Rand Paul headed to Canada for hernia surgery (1 Viewer)

[DavidM]

So admittedly there's a bit of gotcha to the news, but for a guy who is steadfast against the idea of universal healthcare, the hypocrisy of his decision is blatant. Surely he could get the same procedure in the U.S. and avoid making use of a system he's so ideologically opposed to.

https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...ttack-senator-have-surgery-canada/2568200002/

 

[Saint_Ward]

It's also important to remember that the average person can't easily afford $8,000 out of pocket for a medical procedure. The option for Paul to travel to Canada to buy "world-renowned" treatment isn't practical for many of the people he represents in Congress.

To be fair, this is part of his lawsuit. he's not paying a dime for it.

I'm not sure he could get the surgery for cheaper and similar quality in the US, but it does feel like he's making sure he gets the best surgery he can, and isn't concerned about sticking it to his neighbor.

 

[DavidM]

To be fair, this is part of his lawsuit. he's not paying a dime for it.

I'm not sure he could get the surgery for cheaper and similar quality in the US, but it does feel like he's making sure he gets the best surgery he can, and isn't concerned about sticking it to his neighbor.

Pending outcome, right?

Regardless, that doesn't change the reality that many people simply don't have that option available to them.

 

[xardoz]

There are private hospitals in Canada, y'all. Just like in Britan and Spain as well.

The FDA has been waffling on their stance with mesh-repair of hernias. There are tons of lawsuits out there, and many doctors in other countries are moving away from mesh. I know I would be suspect if I needed hernia surgery.

 

[crosswatt]

There are private hospitals in Canada, y'all. Just like in Britan and Spain as well.

Which is why this is a deal. The line sold by so many, especially of the libertarian persuasion, is that universal health care would bring a disastrous end to choice, quality of care, innovation, and general speed of care that Americans enjoy. It is simply a bald-faced lie that this shines a big huge light on.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Which is why this is a deal. The line sold by so many, especially of the libertarian persuasion, is that universal health care would bring a disastrous end to choice, quality of care, innovation, and general speed of care that Americans enjoy. It is simply a bald-faced lie that this shines a big huge light on.

All that nuance doesn't mean anything. Once it was stated that this was a "private" hospital, somehow the argument was already won.

 

[Oye]

I had to stand in a line for three hours today to get a Band-Aid in Toronto

 

[crosswatt]

All that nuance doesn't mean anything. Once it was stated that this was a "private" hospital, somehow the argument was already won.

The only problem is that this action on Paul's part is just further evidence that conservatism in positions of power simply don't exist anymore. So, in a sense, you're correct, because there is zero credible way a conservative could support this.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Which is why this is a deal. The line sold by so many, especially of the libertarian persuasion, is that universal health care would bring a disastrous end to choice, quality of care, innovation, and general speed of care that Americans enjoy. It is simply a bald-faced lie that this shines a big huge light on.

Exactly, single payer is merely a catch all for the way the majority of coverage is financed, i.e. by a single payer, most often the federal or state government acting as the sole, or primary insurer. With or without supplemental coverage being legally supported.

Most hospitals in Canada are simply non-profit, privately owned institutions.

One of my biggest tells of a person’s competence on the issue of healthcare when they start mentioning Canada or Britain(most often conservatives) is if that person can actually demonstrate they even recognize the difference between the two systems. Conservatives love to demonstrate their ignorance by framing Canada as if it is Britain: government owned, operated, and financed. That is not the case in Canada. Rand Paul is one of those politicians that likes to play with that broad brush.

This whole saga reminds of when Limbaugh was decrying the ACA as socialized medicine that will destroy American healthcare while praising the treatment he received in Hawaii.

 

[Saint_Ward]

I had to stand in a line for three hours today to get a Band-Aid in Toronto

You mean in Mother Toronto.

 

[xardoz]

https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/14/rand-paul-canada-surgery-clinic-private

 

[xardoz]

Which is why this is a deal. The line sold by so many, especially of the libertarian persuasion, is that universal health care would bring a disastrous end to choice, quality of care, innovation, and general speed of care that Americans enjoy. It is simply a bald-faced lie that this shines a big huge light on.

You are over-simplifying and creating a false arguement. The basis of the Libertarian arguement is that you use FORCE to extort money from one, to provide services for another. It also LIMITS the free market, creating more government interference in the market, and reduces resources and raises costs.

...and increased costs is what people complain the most about. So adding more government to fix a problem CREATED BY GOVERNMENT is borderline schizophrenia.

 

[Goatman Saint]

I had to stand in a line for three hours today to get a Band-Aid in Toronto

Should’ve gone to Walgreens

 

[Goatman Saint]

As someone who needs both of my hernias operated on at some point, the hospital he is going to is honestly one of the absolute best in the world using non mesh repairs. So, if he has the income to do it, go for it. It is in essence what he wants. You have money, you get treated and well. You have moderate money, you get moderate care. You poor, rub some dirt on it.

 

[DavidM]

You are over-simplifying and creating a false arguement. The basis of the Libertarian arguement is that you use FORCE to extort money from one, to provide services for another. It also LIMITS the free market, creating more government interference in the market, and reduces resources and raises costs.

...and increased costs is what people complain the most about. So adding more government to fix a problem CREATED BY GOVERNMENT is borderline schizophrenia.

There have been a lot of libertarian discussions on this board and it seems the part about how it actually is going to work never gets resolved. So I'll ask you, out of a genuine spirit of trying to understand, in a system that is stripped away of government regulatory oversight, how is society going to function with greed being the unabashed, unregulated driving force, even more so than it already is?

When Giganto corporation decides it's going to pollute Smalltown's air and water, who is going to put a stop to that? When Big Inc buys up all of the various MiddleCOs, and destroys wage competition for those industry jobs in the process, what force is going to correct that? I'm just randomly scratching at the surface, but how is the boldly envisioned libertarian society going to work? What close examples would you point to as strong evidence that it can?

 

[crosswatt]

You are over-simplifying and creating a false arguement. The basis of the Libertarian arguement is that you use FORCE to extort money from one, to provide services for another. It also LIMITS the free market, creating more government interference in the market, and reduces resources and raises costs.

...and increased costs is what people complain the most about. So adding more government to fix a problem CREATED BY GOVERNMENT is borderline schizophrenia.

And Canada has universal health care. And none of the boogyman fallacies that you are parroting here have happened.

As you were so happy to point out, Paul is going to a private hospital that anyone can go to. And you can pay your own way or let your government funded health care pay your bill for you.

 

[mt15]

At the risk of a thread jack, I wandered into one of the Libertarian subs of Reddit a while ago, in an effort to understand how they would address the issue of public health requirements for vaccination. I wanted to see how they would reconcile requiring vaccines for the common good of all with their credo of complete individual freedom.

Their solution was for people to self segregate. I wish I was joking. In their opinions, people who saw the value of vaccines should just choose to live in a pro-vaccine community and people who didn’t believe in them should all move to other communities where they could avoid vaccines.

Nobody addressed any of the issues this raises. What do you do with someone who is anti-vaccine but chooses to live in a community where everyone else vaccinates? Force them to live among “their kind”? That doesn’t seem very libertarian. If you follow this position to it’s logical conclusion it’s totally authoritarian, is it not?

What if you can’t find a community that mirrors your exact preferred positions? Most people have a variety of opinions on a variety of subjects, not a single position on vaccines that they will use to sort out their lives. So does one have to search for a community that is Methodist, vegan, pro-vaccine, anti-capital punishment, pro-prison reform, etc? Where does it stop?

It’s really hard to take libertarianism seriously after reading that discussion. It may not be fair to judge based on that experience, and I realize that. However I’ve never seen anybody espousing libertarianism be able to address the original reason I went into the sub in the first place.

It seems to be a belief system that is overly simplistic and doesn’t address any of the difficult issues of finding a balance between rights and responsibilities of the individual. Taken to its extreme, it would suggest anarchy, which is why I was surprised to see a proposed solution to the vaccine question which would seem to lead to authoritarianism.

Thread jack over. 🤐