America Losing Faith in Obama?

[phlymo]

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.

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?

[phlymo]

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?

[Led Poison]

Obama......reminds me too much of Osama.

[Opie M.]

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.

[Opie M.]

Lol thanks for making me scroll thru that on my phone.

[DGK]

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.

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.

[phlymo]

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.

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.

[phlymo]

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.

[Opie M.]

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.

[phlymo]

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.

[Opie M.]

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

[RomesBurning]

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"

[Mr W.Rite]

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

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:

[Opie M.]

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.

[phlymo]

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

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.

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.