Reply With QuoteHe prefers ours because he's a big fan of racketeering.Originally Posted by kellyb
The insurance industry is the source of the universal mandate. Their position was that if they have to cover pre-existing conditions, then everyone - particularly healthy people - has to buy insurance. That could have been balanced out by a public option, but that was another war altogether, so it was decided that getting the PPACA we have out the door and in place as a starting point was more important than arguing over a huge dispute for perpetuity and getting nothing done.
He prefers ours because he's a big fan of racketeering.
Chachma v'Oz (03-18-2012), kellyb (03-18-2012)
It's better.
Lets see.
Shorter waits, better treatment, better facilities, better survival rates, more innovation and newer technologies,etc, etc....
Shut up you Obama dick-smoker.
GanjaFreebird (03-19-2012)
The wait times are similar, the treatments are almost always identical, they have a longer life expectancy, and they're just as innovative and use more high tech stuff in many instances.
Did you know that what we pay for Medicaid and Medicare alone per capita is what funds the entire "free at the point of need" NHS in the UK? We could have that without even raising taxes.
But... but... that's socialism!
I dunno. None of us were fans of any of this when it was proposed by the Heritage Foundation. Even the mandate doesn't even make sense when it's less than one tenth the cost of insurance.
What does "socialism" even mean? According to Marx, socialism was when the people owned everything. No private capitalist enterprise at all. It was supposed to refer to nations converting to global, stateless communism.
According to that original definition, the NHS isn't even close to socialism.
But I guess none of that matters to those who are still terrified of the soviet threat.
I'm not advocating for the universal mandate nor saying it makes sense. I'm explaining how it came to be. The way things work, we can't legislate without undue influence from the subject industries. What we end up with is similar to what we get when we involve Republicans - not quite what we need, nor enough of it. We don't need the universal mandate; we do need the public option. We got what could clear the senate and be sent to the president.
Stay tuned for developments.
Yes, that was sarcasm. If any of these yayhoos ever experienced socialism, they'd be kissing Obama's feet for being so conservative.
I've just totally lost faith in the democrats. I used to think like you do, but I've become much more cynical over the past few years. Now I think if they have a master plan at all, it's not one we little people will like. Because the democratic party is now run by the oligarchs to an almost equal extent as the republicans. The democratic party is just far more sophisticated at fooling the working class.
I don't know if the Democrats have my country's best interests at heart, but I know that the Republicans don't.
I really am not in the mood for a drawn out debate on this because I've done it so many times. What I've found is despite me posting the facts, the leftists, when confronted with the facts, ignore them. I'm not saying you will, but it's just my experience. But, since you have made false assertions, I feel obligated to correct them.
Survival Rates:
Innovation:Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced.
England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.
Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists. . .
A second article, which looked at 2.7 million patients diagnosed between 1995 and 1999, found that countries that spent the most on health per capita per year had better survival rates.
Britain was the exception. Despite spending up to £1,500 on health per person per year, it recorded similar survival rates for Hodgkin's disease and lung cancer as Poland, which spends a third of that amount.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ncancer121.xml
http://reason.com/blog/2007/08/21/piling-on-the-nhs
US at the top of the pack
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
10 facts about the American Healthcare system:
1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers
2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians
3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries
4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Regarding life expectancy, that's a clouded unreliable statistic because it does not take cultures into account. It also doesn't acknowledge that different countries use different methods of accounting. It also doesn't acknowledge that some countries even cheat. There are a whole host of factors that affect this statistic independent of the system of healthcare.
Also, according to some researches who conducted a comprehensive study on the matter, the study blamed smoking and obesity. "About half of all deaths in the United States are attributable to a small number of "modifiable" behaviors and exposures, such as smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise." Then there's criminal homicide, and death from HIV/AIDS which has been declining for a decade. The bottom line is that most factors retarding longevity are independent of health care or insurance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...og&mod=WSJBlog
Feel free to respond to some, all, or any. I've got loads of this stuff and I believe all of your statements have been addressed. I also have the experience of actually living in a nation with socialized medicine for part of my life. The Drones, like Chachi and Optimus are true believers, facts simply don't enter into the equation and nothing said will enter into their heads. Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion that what's transpired here in the past.
Yeah, me, too.
Not sure what to do about it.
I'm interested in honest debate.
The US indeed rocks at some cancer survival rates, the most striking being prostate cancer.
But do the uninsured even get factored into the US statistics?
Pretty certain they do for some of the reasons below. I just read part of an article that uninsured and untreated are two entirely different things. The uninsured get treatment. Using CBO data Cover the Uninsured found that over 80% of the uninsured had access to needed medical care for the past year http://covertheuninsuredweek.org/med...arch/brffs.pdf
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, calculates that (pg 3) more than 60%of the uninsured retained a "usual source of care."
http://www.ahrq.gov/news/ulp/uninsur...n1/Zuvekas.ppt
Emergency Rooms treat millions for free.
Also, most lacking coverage usually have it within months. The uninsured is largely a dynamic group, with people moving in and out of coverage as opposed to a static group.
Census Bureau data shows that a family who loses insurance is on average uninsured for about 5 months. http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...re-not-reading
The reality here is that we have enough wealth in this nation to have a good private system that remains the world leader while having a public system that helps those that cannot help themselves. Few disagree with that concept.
That doesn't apply to people with cancer, though, which is your own cherry picked group.Pretty certain they do for some of the reasons below. I just read part of an article that uninsured and untreated are two entirely different things. The uninsured get treatment. Using CBO data Cover the Uninsured found that over 80% of the uninsured had access to needed medical care for the past year http://covertheuninsuredweek.org/med...arch/brffs.pdf
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, calculates that (pg 3) more than 60%of the uninsured retained a "usual source of care."
http://www.ahrq.gov/news/ulp/uninsur...n1/Zuvekas.ppt
Emergency Rooms treat millions for free.
blah blah blah blah....
Doctors who really care about their patients are all for national health care since it is the most efficient way to keep people alive. Maybe if we had doctors only focus on saving lives and keeping people well, and not collecting money from people who are already broke then the United States would have a better health care system.
And anyone who things Tort "Reform" is a good thing has never been a victim.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the uninsured get treatment. I can't speak to the specifics as it indirectly revolves around someone who used to work for me and was before I could afford to offer my employees healthcare insurance. Needless to say, the government program, Medicaid, stepped in and took good care of the person. This is where Government has a role IMO, to help fill in the gaps.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks