danish health care

[belme1201]

The reason no one mentions the Danish health care system, is because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Denmark is a very small Scandinavian country, with a population of around 5 million. About 90% of the population is Danish, the other 10% are an assortment of Greeks, Germans, Brits, etc. They have a very small number of true immigrants, and virtually no illegal immigrants. This means, most of the people of Denmark know each other, are familiar with each others families, and they live in small, tight-knit communities, for the most part. With the exception of Copenhagen, the country is largely rural. It's also very cold in Denmark, there is not as much 'hustle and bustle' going on, people tend to stay at home.

Comparing ANYTHING from Denmark with that of the US, is like comparing Mayberry to New York. Can you comprehend the silliness of such comparisons? Systems which may work efficiently and sufficiently for a small town, are wholly inadequate for a large metropolitan city. Cooperative arrangements which work well among friends and neighbors, don't always translate to large diverse groups of total strangers. It is simple human nature, and a matter of trust between people, but small communities tend to be more personally responsible.

Here is a good example of what I mean... My family moved to a small rural town when I was 10 years old, and basically, everyone knew each other. Our town had a Community Center. This building was free for the citizens to use at any time, it always remained unlocked and available for wedding receptions and meetings, and the only obligation was to clean up after yourself when you were done. Now this arrangement worked in a small town, with a small group of people who knew and trusted one another.... but such a facility was impossible to have in a large metropolitan city, vandals would have seen to that.

Much is the same with regard to nationalized health care. IF we lived in a country where 90% of us were locals who knew and trusted each other, a nationalized system may work, especially if our populous were small and isolated due to the cold climate. But that is not what we have in America. Instead of 5 million with 90% natives, we are 300 million, with less than 2% natives. Instead of living in a culture where we may travel 30 miles in our lifetime, we live in a hustle-bustle society constantly on the move and on the go. It is because of this stark difference in culture, population, and condition, that comparisons are irrelevant.

In other words; dog eat dog. Try nothing. Just a touch of bigotry and class differences in your analysis? The Haves versus the Have-nots, that's the way God made it so it must be the way he wants it. Never try to find an answer.
Our system is the most expensive on earth with results far down the list when compared to countries with national healthcare. There are countries larger than ours with government healthcare, and like every other country, they wouldn't trade it for ours.
Cold and hot or whatever, your logic is nuts.
It is the US for-profit system that doesn't work TODAY, not some imagined future system you couldn't stand if it did work. GM, Chryler, and others are on the way out, which company, anchored down by a corporate based healthcare system, is next? It seems all the, GOP friendly, US corporations are moving their jobs to countries that have national healthcare. There must be a reason.
Of course, Denmark has no red states and the politicians they produce, that would make a difference.

 

[Cypress]

dixie, I'd really appreciate if you came back here an explained what you meant.

I've heard numerous Cons make the same argument you did.

Why exactly do you contend that publically funded universal health care only would work in racially pure societies, with some magical upper limit on population threshold?

I don't get it. Why would you say that? Why does effective universal healthcare, in Con's view, require a "homogenous" racially pure society, with a population that is below some magic threshold number that Cons never identify.



I'll tell you what I think and you can tell me if I'm wrong.

I think Cons say universal health care only works in "homogenous" societies, because they don't have the courage to come out and say what they really think. They're using code-speak for racially pure societies, and many Cons have always viewed our "brown" people as a subset of the nation that is always whining for handouts, and abusing "handouts" when they get them. In short, Cons don't want universal healthcare, in part, because they view it as a "hand out" for undeserving people of color.

 

[Damocles]

dixie, I'd really appreciate if you came back here an explained what you meant.

I've heard numerous Cons make the same argument you did.

Why exactly do you contend that publically funded universal health care only would work in racially pure societies, with some magical upper limit on population threshold?

I don't get it. Why would you say that? Why does effective universal healthcare, in Con's view, require a "homogenous" racially pure society, with a population that is below some magic threshold number that Cons never identify.



I'll tell you what I think and you can tell me if I'm wrong.

I think Cons say universal health care only works in "homogenous" societies, because they don't have the courage to come out and say what they really think. They're using code-speak for racially pure societies, and many Cons have always viewed our "brown" people as a subset of the nation that is always whining for handouts, and abusing "handouts" when they get them. In short, Cons don't want universal healthcare, in part, because they view it as a "hand out" for undeserving people of color.

Can you show where he said that such a system would only work in "racially pure" societies? Seriously, I'm not joking here. I don't remember seeing that.

 

[Topspin]

while 'most of the population is rural' their is still a large city to deal with

while immigration is not a major problem in denmark, you forgot to add that it has a high standard of education and a high level of education per capita

a highly litterate population

How dare you bring up education on this site. A ged and a firm religious belief is what the rightwingnuts want. Shame on you.

 

[belme1201]

Can you show where he said that such a system would only work in "racially pure" societies? Seriously, I'm not joking here. I don't remember seeing that.

Regardless of the quote marks, perhaps you can translate in another way, Dixie's theory that healthcare won't work in an ethnically mixed society where everybody(90%!) doesn't know each other and, of course, speak the same language. Oh I forgot, where it isn't cold.

 

[Damocles]

Regardless of the quote marks, perhaps you can translate in another way, Dixie's theory that healthcare won't work in an ethnically mixed society where everybody(90%!) doesn't know each other and, of course, speak the same language. Oh I forgot, where it isn't cold.

Again. I have seen no evidence that this is his theory. It seems like people just say whatever idea they want to argue, say that Dixie believes it, and off they go.

I may be wrong though, Dixie may have said it and I missed it. I read the thread, but I didn't see him claim this, but I know I am imperfect.

 

[Don Quixote]

Again. I have seen no evidence that this is his theory. It seems like people just say whatever idea they want to argue, say that Dixie believes it, and off they go.

I may be wrong though, Dixie may have said it and I missed it. I read the thread, but I didn't see him claim this, but I know I am imperfect.

one of his responses to me regarding that denmark was not an exclusively rural nation and that copenhagen has a population in excess of one million was that would still be small for a city...

 

[Cypress]

Can you show where he said that such a system would only work in "racially pure" societies? Seriously, I'm not joking here. I don't remember seeing that.

Dixie: "About 90% of the population is Danish, the other 10% are an assortment of Greeks, Germans, Brits, etc."

Damo, I've heard this argument hundreds of times from Cons. That only "small", and "homogeneous" countries can have effective univerasal public healthcare.

Why? Dixie pulled that shit out of his ass, and never explained why racial purity, or "homogeneity" is required for governemnt financed healthcare.

That crap was pulled out of his ass. And I know other cons have used the same argument.

Why is there a population threshold, and a racial or ethnic threshold on universal healthcare? We provide government finance health insurance in this country for tens of millions of people. Of all races and colors. And it works fine. Medicare and Federal Employee health insurance is generally equal to or superior to the crap that Blue Shield sells to individuals on the private market.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, I've heard this argument hundreds of times from Cons. That only "small", and "homogeneous" countries can have effective univerasal public healthcare.

Why? Dixie pulled that shit out of his ass, and never explained why racial purity, or "homogeneity" is required for governemnt financed healthcare.

That crap was pulled out of his ass. And I know other cons have used the same argument.

Why is there a population threshold, and a racial or ethnic threshold on universal healthcare? We provide government finance health insurance in this country for tens of millions of people. Of all races and colors. And it works fine. Medicare and Federal Employee health insurance is generally equal to or superior to the crap that Blue Shield sells to individuals on the private market.

Again, pointing out that Denmark isn't quite as racially diverse as we are is not the same thing as saying, "This program won't work here because we aren't "pure" like Denmark."

In fact, if I remember that post he was simply pointing out to the person who said they were more diverse that he was wrong.

My point is, I don't think Dixie has ever made the claim that government run health care won't work in the US because of racial diversity. Nor is pointing out that Denmark is a small city anything more than pointing out it is a small city. The assumption that such trivial portions of his post is his whole argument is what we have termed for years now as a "straw man".