from accepting insurance and regulated under medicare anyway (in most of Canada). And that's exactly what people want to stop, folks from buying their way around the wait list.

So... for much of Canada... it is as I said. If you're transgender (aspiring?) and want a gender change, you need to convince your PCP that it's medically necessary. And if you can't, you're shopping out of country (or at least, somewhat similarly, out of province). If you can, get in line.

Edit:

I mentioned this issue to my wife and she brought up an excellent point (this was yesterday). Breast reduction surgery could be an essential service. But it could also be entirely cosmetic. Does this mean that if one doesn't need breast reduction surgery in Canada that they cannot get it? Because it's considered "covered" but also not prescribed for that patient? Surely there's a way around the cosmetic surgery that's sometimes-required-but-sometimes-not problem right?

Sorry I stopped reading after "non essential services" because I already provided a source which shows you're incorrect.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry I stopped reading after "non essential services" because I already provided a source which shows you're incorrect.

Where?


Edit:

This? https://www.findprivateclinics.ca/Ontario/Toronto/lc-9-132.html No it doesn't. The Rand Paul thing? That doesn't either.

 

[Sander 001]

This one is a doozy so I think it needs a source https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/07/16/trump-mcdougal-stormy-ivanka/

 

[TexRex]

 

[Leo Thorne]

Here we go again. And this is supposed to be news?

 

[Rallywagon]

View attachment 882150
Here we go again. And this is supposed to be news?

Ffs. This again? Didnt any of these reporters go to high school? Or, idk, maybe learn how to do journalistic research at some point in their careers perhaps? And why the hell would they think that a couple of white dudes would be so blindingly ignorant to throw out a white power hand gesture, in a work photo, with black people?
I mean, there are a great many reasons I've never even took to MSM news beyond local coverage and weather, and that right there, the seemingly innate need to start problems where none should even exist, is why I'll never look to start consuming that crap.

Btw, everyone who looked, go ahead and give yourself a punch in the shoulder...

 

[TexRex]

Seems to me the "news" isn't so much that cadets were pictured making a hand gesture as it is that DC Fire/EMS is conducting an investigation.

It also appears that CBS was slower than other outlets to pick it up:

 

[Rallywagon]

Seems to me the "news" isn't so much that cadets were pictured making a hand gesture as it is that DC Fire/EMS is conducting an investigation.

It also appears that CBS was slower than other outlets to pick it up:

View attachment 882165

Which really only goes to further the notion that MSM is more about causing division than ethical journalism.

 

[MaxAttack]

Relevant to the current topic;

(This whole thing is perpetuated by internet trolls)

These kinds of things always bring Metal Gear to mind for me.

 

[TexRex]

Which really only goes to further the notion that MSM is more about causing division than ethical journalism.

Are you willing to walk me through your thinking here? I'm not saying that isn't the aim, but I don't quite grasp how reporting the investigation demonstrates it to be the case.

 

[Rallywagon]

The proof is in the pudding, or, well, the title. "'Racial Antics'" as the first part of the headline. CBS isnt much better with their "white power" crap. At least Fox put in some "being investigated" terminology. None of them accurately pointed to the game being played, rather, they played on the race card. No doubt to have controversy in the headline so that they get more clicks, but also causes more polarity. And that's just addressing the titles.

 

[Sander 001]

The proof is in the pudding, or, well, the title. "'Racial Antics'" as the first part of the headline. CBS isnt much better with their "white power" crap. At least Fox put in some "being investigated" terminology. None of them accurately pointed to the game being played, rather, they played on the race card. No doubt to have controversy in the headline so that they get more clicks, but also causes more polarity. And that's just addressing the titles.

Causes more polarity? I can't think of many things more important than being adversarial against white supremacism.

 

[Leo Thorne]

Causes more polarity? I can't think of many things more important than being adversarial against white supremacism.

But in this case, there is no white supremacism present.

 

[TexRex]

The proof is in the pudding, or, well, the title. "'Racial Antics'" as the first part of the headline. CBS isnt much better with their "white power" crap. At least Fox put in some "being investigated" terminology. None of them accurately pointed to the game being played, rather, they played on the race card. No doubt to have controversy in the headline so that they get more clicks, but also causes more polarity. And that's just addressing the titles.

I mean, sure...I guess...if you narrow your gaze to the extent that you're informed only by titles, they're not particularly informative and potentially misleading. And I'll grant you that one who doesn't go beyond the title isn't particularly informed and is potentially misled.

It's worth noting that the Fox News title also includes the "'white power' crap" that the CBS article includes, it just gets cut off in the search results due to its increased length.

If the aim is to generate clicks as you allege, and that seems pretty on the nose, that click reveals articles that all offer broadly the same information; certainly not contradictory information, though some offer more background and editorializing than others.

They all state that an investigation has been launched, they all present the same alternate uses for the gesture and they all refer to an investigation of military personnel found to have been employing one of those alternate uses, namely its use in the "circle game".

The CBS national article is rather brief, perhaps a result of the original piece having been offered by the DC CBS affiliate, WUSA-TV.

The Fox News article includes everything that the CBS national article provides, but adds that its use as a symbol of white supremacy stemmed from "a hoax on the online message board 4chan meant to make liberals and the media 'overreact by condemning a common image as white supremacist'."

The CBS affiliate WUSA9 piece, which I'm given to understand is the source, includes everything in the CBS national article, leaves out the origins alluded to above (at least in the body of the article, though that information is likely to be linked to), but adds a message from a viewer that sheds light on the wording used in the article's title:

"As a district citizen, I don't feel comfortable with DC fire recruits taking pictures while showing the white power symbol. They all just saw the fall back from the Navy midshipmen doing this online, yet they still decide to follow with the same racial antics. Whoever took this picture and posted it online, should be looked at as well."

 

[Northstar]

Causes more polarity? I can't think of many things more important than being adversarial against white supremacism.

Are you familiar with the boy who had a penchant for yelling wolf?

 

[Sander 001]

But in this case, there is no white supremacism present.

I didn't know the investigation had concluded.

Whatever the case may be, these things creep up gradually so best to remain vigilant and educate people.

--------

Back to our regularly scheduled programming

 

[MaxAttack]

I didn't know the investigation had concluded.

Whatever the case may be, these things creep up gradually so best to remain vigilant and educate people.

--------

Back to our regularly scheduled programming

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you're missing the point.

This symbol just flat out has nothing to do with white supremacy. Any schoolboy of the last 20 years should be able to tell you this.

This is a troll job designed to make the media look bad that's so effective it's now making members of the public look bad.

In my opinion by even saying "well they MIGHT be doing it for white power" serves no purpose but to misinform and to contribute to the stifled chuckles of some kid sat at his computer.

Take it as a sign that you should always deconstruct info you get from the media through your own logic-box before taking it as fact.

 

[TexRex]

Nope.

 

[Danoff]

Overstated. The first one was for perjury and witness tampering. The second one was worse.

 

[Sander 001]

 

[VolkswagenX]