Printable View
thats link is sorta interesting, its like all the presidents attempts at healthcare reform sort of paved the way for Lyndon Johnson's health care reform measures. Each president sorta learned formt he effect of each others policies and tried to improve on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spaniard
try this link
kinda simplifies things
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1kL4hqcGs
Quote:
Originally Posted by )(
I hate most black people. It's not racism, one of my friends is black. It's rest of them that are the trouble. Everyone is their own person, just most of them dark ones just seem to be wankers. It's more of a generalization, not racism.
Are you serious? If so, you're an idiot. Wow.
watch any Chris Rock stand up, and you would say he's racist, or any stand up comic who cracks jokes about racial Stereotypes, Carlos Mencia, Lisa Lamponelli, most of the Comedy Central network is racist then. fuck it. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by phlymo
Well, you weren't actually cracking a joke. You claimed you were making an 'observation' which was rooted in bullshit. But still - the comedy thing is a tricky issue, and one i can't get my head fully around myself. But there is, in my opinion (but i accept others disagree), a difference between a disprivileged minority making racial jokes and a historically privileged and still privileged majority making similar jokes. There is simply more at stake in one case, but it's complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by )(
Anyway, i'm not sure why I went off lol. Apologies for that, it was unnecessary. It was the generalisation thing that got me.
honestly we'll just have to see if this stimulus actually works in the long run, as of now i'd say its not gonna work. hopefully it will. Are you 100% confident, or just sorta confident its gonna work. I'd like to see it work out for the better and fix our economy. who doesn't?
Damn lol, you edited out the first bit.
Anyway, i have shit all knowledge about economics. I have no confidence in the plan, but only in the sense that i also don't have doubts. i just don't know - i couldn't make an informed prediction either way. All i do know is that there are arguments to be made for why it should work, and valid reasons behind the decisions made. Loads of people disagree with those decisions, but like you i'm just hoping for the best too.
its just hard to keep faith cuz you watch most of those fox news channels or read teh paper and you see alot of anti-Obama stories, and news flashes. I don't know if they are trying to create controversy to sell news or if its legit.
when did sweeping generalizations become the thing to do now?
it may not be racism but it's stupid.
most white people i know die from mayo withdrawal if they go a couple of days without a jar of it.
dont be so mayo :(
dont be so mayo :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by )(
man please stop watching fox. they are a propaganda machine and they never report anything positive about Obama. Glenn Beck is a racist asshole, Sean Hannity is the biggest cry baby on the station and has guest like Limbaugh another racist asshole on his show regularly. you think they dont want people to be against the President, you think they want him to successful. watch CNN man, atleast they have democrats and republicans on the station. But fox is a joke...
tru, they are all biased in one way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr W.Rite
ne way.. heres my new opinion on this whole situation after some analyis and watching the news and history.
Stimulus
1. Obama's approach to fix the ecomony by accessive spending is bad, mainly because the Public, not the government should ultimately decide which companies, products, and bussineess are successful and grow. I agree with the bank bailout and some of the auto bailouts but other than that the governement needs to GTFO. I think hopefully witht he auto bailout they will design better cars that could revive their busineses and make future profits beyond short term growth from stimulus money.
health care
2. the whole free public healthcare system is good in theory, but the reason the US has the BEST health care systme in the world is beacuse of the current system. It creates competetion for profit, which helps fuel the drive to create new medical technologies, and provide superior care. IF you have the governement controlling it and turn it into a Socialist type system, the health care system could decline based on the facts i stated. these are my opinions.
let me know if you agree or disagree. not that any of us on here have any political power beyond a vote, but w/e :salute:
damn joe wilson, lol@me reading the paper this morning and seeing a citizen saying he should definitely get re-elected.
The US doesn't have the best healthcare system. It has a shitty one if you consider everyone in the country, and a good one if you ignore the millions of people it fucks over. I don't even understand how people can ignore the people it fucks over and say 'it's the best'. Imagine the number of people with coverage was smaller. Imagine 50% of the country had healthcare, and it was fucking great, but 50% didn't because it was so expensive. Is that a good healthcare system? No. You can be damn sure everybody who can currently afford coverage would change their tune if they fell into that bottom 50%, and the ones in the top 50% would still be reeling off crap about their superior work ethic, how the bottom 50% only have themselves to blame, and that they shouldn't have to sacrifice their oh-so-great care for the sake of everybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Y&R
You have to factor in the country as a whole, otherwise it's useless. And when you do that, the US has the 37th best healthcare system in the world.
But what's really crazy is that the US system, when you ignore the millions of people it fucks over, is still only on a par with an effective universal system. Basically the US is currently getting a system which functions as well as the best universal systems, with the minor footnotes that 1) it causes 2 bankrupcies a minute 2) it leaves over 40 Million people uninsured 3) it costs the average citizen much more than any existing universal system.
But people seem to think these factors are negligable, and that the US healthcare is still the best. It boggles my mind.
It boggles your mind cuz you don't live here...
I really don't understand why you have such a hate hard-on for our current system when it doesn't effect you one iota. I mean...is our health care so bad that US citizens are now filling UK hospitals, overcrowding them...got you at the back of your own line?
No.
So relax...
You know not what you speak. I don't care how many little facts and numbers you pull out of whatever hole you're pulling them out of.
You've never been in a hospital here in America, yourself...and got shitty healthcare...nor, do I highly doubt, have you ever known someone who has.
My daughter spent a week in the hospital when she was first diagnosed with diabetes...she was admitted to our local hospital where it was deemed she needed to be transferred to Texas Children's Hospital. She was...and got amazing healthcare, a big private room my wife and I could stay with her in and awesome around the clock care.
So, call that elitist, call it being a snob...but I'm not insulting anyone who can't get that kinda shit. I am, however, contradicting the load of blah I just heard from Phly about the US having crappy healthcare. It does not. You are dead ass fucking wrong.
Mate, nothing in your post contradicts anything I said. In fact, it completely reinforces my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Born To Kill
I've already linked you and others to the stats i'm quoting - the World Health Organization rankings. I'm not pulling them from any 'hole'.
US Healthcare is great - if you can afford it. It's only 'crappy' when you widen your perspective from your own experience, and look at the bigger picture. What is the quality of the care in terms of how it benefits the country AS A WHOLE? It's not the best, not the second best, nor third. It's the 37th best. I have no doubt that your daughter received excellent care. That's great. But i also know, through statistics and facts, that millions of people aren't so fortunate. You know that too. You can't deny those facts.
The first half of your post is exactly what proves my point. You think I can only be concerned about the US system if it affects me directly. It's totally unreasonable to be concerned about people being fucked over? That pretty much sums up a sizable portion of the anti-reform debate imo. 'I've got mine, Jack'.
So what is your post proving? This is the 'debate' so far:
I say 'US Healthcare is good if you can afford it, but millions of people cannot, and for that reason it is far from the best'
You say 'My daughter received excellent healthcare, because we could afford it'
Did you even read my post? I'm guessing not.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
That ranks the best hospitals in the world...the US steamrolls ALL other countries...
And, quite frankly, I dispute your claim that people flat out don't get healthcare here...
Anyone can walk into ANY ER and be treated for anything.
No one is turned away from an ER in America. When it does happen, on the VERY RARE ocassion it does...people are fired and the hospital is sued out the ass.
I've never seen that study before, it looks interesting and could well be linked to a good argument against reform. I will give you this: that table might be useful in refuting my claim that the US healthcare is, for those who can afford it, not much better (or even better at all) than a well run universal system. It would need more evidence to back it up, but if you have that too then that's fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Born To Kill
BUT, AGAIN, it doesn't refute my point AT ALL.
You are AGAIN taking evidence which rests on the idea that the US provides a good healthcare service to those who can afford it. I have not disputed that. The fact is a great hospital means shit all when you have no health insurance. Agreed?
People aren't turned away, but AGAIN, that ignores the issue I'm making quite clear: if you need treatment but cannot afford it, you will get it, but be lumbered with a debt, often a very very big one. If you can't pay that (not unlikely), you go bankrupt, the state pays off the hospital as best as it can, and your credit rating is completely fucked.
When you consider this, which you must, the US healthcare system is the 37th best. THAT IS THE POINT. If you can refute that, then we'll be talking.
Everything you have posted has so far reinforced my original assertion: US healthcare is good for some, but not the best on the whole. The whole is what matters.
In this case BTK is dead accurate. Your claim that US healthcare isn't better than that provided by universal systems is complete nonsense. Our quality of care and our medical breakthroughs are head and shoulders above anything your socialized system could ever hope to offer you. We not only have the best healthcare, but we have the best medical schools. People from around the world come to America for health care AND medical school. Canadians come to the US to get treatment instead of waiting on lists for simple surgeries or getting inferior treatment. Our medical innovations aren't just better... They're so much better that if we fuck that up in order to make sure that everyone is covered it will negatively effect people world wide.
There's a difference between the best health care and the best healthcare coverage. We don't ignore the millions of people without coverage. Our system is the best despite that unfortunate fact. Not ignoring it. BTK is absolutely right that you don't need insurance to get treatment. Anyone that walks into an ER must be treated whether it's a cold, a broken limb, or otherwise. What they lack is affordable long term care. There's no reason why we can't adjust the system we have to accomodate people in need of long term care on a need basis. In fact, people have already been working on it thru these co-ops they've been setting up.
Our health care is only being negatively effected by the fact that businesses are allowed to legally bribe the government to pass legislation for their own benefit. Our system is flawed by corruption. Our model for business and governing isn't inferior. They're actually the best in the world. But even the best has flaws as long as human beings control it.
BTK's posts did not actually respond to the issues raised by my own, so whether you think they are 'dead accurate' or not, they're mostly irrelevant in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie M.
One last time:
1) The quality of US Healthcare is good, maybe the best. I have said this REPEATEDLY, though I accept your claim that maybe it is much better. I can't be certain of that, or of how much better, but I will go with it.
2) BUT the simple fact of 46 Million uninsured Americans, and millions more wiht inadequate insurance, is a serious problem, and means it is not ranked as the best system.
Whether they can get access to treatment is irrevelant. The US is ranked 37th in spite of that, because these uninsured people are often not treated with such care, and because they either get lumped with a potentially huge bill, or go bankrupt. This can seriously fuck up lives, and often worsens health because people hold off going to the doctor for fear of being unable to pay.
'There's a difference between the best health care and the best healthcare coverage.'
THIS IS WHY I REPEATEDLY USED THE WORD 'QUALITY' TO BE SPECIFIC, AND WHY I REPEATEDLY SAID 'HEALTHCARE SYSTEM', WHICH INCORPORATES BOTH QUALITY AND COVERAGE. SO THIS POINT SEEMS COMPLETELY BIZARRE CONSIDERING THE CONTENT OF MY POSTS, WHICH ARE CLEARLY FOCUSSED ON THIS DIFFERENCE.
'We don't ignore the millions of people without coverage. Our system is the best despite that unfortunate fact. Not ignoring it.'
NO. ACCOUNTING FOR THAT FACT, YOUR SYSTEM IS THE 37TH BEST, ACCORDING TO THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION STUDY, WHICH IS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS I HAVE SEEN, SO FAR.
Nothing in any of these posts has responded to this point, which is pretty much the only point I have made. No relevent stats, figures, or facts offered in response. Nothing to refute the findings of the WHO.
In response to your other argument - that the US medical breakthroughs are unparalleled. This I can believe, and I genuinely find it very interesting. I have never argued against it. I would like to see stats and figures about the extent of these breakthroughs, and how much they would legitimately suffer under a public plan. That is interesting, and it is a legimite argument against reform, certainly.
But I was originally arguing with the guy who claimed US healthcare was the best in the world. In quality of care? Perhaps. As a system? It doesn't look like it. My only question, distilled: If you think the US system is the best overall, why did it achieve the ranking of 37th?
And for what it's worth, if you are talking about quality of care, I have never seen anything about it being typically 'head and shoulders' above universal systems. Perhaps this is the case, but can you show me proof? I'm not being snarky with this or denying the claim, but i'm just genuinely interested. Something more than 'people come here for healthcare all the time', some stats, figures, geared towards showing this to be the case?
Obama......reminds me too much of Osama.
The proof is in the plain and simple fact that our hospitals are better. Our technological breakthroughs stack up against any other country. People come from around the world for our healthcare. The world learns most of it's advanced medicine from us. I'm not digging up statistics to back up a qualitative argument.
The ranking that you are holding so impotent is a subjective interpretation of statistics that favors quantity over quality, completely ignoring the fact that without the US, these "superior" health care systems wouldn't even have the services they're able to provide. It's easy to provide "superior" health care when another country has to deal with the economic downfalls involved in the innovation behind the services provided.
If you want to look into the argument of whether a free market system provides superior innovation then I suggest you research the history of market leaders in the world. Look at the innovators in modern history. Research how some of these innovators were nothing until they changed to a free market system (ie Japan). Then research the innovators who now make little to no innovation now and have dead markets after socializing (ie Russia).
BTK and have both addressed your points. First of all, your first point that US healthcare needs reform is a "duuuuuuuhhhhhh" statement. It doesn't need to be addressed. Your second point that socialism is the answer is highly debatable. It's a quantity bs quality argument. Same as your point that the US is 37th in health care despite our quality of service. That's completely subjective. You'd rather have everyone covered than actually have services to be covered for. I disagree. We can go round and round about it and go nowhere because it's 2 opinions from 2 people brought up in 2 different economic systems. Your assessment that the US may not provide better quality of care than socialized systems is the only thing worth addressing, which is why it's the center of discussion. And I have to side with BTK on this one that you are completely wrong. You don't need statistical analysis to prove that. You just need to look at every medical innovation that originated in the US and erase it from the world. You can look at every foriegn doctor that was taught in US medical schools and erase them and their innovations from the world. I think it's pretty much a foot-in-mouth statement for you to make. And as you said, the contradiction of that statement is a good argument against socializing the market.
I don't understand what more you want to argue. Those are your only points and they're all either moot or have been extensively argued to you, not only today, but many other times in these health care threads. You've brought no new arguments to the table, so you shouldn't expect new counter-arguments.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how I see it.
Lol thanks for making me scroll thru that on my phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie M.
i guess you both have points, we have the best healthcare, but its sucks that alot of people can't all get equal coverage, or they will got broke from medical bills, and then you have the whole illegal aliens in the picture which account for a substantial percentage of uninsured people. the best thing to do would be to keep the current system, but find a way to insure or prevent people who are uninsured from going backrupt or extending coveage. Maybe like a medical bills cap, for poor people or unisured, so like if there bill goes to a certain level, it can't go any higher, based on their income, and provide them a way to pay like a small amount per month to pay it off. HOnestly, I would hate to be president trying to find solutions these type of issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie M.
Let's backtrack, to see exactly what we're talking about here, because you seem to have forgotten why i am arguing. I'm not trying to bring up 'new' points, and the things I have said do touch on old discussions, but there's nothing wrong with that. I do expect valid rebuttals to the arguments I am making however:
1) some guy says 'but the reason the US has the BEST health care system' (My italics). This is the spur for my posts.
2) I say that actually, the US does not have the best healthcare system as a whole, though the quality of the care may be among the best or perhaps even the best, though not by much (which I might well be very wrong about). This argument was based on a study dealing with facts, figures, and surveys. Subjective? It's something more than that, though I agree the conclusions could no doubt be disputed.
3) BTK says 'you know nothing you have an anti-US healthcare hard-on' etc etc etc. 'You're English what do you know, my daughter had excellent care.'
4) I accept that his daughter had excellent care, but say that I had never suggested she wouldnt. I reiterate the point that IMO a healthcare system cannot be judged on the quality of the care alone, no more than a universal system can be judged solely on the fact that it covers everyone. Both are valid criteria, both come into play. A private system that makes millions bankrupt is clearly deeply flawed, as is a universal system that offers inadequate care. This is completely undisputable. By the way, the WHO does not favour 'quantity over quality', it factors in both. The thrust of my argument was that 'the US is #1' is only strong when one factors in quality alone.
5) BTK says 'but we treat everyone, and look we have good hospitals'
6) I say - thanks for the stats, but again, they don't refute my point. People are still going bankrupt etc etc etc. Good hospitals are again an issue of quality, not coverage, and ignore the serious issue of finance.
6) You claim that the US is head and shoulders above universal systems, and though you offer valid reason for this, you offer no hard evidence that can really show the extent of your claim, and say i am talking nonsense. You then claim that if you factor in the uninsured, the US is still #1.
7) I reiterate again that a reputable study suggests this latter point is not the case, and ask you for further insight on the other stuff, which I agree is a worthwhile topic of debate.
So basically, this is what has happened:
1 - My original and clearly primary claim that the US healthcare system is not ranked as the best in the world remains fair and accurate, and has an enormous body of evidence to back it up.
2 - A claim i made, hastily, in an effort to strengthen my primary argument - in which I argued that the quality of care is not better or much better than a well-run universal system - has been fairly challenged, with one set of stats, and some valid reasoning. This however, does not refute my primary argument, though you and BTK both seem to think it does. It does, however, provide interesting grounds for debate, which i'll mention in a minute.
You can claim my argument was a 'duuuuuuuhhhhh' one, but that doesn't reflect badly on me, it reflects on the guy who claimed the US system was #1, a highly dubious claim for the reasons I have explained. This is also reinforced by your own 'duuuuuuh', as you also agree it needs reform. So in answering him, I wasn't attempting to say anything 'new', but just to question/correct his claim. I see no problem with that whatsoever, nor do i see any problem with me pointing out that the claims made by BTK, and then some by you, do not really counter the main thrust of my point.
Anyway, the interesting grounds for debate...
If you are going to argue that the US is the #1, you not only need to disprove/invalidate the WHO study, but you also need to show the extent of your arguments.
You say the US leads in medical breakthroughs. I think this is probably true. But by how much? Enough to make up for all the factors which were responsible for the WHO placing it in 37th? The US is not the only source of invention, but if it did become 'socialized', what would really happen to these medical breakthroughs? How drastically would they be reduced? Remember there are still financial incentives in place for medical breakthroughs under universal systems, but by how much are they lessened? These seem like really important questions to me, but all I see is 'oh, it will go down' or, 'this would never have been invented', which are fairly useless arguments when you can compare them against the hard fact of millions upon millions of people having security under a universal system.
Just to add to the debate about innovation in America, is it not true that the vast majority of innovations come from publically funded academics/NIH researchers? I just came across the following argument:
'The truth, as anyone knowledgeable within the system will tell you, is that private companies just don’t do basic research. They do productization research, and only for well-known medical conditions that have a lot of commercial value to solve. The government funds nearly everything else, whether it’s done by government scientists or by academic scientists whose work is funded overwhelmingly by government grants.
It’s just simple math: if you have a condition that has a relatively small number of patients, there’s just no market incentive to sink a great deal of time and money into researching it. This is why you’ll usually find that 100% — not a majority, the entirety — of the research into a cure is done either via taxpayer-funded grants to academic researchers or, more frequently, it’s entirely found on the NIH campus'
Now I have no stats or figures to back this up, but i guess you haven't provided any either, so both sides of the argument are up in the air. But if this is correct, then it goes some way toward countering that part of your argument. I'm not presenting this as undeniable truth, but these are the questions I'm interested in. It's also worth bearing in mind that the guy who wrote this article is anti-universal care, just not for the reasons you are.
There are no stats and figures to back either claim. It's all theory. Economics is a theory. The US is built on the theory of a free market. There's nothing wrong with the fundamentals of that theory. It's simply foolish to suggest that we should change our whole economic theory to solve one flaw in our society.
I'm not responding to all that stuff you just typed. I will say that your claim that our system makes millions of people bankrupt is false. Millions of people aren't covered. And to be honest, most of this is made up of the jobless and illegals. It's a highly inflated number. And of those people, not all... Not even most of them are in need of advaced medical treatment that would bankrupt them. You're really painting a worse picture than the reality of the situation. To the vast majority, no insurance is an inconvenience, not a life altering affliction.
Also, the flaw in free market you present is bogus. If a disease doesn't afflict a lot of people then why would ANY system devote mire money to it than diseases that effect more people? The supply and demand principle is the same as the need based principle. The only difference is that one is for profit. And medical advancements are mostly made by American medical schools where people are willing to pay up and around $15-30,000 per semester to attend those schools because of the strength of the market. Take away the market and you take away the students that keep those schools going, you take away the value of the education which removes funding, and take away the governments incentive to dump money in those schools to make further advancements and continue their place as the market leader in the world.
No matter how much I type you'll never get that our country doesn't work like yours. We get shit done because it's profitable to do so. We reign supreme at all things profitable for us. This is what we do. You can't just change a system in a society that was built on the principles of that system. And you can't expect to run a huge industry using the principles of one system while it actally exists in a completely different system.
You can say that hospitals make breakthroughs with government funding, but you need to realize that those hospitals operate for a profit. The facilities are paid for with profit. Those breakthroughs are made by doctors with big salaries provided by a booming market. And that grant money is given by the government expecting a return on their investment. Again, if you think the free market doesn't create innovation then go research the thongs I've already said to look into. Compare free market industries around the world to their socialized counterparts. Try to find the instances where socialism does it better and stack them up against the reverse.
And you keep bringing up the rankings. Those rankings are based on the fact that all the other countries above the US supply coverage for everyone. That is the undeniable key variable in that ranking system. That is a subjective conclusion because it ranks quantity over quality. If that's not true then why is it then when you remove that one variable the US undesputedly flies up to the top of the list? You can't use quantitative statistics to support a qualitative argument. That's statistics 101. That list doesn't rank the BEST health care because that is a subjective view based on what you think is more important in a healthcare system. That list shows who has the most balanced healthcare system. And it does NOT account for the fact that the US is responsible for most of the Medical innovations that exist in the world that was only possible thru the years and years that it existed in this free market economy that is so "inferior" just because the whole country doesn't qualify for government hand outs.
The number of things in that post which suggest you haven't even read my posts is astounding. I will assume you just skimmed them, and didn't just completely fail to understand the most basic points, repeatedly stated. I can't be arsed to type something very simple out again, but just WOW. I give up.
I don't even disagree with everything in that post. But your interpretation of my arguments suggests you have either had a succession of prolonged mental lapses or you really haven't been paying attention. I will assume it's the latter. For that reason, this is pointless. I'm done. Jesus.
edit - One thing. Regarding 'millions of bankrupcies'. Well, the actual stat is one healthcare related bankrupcy every 30 seconds. According to that, 1 Million bankrupcies would occur in just under a year, which given the number of people with inadequate insurance seems about right. I don't have the actual figures at the minute though.
Anyway, I'll leave it there. It's not a debate, it's you arguing against your own creation, which is largely independent of my actual words or point of view. You should be able to continue without me, so knock yourself out.
You are right about one thing. This isn't a debate. This is your opinion about a system that you obviously don't understand and have never been a part of. And you're backing up tour opinion with a statistical ranking that you don't understand either. You can't get it thru your head that ranking the best health care is subjective to how heavily each factor is weighed. I'll take the system that by far has the best hospitals in the world than the system that covers the most people. All you have to do to get health care in this system is have a damn job. There's nothing you can do to make your system have the best quality of care. If I have to have a job... Or my spouse has to have a job in order to get the best health care in the world then that's far better than needing to fly across the world to do the same. So to you, the best means the cheapest. To me the best means the most quality. It's all subjective, and no amount of statistics can change that.
You throw around these stats about how we have so many people uninsured. But that's just a "duuuuh" statement acknowledging the problem that everyone already realizes. That's not an argument for socialism. We're not willing to sacrafice quality for quantity, therefore socialism isn't the answer.
But you want to refute that socialism hinders progress. And you want ME to argue how it does in order to argue that it doesn't. And you'll only accept statistics in order to argue this. But this isn't a statistical debate. It's a debate of economic theory. There are no statistics to prove which economic theory works better. There's only observation. And I pointed you to examples of socialism vs capitalism... Japan and Russia. One turned away from it and turned the country around into a super power. The other was a super power that crumbled into nothing after turning to it. If that's not enough evidence for you then too bad man lol. You can't show me one socialist system that's a leader in anything.
Oh... I'm not ignoring your original point to the person you responded to. He said the US is the best. You say he's wrong because our system is flawed. But the best doesn't mean perfect. And as stated on numerous occasions... Your "quantity vs quality" argument is your opinion. Your opinion doesn't make someone else's opinion wrong. Especially when its back with unfounded and unexplained statistics like one person goes bankrupt every 30 seconds due to US healthcare. I'd love to read the reports on that piece of propaganda lol. Don't argue opinions using obamamath. If that statistic were true then almost every bankruptcy in America is due to medical bills lol
I ignore politics these days... I find its best to just stay focused on you, and if anything Big happens, you'll find out eventually.
Every time I turn on the news its like their trying to scare me into siding with them... Its annoying.
The history channel too..
"in 1743 lianardo devinci drew a painting of... 2012!!! THE END OF THE WORLD...! ITS COMING, THE MYANS WERE RIGHT, TUNE IN TOMORROW TO LEARN HOW TO SURVIVE"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie M.
Well contrary to what you and BTK believe, i agree with phlymo and i live here. I know people who lost their jobs, have been responsible all their lives, and worked all their lives and CANT get affordable health insurance. I didnt say they cant get treated in case of an emergency, I said they cant afford health insurance. There is a difference. But until someone walks in their shoes and has the trials of trying to decide wether to pay for increasing health coverage or food, housing ect. then they will never understand. I am glad BTK daughter was treated and his family was able to go through an ordeal as such without having to worry about medical cost. Im sure he has worked hard has a good paying job and great benefits. But he is fortunate in those regards. But there are people out there that have played the game by achievable standards, reached their pinnacle ad hit hard times. They lose their job, lose their coverage and cant get treatment. You cant go to an emergency room three times a week for cancer treatment, chemotherapy etc, that requires special attention. Its hard to pay for treatment like that without coverage or even worse without a job. What are those people suppose to do. I understand there are programs in place for people in those situations, but guess what most are government programs that you and I already pay for. This isnt about govt run healthcare, or nationalization of healthcare, or who ranks the highest in healthcare. This comes down to a system where the CEO of an insurance company, can make 7 millions a year and people are dying under his watch because his company refuse to give them coverage when they needed it the most. As much as people dont like to admit it, the system is flawed. How is a fair that i can pay a premium, no matter how cheap or how expensive for years and God forbid i get some terminal illness, and that same insurance company deny COVERAGE not TREATMENT. The TREATMENT is always there, but the COVERAGE is the flaw in the system. People that pay for health insurance are getting fucked, let alone the people that arent insured at all. I guess those people should suck it up, right. Its a shame the people that cant afford health insurance are stereotyped as lazy, wanting handouts and trifling. And as true as some of those people exist, they arent the only ones. I heard people screaming at those townhalls against reform to "get a job". Well some have a job and still are denied coverage and pay outrageous premiums. Im not arguing for some sort of govt take over but the private companies havent been responsible either. Free market my ass, their are other ways to make money in this country besides raping people that have bought into your system. You can say that people shouldnt become freeloaders of the govt, well I say we shouldnt continue to let private insurance companies freeload off of us. You say the govt is too corrupt to trust. Well how else does the CEO of a health insurance company make 7 million a year, if he doesnt profit from denying coverage and increasing rates. Thats corrupt and any business that operates this way needs to be held in check or else they'll be able to monopolize the system for pure profit and thats wrong. Peoples lives are at stake and you are more worried about fair competition. To hell with competition when lives are threatened. Cry me a river...:hosea2:
Lol no one even argued against anything you just said. I actually agree with you. We should regulate the market. Phly wants a socialized system. He's using these rankings as support for government health care being superior.
Judging from that post, you still really don't understand my position, and are responding to your own charicature of it: 'So to you, the best means the cheapest. To me the best means the most quality' - WTF, how can you possibly think that is my position? That makes literally NO sense if you read any of my posts. Fuck it, i stand by what i said yesterday - you are either having a serious off day or have appalling comprehesive skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie M.
I will try again:
I AM NOT ARGUING 'QUANTITY VS QUALITY', OR FAVOURING QUANTITY OVER QUALITY.
I am arguing that the effectiveness of a healthcare system can only be legitimately evaluated when one considers both. You are taking a more subjective stance than anyone, because you are making unsupported claims of high 'quality' and using them to dismiss the importance of very real evidence of inadequacies with regard to 'quantity' (as in your claim that quality is primary, quantity secondary, despite making no effort to accurately determine the state of either). We are all aware that the 'quality' of US healthcare is currently good, but that its 'quantity' (coverage) is bad. The purpose of my argument is to ascertain how good the 'quality' of US healthcare is, because we already have factual evidence of how poor it is with regard to 'quantity'/coverage.
Ultra simplified:
Great quality, low coverage: BAD
Great coverage, low quality: BAD
An appropriate balance: GOOD
This is UNDISPUTABLE, and OBVIOUS. A healthcare system that gives the world's most incredible care to only the top 10% of the nation and leaves the rest uncovered and insecure is clearly an awful system, even if the quality of the care is incredible.
The quality of the system as a whole depends on both factors. If the 'quality' of the care is only slightly better than that of a universal system, then perhaps it is worth witnessing a minor decline in this quality in exchange for a significant boost in quantity/coverage. If what would be lost is greater than what would be gained, then the change is clearly not worthwhile. I want to find out how best to achieve a worthwhile change. To me, that seems the only rational way to approach this debate. I'm not even arguing for universal care, i'm arguing for whatever is genuinely best. If the major problems of the private system can be soothed or solved without making a move to universal care, then perhaps that is the best way forward. I simply want to try to get a better understanding of what is genuinely best, with ideologies shoved aside.
You have argued that the US is head and shoulders above other countries. This is something that could legitimately be supported by unbiased statistics, but you are yet to provide any. I want to see them. I want to know the extent of what would be lost in 'socialization', because I am already aware of the extent of what would be gained.
As far as I am aware, the 'quality' of US care is good, but NOT significantly greater than that of an effective universal system. The US has slightly better cancer survival rates, and slightly worse life expectancies and infant mortality rates. These are all issues which at some level indicate the 'quality' of care, and there are more figures and facts to that effect. Even when people try to account for other factors (gun crime for death rate etc.), the US is still not 'head and shoulders' in front. The quality of hospitals is a very valid point, I accept that. The thing about medical breakthroughs is more questionable, because sources indicate that the majority of the actual breakthroughs are the result of government funded academics working in government funded laboritories, and it is 'productivization' (apparently) which the industry is primarily responsible for. Still, the industry is responsible for a great deal of medical research spending, as i have discovered reading some hilariously biased right-wing blogs this morning. It may not be spending that aids breakthroughs, but it is important, and I accept that. How much will this be diminished under universal care?
I'm just trying to get a better idea of the situation. It's easy to say 'capitalism pwns, therefore the US must be head and shoulders in front', but it really doesn't help until I can see specifics. That could be the head and shoulders of Mr Bighead Mcmassiveshoulders or of a pigme for all i know. It seems you and BTK have assumed all I am doing is trying to push a universal reform. I have said repeatedly in other threads that I only support feasible, effective reform. That includes considering what will be lost, what will be gained, etc. Idealistically, I would support universal care every time, because I do believe that coverage is very important, but i would not support a universal system that offered inadequate care. I want to know the extent to which your system is currently great, so that it can be weighed up against the extent to which it currently sucks.
I'm not favouring 'quantity' over 'quality', I am granting equal importance to both. You on the other hand, are not, so the fact that you're moaning at me for this is pretty amusing really. I just want to have a good idea of the current state of both quantity and quality, and of the likely future state of both if a universal system (or whatever) was adopted. I fail to see how that is not the most sensible way I could possibly approach this debate.
I'm being less 'subjective' than anyone in this regard. BTK simply thinks i'm simply a left-wing anti-US healthcare know-nothing nutjob, and ignores my actual argument. Like BTK, you assume i'm only interested in extolling the virtues of universal care, when my actual aim from the start was to question the claim that the US private care was the best. Moreover, you say we 'refuse to sacrifice quality for quantity', which is an entirely subjective claim that makes no effort to consider what is being sacrificed and what is being gained. I'm seemingly the only person looking to actually learn more and compare these systems thoroughly; you and BTK already have your minds made up. Which would be fair enough, if it wasn't patently obvious that, like me, you don't have enough information to make such a definitive decision.
(also - I googled that statistic, and it saw many reports claiming it is a myth. Apologies, I drew on something I had read a while back, and should have checked it. All stats are open to questioning, of course. Those debunking this myth offered their own stats, suggesting that the figure is between 100,000 and 200,000 medical bankrupcies a year. The original stat was mostly based on bankrupcies in which medical debt was simply a contributor, but not a primary cause. Very bad stats then, but still, the number of actual medical bankrupcies is also upsetting and avoidable, so the point is still there. Your mocking of that stat would be a bit more convincing if you actually posted some of your own, of course.)
And so ends another long post that will either go unread or misread. The end.
Now that I'm not on my phone, maybe I can respond more efficiently.
Agreed.Quote:
I am arguing that the effectiveness of a healthcare system can only be legitimately evaluated when one considers both.
Unsupported? Like the ranking of hospitals that BTK posted? Or the absolute fact that the US is and has been by far the health care market leader world wide? Or the fact the very long list of innovations that came from American health care? By far more modern innovations than any other country.Quote:
You are taking a more subjective stance than anyone, because you are making unsupported claims of high 'quality'
Here's a list of the top 10 innovations in health care:
MRI/CT
ACE inhibitors
Balloon angiography
Statins
Mammography
CABG surgery
H2-receptor antagonists
SSRIs
Cataract extraction and lens implants
Hip and knee replacements
You can thank the US for all of those.
I think that's enough information to negate any accusation of "unsupported cliams."
This is completely false. My stance is that continued innovation is more important than supplying free health care to every citizen. The majority of people who aren't covered are illegals and the unemployed. That's where the bloated 45 million uncovered comes from. We have nearly 30 million people unemployed alone. There are 11 million illegal immigrants. Therefore there are about 5 million taxpayers that are not covered. That's less than 2% of the population. I don't see the need to risk destroying a world market to assist less than 2% of the population. We JUST did this to the real estate market. It only took 10 years of opening up one regulation to let lower income families buy homes. You're talking about changing an entire system and hoping that it still survives inside an economy that exists in a completely different system with completely different principles. Again... my stance is that this is too much of a risk in order to assist a relatively small amount of people. This government is supposed to be for the greater good of the majority, not the minority.Quote:
and using them to dismiss the importance of very real evidence of inadequacies with regard to 'quantity' (as in your claim that quality is primary, quantity secondary, despite making no effort to accurately determine the state of either).
Now the majority CAN benefit from fixing the various regulations and deregulations that has put the health care industry in the state that it's in today. These problems didn't happen as a result of a free market system. They happened do to our businesses being allowed to bribe politicians to pass selfish legislation. So why not fix the problem at the source instead of wiping out the whole system??
If you still don't believe that a socialized system isn't a huge risk in the US then you should look at ANY social service in the US. ANY. Take your pick. NONE of them work anywhere near as well as their private counterparts. I don't care what you look at. We don't havee a single social service that operates the way it's supposed to in this country. Not a single fucking one.
I don't know what more info you want to see. You want statistics and numbers. We're talking about QUALITY. Obviously we have statistics explaining QUANTITY. You're thinking like a robot or a computer. You can't just compute quality. You need to define quality into quantitative values and measure those quantities and it will always be subjective because you have to assign subjective levels of importance to each category. You're asking for arguments that just can't be made. It's all opinion. And my opinion is if I had to choose between having the quality of care that we have or having free health care for everyone... I'd choose quality over quantity. You can't even pretend that your argument isn't the opposite of that. You're pushing your system which values quantity over quality. You cannot deny this. Don't act like I'm making up arguments. We're not talking about extremes here. Obviously there needs to be a balance between quantity ad quality. That's another "duuuuuuuuuuuuh" statement. But I'm arguing that protecting quality is more important than increasing our CURRENT quantity (not having all quality but NO ONE can afford it. That's fuckin dumb). You're arguing against me therefore you're obviously arguing the fuckin opposite which is worrying more about quantity than protecting OUR CURRENT quality. If you're not arguing this then stop fuckin disagreeing with me for no reason. wtf.Quote:
We are all aware that the 'quality' of US healthcare is currently good, but that its 'quantity' (coverage) is bad. The purpose of my argument is to ascertain how good the 'quality' of US healthcare is, because we already have factual evidence of how poor it is with regard to 'quantity'/coverage.
No shit lmaoQuote:
Ultra simplified:
Great quality, low coverage: BAD
Great coverage, low quality: BAD
An appropriate balance: GOOD
We're disagreeing on what the balance should be. And it's a subjective fucking opinion lmao. Jesus fucking christ lol
That's not the state of our current system. If that's what you think then you're WAY off.Quote:
This is UNDISPUTABLE, and OBVIOUS. A healthcare system that gives the world's most incredible care to only the top 10% of the nation and leaves the rest uncovered and insecure is clearly an awful system, even if the quality of the care is incredible.
I've made my argument supporting regulation over socialism. I can't argue it any further into the ground. I was under the impression that you've been defending socialized care all this time since you've been countering anything I or BTK says with propaganda in support of socialized care. The bulk of your arguments have been you hanging on to 2 skewed statistics. One is a ranking that takes quantitative statistics to come to qualitative conclusions. The other is a statistic skewed by including the unemployed and illegal immigrants to bloat the numbers in order to make the problem appear much bigger than it is.Quote:
The quality of the system as a whole depends on both factors. If the 'quality' of the care is only slightly better than that of a universal system, then perhaps it is worth witnessing a minor decline in this quality in exchange for a significant boost in quantity/coverage. If what would be lost is greater than what would be gained, then the change is clearly not worthwhile. I want to find out how best to achieve a worthwhile change. To me, that seems the only rational way to approach this debate. I'm not even arguing for universal care, i'm arguing for whatever is genuinely best. If the major problems of the private system can be soothed or solved without making a move to universal care, then perhaps that is the best way forward. I simply want to try to get a better understanding of what is genuinely best, with ideologies shoved aside.
Again... what statistics do you think there are?? If you're not supporting one side or the other and just seeking knowledge then why aren't YOU looking for these statistics?? Why are you only digging up statistics supporting the side that you claim you're not supporting? I don't need statistics. I know how my country is run. I know that every service we socialize turns to shit. I deal with those social services everyday. There are no statistics to show me that everytime I use the US postal service my packages get fucked up or lost, but when I use UPS or FEDEX everything is A OK. There's no statistics to tell me that I didn't learn shit in public school and was passed from grade to grade without doing any work, but private school kicked my ass, kept me challenged, and made me more educated than the majority. There are no statistics for me to show you how bad these social services ARE, so how do you expect me to find statistics showing how bad this social service WOULD be? Come on man.Quote:
You have argued that the US is head and shoulders above other countries. This is something that could legitimately be supported by unbiased statistics, but you are yet to provide any. I want to see them. I want to know the extent of what would be lost in 'socialization', because I am already aware of the extent of what would be gained.
Yea... THAT doesn't make sense, but reverse that and you have my stance that actually does make sense. The US is head and shoulders above the rest therefore capitalism is the best. You can look at capitalist and socialist countries that both fuck over their citizens just the same. But what you don't find is socialist countries that provide as much progress as capitalist countries.Quote:
capitalism pwns, therefore the US must be head and shoulders in front
LMFAO!!Quote:
Mr Bighead Mcmassiveshoulders
If you don't want people to think you're in support of something, then don't regurgitate propaganda supporting it lol. And Idealistically, I'd support privatization every time because I value my freedom.Quote:
It seems you and BTK have assumed all I am doing is trying to push a universal reform. I have said repeatedly in other threads that I only support feasible, effective reform. That includes considering what will be lost, what will be gained, etc. Idealistically, I would support universal care every time, because I do believe that coverage is very important, but i would not support a universal system that offered inadequate care. I want to know the extent to which your system is currently great, so that it can be weighed up against the extent to which it currently sucks.
That's due to lifestyle choices, not health care lolQuote:
slightly worse life expectancies
I don't know what this has to do with anything. We have a capitalist government. Everything they do is to try to profit in some way. What makes you think that this funding would eve exist when we're already paying for 300 million people to have free healthcare? lolQuote:
The thing about medical breakthroughs is more questionable, because sources indicate that the majority of the actual breakthroughs are the result of government funded academics working in government funded laboritories, and it is 'productivization' (apparently) which the industry is primarily responsible for.
Ya see, you don't need statistics to understand this debate. You need to learn economics. You don't know the theory behind what you're trying to come to conclusions about. You will never get it if you don't learn the basis of the arguments.
This spending exists for one reason. Profit. The quest for profit. Take away the quest for profit and ask yourself why this money would still exist. This money comes from investors. Investors dump money into what is profitable. This is a simple concept. Kill the market... kill the funding. It doesn't get more simple than that.Quote:
How much will this be diminished under universal care?
BTK thinks that about everyone lolQuote:
BTK simply thinks i'm simply a left-wing anti-US... know-nothing nutjob
Because we live here lmao. We know how shitty your system plays out here. You're thinking theoretically, and we're thinking practically. You're assuming that the government will succeed, and we're assuming that the government will fail. In this case, you are being naive. Maybe your government doesn't fuck everything up that it touches, but ours does. Theoretically socialism is SWEET. The government does everything for society and everyone just goes about their merry life, everyone on the same level, no one without anything. The reality is that there's not a single socialist country that works like that. And there isn't a single socialized service in our country that works like that.Quote:
I'm seemingly the only person looking to actually learn more and compare these systems thoroughly; you and BTK already have your minds made up.
This is my point. Yes, there is a problem. But liberals want to convince the American people that it's so bad that the only solution is for them to take control of everything. 1/8th of america suffering from no health care and 1 person going bankrupt every second sounds serious enough to wipe out our whole system. 2% of taxpayers without coverage and 100,000 bankruptcies a year sounds like a problem that needs to be reformed. And this problem can be traced back to specific "reforms" that were made and need to be overturned. This has only become a problem over the past 20 or so years. Everything was good before health care was deregulated to allow insufficient coverage. We need to go back and fix what we fucked up, not dump the whole thing. And beyond that, we need to move forward with these private co-op charities to help the select few that will still be suffering due to lack of resources. People that would be suffering anyway in any system because they need expensive long term treatment and they have no money... not to mention, treatment that they might very well need to be in the US to receive.Quote:
(also - I googled that statistic, and it saw many reports claiming it is a myth. Apologies, I drew on something I had read a while back, and should have checked it. All stats are open to questioning, of course. Those debunking this myth offered their own stats, suggesting that the figure is between 100,000 and 200,000 medical bankrupcies a year. The original stat was mostly based on bankrupcies in which medical debt was simply a contributor, but not a primary cause. Very bad stats then, but still, the number of actual medical bankrupcies is also upsetting and avoidable, so the point is still there. Your mocking of that stat would be a bit more convincing if you actually posted some of your own, of course.)
Anyway, I'm not making another one of these posts. I've told you everything that I find important. If you find info that contradicts the info I have, then please let me know, and I'll look into it and adjust my conclusions.
Wtf at a professional writing this? That sound be 'than'. SMH, smh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaq Noff
Wtf @ me taking so long to realize what was spelled wrong in that picture. I knew something was wrong so I was forcing myself to find it. At first I was convinced 'brain' was spelled wrong. I could have sworn it said 'brian'. After I read it over a couple times I seen that it was spelled correct. Then I finally realized it was 'moron' and not 'moran'. :hosea:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spaniard
Opey, that post is far more interesting.
You're still misrepresenting/misunderstanding a lot of my views, but I will leave it at this because the posts are so long and complicated:
1) I don't have full faith in your government to operate an effective universal program, but i think it could be a possibility, and like i have always said - I ONLY SUPPORT FEASIBLE, EFFECTIVE REFORM. this has always been a primary interest for me, i have always been asking 'why might it fail?' so don't act as though i'm being naive. I'm asking questions, because I know that this is a possibility.
2) You speak as though all financial incentive is removed under a universal system, but as I have pointed out before, there is still a very real financial incentive for the majority of private research. You cannot say 'kill the market, kill the funding', because this is an entirely disingenuous point. I would put it down to misunderstanding but we've talked about this before. It would not be 'killed', it would take a hit. The size of that hit is what needs to be considered. The second biggest pharmaceuticals and healthcare company in the world is a UK company, and though they would take a dent in revenue if the US went universal, they would still have enormous profits (as they do from the other countries), and would still excel. This is not an 'all or nothing' situation; i am trying to understand where exactly the lines and figures would come up if the US did adopt a universal system (which i personally believe it will eventually anyway).
3) How the fuck you can eradicate the unemployed from the figure of 'citizens' is beyond me. You know full well that it isn't as simple as 'everyone can just get jobs'. Moreover, the problem is not just those with no insurance, but the millions upon millions more with inadequate coverage, who are liable to face the same difficulties, and the enormous number of people who could potentially get fucked by insurance companies driven by bottom lines. You are trying to minimise the flaws and downsides to your system when we all need to recognise the full extent of those problems. The extent of the downside is far greater than 2% of the 'population'. Another nice irony - your own bit of statistical gymnastics is just as much an example of propaganda as any of the shit you're moaning about.
4) That thing about the top 10% is clearly not how I see the current state of the US healthcare system. It was a fictional example used to demonstrate a very simple point.
5) Every point you have described with the word 'duuuuuuuuuh' is intended that way. Funny thing was, it's those incredibly simple points that have been misunderstood throughout this thread, which has lead to my views being misrepresented repeatedly. Irony? Yep. Pretty funny really.
6) I wasn't pulling 'propaganda' statistics with the WHO rankings, unless you consider 'propaganda' anything that doesn't reinforce your own views. That is a legitimate and respected study. You may argue that they put too much emphasis on 'quantity', but that doesn't make it propaganda, so don't act like it isn't a VERY valid source of debate. It remains more comprehensive than any of the facts I have seen in return, by quite a way, so to dismiss it is bizarre. Argue with it? Disagree with it? Fine.
7) The thing about quality/quantitative statisctics. This is close to being nonsense. There are many quantitative statistics that have direct and clear implications on overall quality. Infant mortality and cancer survival rates are two examples. Number of doctors is another one (US trails behind many countries in this regard). Hospital stats are another (the US excels here), as are millions of other bits of compilable data. Yes, they cannot give a perfect, unarguable evaluation, but they are quite clearly incredibly useful for forming one's own opinion, and they can generate well-informed debate. To dismiss such evidence as irrelevant because there remains an element of subjectivity is wholly ridiculous. The fact is, the US does not stand head and shoulders above certain universal systems in all of these regards. This is why I asked for this kind of information. Curiosity, interest. I have no idea why you are unable to accept that, the evidence might even fall in your favour. I ask for such information not knowing that it will prove that 'UNIVERSAL IS #1' but because it might make me rethink my stance, and better everyone's understanding of the issue.
Anyway, there were some interesting points in that post, and many things I can agree with happily. I don't blame you for scepticism of government control etc, i can understand that. I am totally fine with you not thinking universal healthcare is the way forward. So that's cool. But I think that there are some things you aren't really thinking about enough, just as there are no doubt many things I am failing to consider in full. Judging from this thread, I would say that is as clear as day, and undeniable.
Point taken. Well, I've told you why I feel it will fail. ie... every social service we have.Quote:
1) I don't have full faith in your government to operate an effective universal program, but i think it could be a possibility, and like i have always said - I ONLY SUPPORT FEASIBLE, EFFECTIVE REFORM. this has always been a primary interest for me, i have always been asking 'why might it fail?' so don't act as though i'm being naive. I'm asking questions, because I know that this is a possibility.
The problem is that no one knows what will happen. No one knows how big of a hit it will have and what effect that hit will have on the world economy. I feel there's a very good chance of our government fucking it up, because they have a track record. Other countries have fucked up their positions in the world market and fucked up their own local markets by socializing. It's a realistic danger to the world economy. Since there are other answers I don't see this as a necessary risk.Quote:
2) You speak as though all financial incentive is removed under a universal system, but as I have pointed out before, there is still a very real financial incentive for the majority of private research. You cannot say 'kill the market, kill the funding', because this is an entirely disingenuous point. I would put it down to misunderstanding but we've talked about this before. It would not be 'killed', it would take a hit. The size of that hit is what needs to be considered. The second biggest pharmaceuticals and healthcare company in the world is a UK company, and though they would take a dent in revenue if the US went universal, they would still have enormous profits (as they do from the other countries), and would still excel. This is not an 'all or nothing' situation; i am trying to understand where exactly the lines and figures would come up if the US did adopt a universal system (which i personally believe it will eventually anyway).
Our "inadequate coverage" is on par with what other socialized systems. There's no evidence that socializing would give everyone better coverage. It would only assure everyone is covered. But, I already addressed this issue multiple times. That inadequate coverage was caused by deregulation 20 or so years ago that needs to be put back into place. That's really a simple fix. It's silly to suggest that we might need to change an entire system to fix something that we can easily trace back to a simple deregulation. As for the unemployed, no offense, but non-taxpayers who aren't students or disabled don't deserve shit. The disabled are already covered under social security and medicare. Students are typically covered under their parents, but if children are living in poverty, they also qualify for social security. There are also a number of charities for children in poverty or with disabilities etc. It IS as simple as getting a job. Everyone has to work to live with the exception of the above (and the elderly who are also covered). I don't believe at all in any social service that gives the unemployed incentive to stay unemployed. I do believe in social services and charities (which I actually actively support) that help get people out of unemployment. But government aid for deadbeats is a no go for me. Sorry. Every able-bodied person has to hold their own. Why should they get paid when they don't pay in? Especially when those resources can go toward so many other things to help people that actually can't help themselves? This is exactly why I said 2% of TAXPAYERS. The only exception I can see is people that get laid off and have no coverage between finding jobs. We should figure out how o provide them with coverage. They could very well miss out on life-saving medical care because they had a small lapse in private coverage.Quote:
3) How the fuck you can eradicate the unemployed from the figure of 'citizens' is beyond me. You know full well that it isn't as simple as 'everyone can just get jobs'. Moreover, the problem is not just those with no insurance, but the millions upon millions more with inadequate coverage, who are liable to face the same difficulties, and the enormous number of people who could potentially get fucked by insurance companies driven by bottom lines. You are trying to minimise the flaws and downsides to your system when we all need to recognise the full extent of those problems. The extent of the downside is far greater than 2% of the 'population'. Another nice irony - your own bit of statistical gymnastics is just as much an example of propaganda as any of the shit you're moaning about.
I was hoping so.Quote:
4) That thing about the top 10% is clearly not how I see the current state of the US healthcare system. It was a fictional example used to demonstrate a very simple point.
I think you've made it clear that you have no opinion despite every argument you've made on the subject is pro-socialized health care... whether you realize it or not. Think about it. It's simple logic. I'm arguing against social services. You're arguing against me. Therefore you're arguing FOR social services. That's pretty simple to understand.Quote:
5) Every point you have described with the word 'duuuuuuuuuh' is intended that way. Funny thing was, it's those incredibly simple points that have been misunderstood throughout this thread, which has lead to my views being misrepresented repeatedly. Irony? Yep. Pretty funny really.
Please. WHO actively and openly pushes what THEY call an AGENDA in support of world wide public health care. Their research is COMPLETELY biased toward meeting that end. They openly advertise this right on their website lol. I'm not saying their agenda is malicious, but they have an obvious and open agenda (which I can respect). Their data analysis is NOT unbias in any sense of the word. Their philosophy of putting high importance on distribution of health care over quality of service is obvious and well-known. Exactly why their analysis has the US as 37th in health care when they're only outranked in distribution but outrank everyone in quality of care. It's a subjective analysis based on their agenda. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but calling them unbias is as good as me calling Fox News unbias. The only difference is WHO is open and honest about the agenda that they wholeheartedly stand behind. Their analysis is only called unbias by other people where Fox hides behind an unbias cloak to push their bias analysis.Quote:
6) I wasn't pulling 'propaganda' statistics with the WHO rankings, unless you consider 'propaganda' anything that doesn't reinforce your own views. That is a legitimate and respected study. You may argue that they put too much emphasis on 'quantity', but that doesn't make it propaganda, so don't act like it isn't a VERY valid source of debate. It remains more comprehensive than any of the facts I have seen in return, by quite a way, so to dismiss it is bizarre. Argue with it? Disagree with it? Fine.
How do survival rates decide quality of care?? Our numbers are right on par with everyone else. The differences are negligible. You can't use the fact that cancer kills people or that expecting mothers don't take care of themselves as a shot at the quality of care institutions provide. Statistics can't account for quality of facilities, the diversity of services and resources at our disposal, or the importance of innovations. Yes, I can see if our survival rates or other quantitative measures of service were tanked compared to other countries, this would negate our quality of care. But that's not the case. There are no statistics reflecting badly on the US as far as quality of service goes. We don't need anymore quantitative statistics than that. The quality of service goes beyond statistics. Agree or not. I don't care. You can't dispute that fact. I've already beaten the topic into the ground.Quote:
Infant mortality and cancer survival rates are two examples.
I love that you brought this up. We have LESS doctors per person but are able to provide more services to our citizens in a faster time frame. No person in this country has to worry about not being able to see a doctor. That's a ridiculous concept. But in countries like Canada and the UK it's a very real concept that has been well-documented. Our issue is COST. We have NO issue with supply. You know how many people every year get REJECTED by our medical schools?? lol We have no shortage of doctors or people wanting to be doctors. The simple fact is that we need less doctors because we're more efficient. Why you ask?? Because when there's a great amount of money to be made, people move at a faster pace and focus on how to do things more efficiently.Quote:
Number of doctors is another one (US trails behind many countries in this regard).
No, but rejecting them as useful because the stats are so close together that applying subjective levels of importance to them is the only deciding factor... is a valid stance to take.Quote:
Yes, they cannot give a perfect, unarguable evaluation, but they are quite clearly incredibly useful for forming one's own opinion, and they can generate well-informed debate. To dismiss such evidence as irrelevant because there remains an element of subjectivity is wholly ridiculous.
They're on par with those systems in those regards and head and shoulders above in other regards... you know... that silly... we create all the medical advances you take for granted thing... yea. That's pretty important.Quote:
The fact is, the US does not stand head and shoulders above certain universal systems in all of these regards.
Your reliance on statistics is hilarious to me. You NEED statistics to make up your mind. You SHOULD be rejecting most statistics if you understood how they're gathered. There are lies... there are damn lies... and their are statistics. If you don't understand then pick any one of the statistics you find support either side of this debate and I'll break down for you the flaws that can be specifically related to those statistics. I'm a business school graduate man. We were taught how and why statistics are create. We were taught how their flaws can be used to people's advantage so WE can use them to our advantage in the business world. You can't even rely on a statistics without understanding how to use standard deviation, confidence intervals, etc to see how reliable those statistics actually are. You've been throwing around statistics that you know nothing about. This has already caused you to use ridiculous statistics in this very argument (one bankruptcy every 30 seconds). We're arguing economic theory and you want us to stick to statistics to do so. You completely ignore the empirical evidence I've used to support my stance just because they don't have percentages. Analyzing the rise and collapse of empires is SLIGHTLY more significant than a percentage thrown around with no knowledge of how it was made or how reliable it actually is... especially when the statistics are very close together and the empirical evidence is in your face dead obvious written for you in recorded modern history. Recognizing the abundance of innovations credited to US health care. Recognizing the US role as the world market leader in health care. These things are more important than random stats that could very well be attributed to plenty of things that have nothing to do with the quality of care that a hospital provides. You insist on seeing numbers, and that is simply NOT going to happen in this thread. Again, if that's what you need then keep looking, and good luck to you. If you find anything new and interesting, keep me posted because I'm done looking for such things. I've found adequate info for me to decide where I stand. But I'm open to info that suggests that my stance is wrong.Quote:
I have no idea why you are unable to accept that, the evidence might even fall in your favour. I ask for such information not knowing that it will prove that 'UNIVERSAL IS #1' but because it might make me rethink my stance, and better everyone's understanding of the issue.
Possibly, but you haven't brought anything to light, so why should I keep searching until I find something I missed? My stance is pretty grounded... based on obvious historical facts and realistic concerns.Quote:
I think that there are some things you aren't really thinking about enough