Replies

Well, ERs are "socialized" because they're free, or at least free to privileged classes. But they have NO government budget or other reliable source of constant income, hence, hospitals can and do go out of business. under socialism, they can't.

And here's the lefty's response: "That's so inefficient, and look at the tragedies that result (communities losing hospitals). Why not cushion things with a true, reliable, nationalized system?" Look how you've now portrayed the difference: under our system, hospitals "can go out of business", under socialism, they can't. Which do you think sounds better to the average joe? Who's going to say "yay, I want a system in which my local hospital can go under"?

Lefties are also big on reminding us that ERs are typically the most costly way to treat someone, and there would be an efficiency savings if the people most inclined to use ERs for small things (poor people) were instead included in some kind of umbrella nationalized system that encouraged/allowed them to make less-costly, regular checkup type visits.

And, call me crazy, but I think lefties are *right* about that. At least, I know of no decent counterargument.

Look how you've now portrayed the difference: under our system, hospitals "can go out of business", under socialism, they can't. Which do you think sounds better to the average joe?

I don't care that your "average joe" likes stealing.

It's still wrong.

" ...ERs for small things (poor people) were instead included in some kind of umbrella nationalized system"

we do have an "umbrella nationalized system" for poor people ...it is called medicaid and there is another system (CHIPs or something like that) for children and you mentioned medicare..how well are they run?