Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Its tricky, because you want to make it clear that this bill is crap, while also communicating a desire to see the debate continue. One way would be to get in touch with the various grassroots networks established during the campaign, and pitch an idea for a pro-healthcare reform rally after the current bill fails. Another might be to simply draw up a protest slogan that somehow encapsulates both those points. But the simplest way of going about this is to talk to people about the bill, and get them to mail their Congressman with something to the affect of what we're discussing.

I think I will bring that up in my night classes and see if we can get a community letter from the college.

I would hope that something like this would be easy peasy in the Bay Area but unfortunately I don't see the kind of activism that I once did, not that I visit many rallies anymore. My main point being to get entire cities to write up letters to congress expressing how they want to see this through and why they feel it is necessary.

I have thought of doing a bunch of political art instead of my next spare-time sculpture. I know a cat who is a rather well trained artist and I think he could make a career out of the material out there right now. Making fun of both sides tends to lighten the situation up, and I think well constructed visual media is a fantastic way to get your points across. Spamming the internet with positive opinions backed up by solid information pointing towards real health care reform that could stand to make our nation extremely strong. Doing this on YouTube seems to be the best option, and I am thinking of getting into flash or just working with stop-motion puppets. Really simple and crisp design that speaks to nearly everyone and fairly and honestly as possible... with a lot of funny for flavor.

More Daily Show, less Adult Swim maybe? Perhaps that is the point I am trying to get across.

The whole thing is a rather interesting conundrum as far as organizing goes. How to have rational, though not necessarily organized, debate en masse. The premise is very similar to some of the musings I've had about establishing some kind of centrist part.

If we are any type of neo-empire getting into gear for a futuristic style of cohesive expansion (no not the NWO... man...) that would benefit the whole planet I think that the interwebz needs to be flooded with huge amounts of verifiable fact on top of mass opinion. Wait... perhaps flood and organize the information that is already there and link it in a intuitionist way.... maybe? This could work, the internet is pretty tricky to get good information out of for the average person. With all of the issues floating around Health Care is the hottest one with the least proportionate REAL coverage. Sure we hear about this and that... but how is the bill? Oh, right Obama said the party was over, we can go home now folks... sorry for the interruption.

Conversations like these tend to make countries last, and I would not be surprised at all if many people (like... many many many people) feel exactly the same way. Not a revolution but a reaction to the totally ridiculous... oh man I loike to type type type apples and bananas...

Hmmm... lost my train of thought .

Anyway... this guy is speaking like I am beginning to think.




I would hope that this next clip is true in some way, mainly because I really think that a real change is still needed. I do think that Obama is a very smart guy, but he seems to lack the spine necessary to really see this all the way through. GO OBAMA GO!!! Maybe we should send a fruit basket or something ...




"Dear Obama, this is from U.S."

DarthDiggler wrote:Interesting. How many of the Europeans who won work for private hospitals? How many are academics and outside the Government run systems of their home country? The desire for profit can motivate the money behind the research more than the supposed altruistic motives of a state run health care system. I'm curious if anybody knows.

I don't know as much about the Medical Nobel, but in Economics Nobel prizes are awarded for work that can take decades to accomplish, during which time a researcher will likely work at many universities, and it'll be unlikely he'll spend much time working anywhere else. Private research is normally dedicated to specific ends and not the theoretical work that will win a Nobel.

These universities are unlikely to be private or public, at least in the sense you're probably thinking, as private and public just refers to whether students are expected to pay for their tuition. Whether or not that's the case research carries on regardless, funded privately to publically at a ratio of somewhere between 1:1 to 3:1. Exactly what gets funded varies as well, as government funding will favour high level, theoretical research that will pave the way for future medical developments, and observations of the population to set overall policy. Private sector research will focus on technologies and drugs that have a reasonable chance of being developed into a product that can be taken to market.

Both kinds of research are indispensible, and both forms are supported in every medical system around the world. I only posted the list of Nobel winners as that was a simple, direct way of disproving halonachos' claim. I work at a university, and I can tell you there's a hell of a lot of private research dollars available in the Australian system. Unfortunately I can't find anything to substantiate the amount spent in various countries, but I'd be shocked if the US spent more, let alone so much more it accounted for a meaningful portion of the extra trillion odd you spend on medical costs each year.

This one seems to have REAL deal experts.. very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiabW9wFRIk&feature=channel

Here is another good debate. I thought it was funny how the Reppie Senator Orrin Hatch squirmed out of the question about the 2003 medicare rx act.
This one is well worth the watch, just watch it on YouTube.




Here is another, not particularly interesting but completely relevant.




Here is a decent summary.

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:I have no idea who the hell you're hitting seeing as though in my quote above, I haven't said ANYTHING about ALL medical breakthroughs coming from only america.

You said this;

“I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?”

You later went on to say;
“If your latest discovery is penicillin (which a large number are allergic to and has been mainly replaced) then you are a backwards nation.”

You questioned the last time a European country contributed anything to medicine. You then went on to assume they'd contributed nothing since penicillin. I pointed out that in the last ten years more Europeans had been recognised than Americans by the Nobel committee for their contributions to medical research.

Next time, actually read what I write and try not to make me say things I didn't.

But you did say it.

Except for the fact that I said no such thing, then yes I did say it. Let me purchase you an american to australian dictionary.

What I said is a question of how many recent developements have come from europe, and the fact that I acknowledged that penicillin was discovered in europe is proof that I did not say that only america has made contributions. I guess you like to make things up, its good to have an imagination, but you shouldn't make up statements and then attribute them to someone who didn't say it.

Again, I questioned the recent(not ten years) medical advancements so anything withing 1 year, 2 years, etc. Recent is subjective. I guess the voices told you that I said "I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science in the last ten years?" as opposed to what I said.

Learn to read, and learn to interpret what I say. I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet. Either that or see your psychiatrist about that imaginary guy saying things under my username.



Also, high costs go into specialist care. In terms of specialist ratios to general physicians we rule.

When physicians were asked about another more elective procedure, hip replacement, the gap between the other four countries and the United States widened. The survey found that 93 percent and 92 percent of New Zealand and U.K. physicians, respectively, and 60 percent and 70 percent of Canadian and Australian doctors, respectively, said that a sixty-five-year-old patient who required a routine hip replacement would have to wait more than six months, compared with 1 percent of U.S. physicians. For this procedure, the United States is unique in that 51 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients would wait less than one week for a hip replacement operation.

To sum it up; the UK, NZ, Canadian, and Australian doctors mostly believe that a patient looking for hip replacement would have to wait more than 6 months. While half of american physicians said they would have to wait less than a weekand 1% said they would have to wait at least 6 months. If we look at america's 2 specialists per 1 general practicioner we are doing quite well.

Now sebster, this does not mean I am saying that europe, etc doesn't have any specialists so don't even try to pull that b.s again.

What I said is a question of how many recent developements have come from europe

Thing is though you said this whilst claiming the use of anaesthetic as an example of the advantages of the system used in the USA, a development not exclusive to the USA at all, a point you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge and which took place about 200 years ago. And then complain when a top of the head example of penicillin is used as an example of a medical advancement made in Europe. You made a crack about Europe being a backwards country...hmmm..

I think what you might have meant to say and what you did actually infer are two quite separte things in this instance.

I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet

or especially clear ones often I'm afraid.

Your summary is interesting too : a more accurate one would be in the UK, NZ, Canada and Australia a person will get a hip replacement in a period of over 6 months waiting time on average. In America most people would not get one at all as they couldn't afford to pay for it.

I then said yes, anasthesia was used, but it was used for schitzen giggles. While in boston a dentist decided to use it for tooth extractions. While we had people in the middle east cutting cataracts out before anyone else. Did I complain about the example being used, no, I made a statement to infer that it has been replaced by newer things.

And yes Eporue is backwards.

Yesmy summary is interesting. Its basic debate logic, why the hell would I say something to go against my point?

But its also important to note that those in england, etc would get their hip surgeries faster if they paid for them privately.

IF they could afford them. Which most people couldn't.

Just like more and more people in the USA can't afford similar treatment.


Average time in England is now 11 weeks BTW.



The first part of your above post makes no sense, it's almost random sentences strung together through some odd form of free association or something.

I made a statement to infer that it has been replaced by newer things.

No, you didn't. Oh, this ^^ and..

I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet

Don't really jive either.

Bwahahaha, 11 weeks is still 2+ months. You europeans are poor I tells ya, poor. And thar be gold in them hills yonder.

If I made it to easy to read then I wouldn't have any fun.
Have you ever noticed though that its easier for you?
Atman is probably the only one of your group that isn't here to attack my thoughts.
Truly there is no hope for my argument.
Every time I say something I have 3 or 4 people attack it.
Y'all just attack and attack and attack. Dogma's just given in to the govt.
Other times its because you're european and sebster's australian.
Unless you live here, then you don't know our system after all, its america's healthcare plan, not the worlds.

halonachos wrote:
Except for the fact that I said no such thing, then yes I did say it. Let me purchase you an american to australian dictionary.

What I said is a question of how many recent developements have come from europe, and the fact that I acknowledged that penicillin was discovered in europe is proof that I did not say that only america has made contributions. I guess you like to make things up, its good to have an imagination, but you shouldn't make up statements and then attribute them to someone who didn't say it.

Combining this...

halonachos wrote:
I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?

With this...

halonachos wrote:
The anesthetic was used for "laughing gas" parties. Hardly a medical advancement. If your latest discovery is penicillin (which a large number are allergic to and has been mainly replaced) then you are a backwards nation.

Especially this part...

halonachos wrote:
(which a large number are allergic to and has been mainly replaced)

Makes it clear that you only acknowledged penicillin in order to trivialize the role Europe has played in advancing medical science. What is with you an trivializing things? You really need to stop that.

halonachos wrote:
Again, I questioned the recent(not ten years) medical advancements so anything withing 1 year, 2 years, etc. Recent is subjective. I guess the voices told you that I said "I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science in the last ten years?" as opposed to what I said.

What? Dude, you're digging your own grave. Yes, Sebster is making an inference based upon your commentary but, given your clear stance of 'AMERICA YEAH' over a number of threads, it is far from a bad inference. However, trying to claim that by recent you mean "1 year, 2 years, etc." is indicative of three things:

1) You don't understand the timetable of research as a whole.
2) You're desperately trying to backpedal out of a poorly thought out comment.
3) You haven't considered what the comparison of the last 2 years means for your overall 'argument'.

halonachos wrote:
Learn to read, and learn to interpret what I say. I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet. Either that or see your psychiatrist about that imaginary guy saying things under my username.

You don't want him to interpret what you're saying. That's what he did by making an inference. You want him to consider only the letter of your language, which is what I'm doing now. It isn't much better. It might even be worse.

halonachos wrote:
Also, high costs go into specialist care. In terms of specialist ratios to general physicians we rule.

When physicians were asked about another more elective procedure, hip replacement, the gap between the other four countries and the United States widened. The survey found that 93 percent and 92 percent of New Zealand and U.K. physicians, respectively, and 60 percent and 70 percent of Canadian and Australian doctors, respectively, said that a sixty-five-year-old patient who required a routine hip replacement would have to wait more than six months, compared with 1 percent of U.S. physicians. For this procedure, the United States is unique in that 51 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients would wait less than one week for a hip replacement operation.

To sum it up; the UK, NZ, Canadian, and Australian doctors mostly believe that a patient looking for hip replacement would have to wait more than 6 months. While half of american physicians said they would have to wait less than a weekand 1% said they would have to wait at least 6 months. If we look at america's 2 specialists per 1 general practicioner we are doing quite well.

The next questions are:"Do people need hip replacements within 1 week of requesting them?", and "Do effective diagnostic procedures offset the need for immediate medical action?".

Remember, one of the critiques of the American system is that we have too many specialists. Many of whom are forced to perform the mundane services of a GP at a cost which far outstrips those of a GP.

halonachos wrote:
Now sebster, this does not mean I am saying that europe, etc doesn't have any specialists so don't even try to pull that b.s again.

You really don't understand dialectic, do you?

halonachos wrote:Unless you live here, then you don't know our system after all, its america's healthcare plan, not the worlds.

So dont pretend to know the UK's system.

halonachos wrote:
Y'all just attack and attack and attack.

That's what debate is. Active criticism, which you could always use to improve your own abilities.

halonachos wrote:
Dogma's just given in to the govt.

Wait, I thought drawing inferences was a bad thing. Apparently I've written somewhere that the government is great, glorious, and all knowing. Then again it may simply be that I don't treat the state as a universal source of fear like you seem to believe is necessary. I thought individualists strode bravely into the frontier. How far our rhetorical myths have fallen.

halonachos wrote:
Unless you live here, then you don't know our system after all, its america's healthcare plan, not the worlds.

Strangely enough, they still have the ability to comment on something that isn't theirs. Unless you plan to stop considering Europe backwards, or anything at all for that matter, I suggest you rethink this stance.

I guess nobody saw it, so I guess I hid it in there pretty well.


When europe stops thinking that america is barbaric because we don't have a healthcare plan and we can actually own guns, then I will stop calling them backwards.


And Dogma, I ask you; would you rather wait for a ip replacement or just get it done? Keep in mind the pain that comes from it.

halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that I said no such thing, then yes I did say it. Let me purchase you an american to australian dictionary.

What I said is a question of how many recent developements have come from europe, and the fact that I acknowledged that penicillin was discovered in europe is proof that I did not say that only america has made contributions. I guess you like to make things up, its good to have an imagination, but you shouldn't make up statements and then attribute them to someone who didn't say it.

Again, I questioned the recent(not ten years) medical advancements so anything withing 1 year, 2 years, etc. Recent is subjective. I guess the voices told you that I said "I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science in the last ten years?" as opposed to what I said.

Learn to read, and learn to interpret what I say. I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet. Either that or see your psychiatrist about that imaginary guy saying things under my username.

There was nothing hidden in what you said. You have consistently asserted the dominance of the US system, and questioned the number of developments that have come out of Europe. You later claimed Europe was backwards if penicillin was their last medical discovery. When it was pointed out to you that Europeans have been awarded more Nobel prizes for medical discoveries than Americans, you're pretending the whole thing was framed purely as a question. This is transparently untrue.

You're not fooling anyone, and at this point I'm going to ask you again to man up, and concede the point. We all try poor arguments from time to time and see them get shot down. Admitting it won't make you less of a man, and it won't cost you any respect. Being honest and admitting you were wrong may just earn you some respect.

Trying to assert that 'recent' meant medical advancements in the last two or so years is stupid. You know it is stupid. Medical systems are not and never will be assessed on the research productivity of only the last two years. I picked ten years as a broad figure, you could argue to increase or decrease that number by some amount, but your earlier effort to extend the time frame out to the beginning of the century is only made sillier by this second effort to limit it to two years.

Also, high costs go into specialist care. In terms of specialist ratios to general physicians we rule.

When physicians were asked about another more elective procedure, hip replacement, the gap between the other four countries and the United States widened. The survey found that 93 percent and 92 percent of New Zealand and U.K. physicians, respectively, and 60 percent and 70 percent of Canadian and Australian doctors, respectively, said that a sixty-five-year-old patient who required a routine hip replacement would have to wait more than six months, compared with 1 percent of U.S. physicians. For this procedure, the United States is unique in that 51 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients would wait less than one week for a hip replacement operation.

To sum it up; the UK, NZ, Canadian, and Australian doctors mostly believe that a patient looking for hip replacement would have to wait more than 6 months. While half of american physicians said they would have to wait less than a weekand 1% said they would have to wait at least 6 months. If we look at america's 2 specialists per 1 general practicioner we are doing quite well.

Now sebster, this does not mean I am saying that europe, etc doesn't have any specialists so don't even try to pull that b.s again.

No, because you didn't say or imply that.

However, you are right that the US system is better in several regards, in fact, it isn't just hip replacements. When it comes to non-urgent, profitable surgeries the US has very short waiting times, so knee reconstructions and all manner of similar operations are done very quickly. Of course, the US is paying about 8% more of its GDP for medical costs than the UK, if you were paying at the UK rate you'd be saving around a trillion dollars a year. And there's also the parts of medicine that aren't non-urgent and highly profitable. Infant mortality in the US is about 25% higher than the UK. Life expectancy in the US is around half a year shorter than the UK.

So if the choice is between having a shorter wait for hip surgery or saving a trillion dollars, having more babies survive and living longer... well it's a toughie.

Here's the url for the figures given above, if you're interested; http://www.ijcim.th.org/past_editions/2004V12N3/ijcimv3n1_article8.pdf

Except for the fact that americans have won 3 times the number of nobel prizes than the UK in its entire history, then yes, we have far less winners.

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Too bad some of you guys don't count all born babies as living.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR

halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that americans have won 3 times the number of nobel prizes than the UK in its entire history

I'm still lost on what the hell this has to do with your healthcare system, since most medical breakthroughs come out of universities and independent researchers. Including a whole load of those nobel prize winners you mention.

halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that americans have won 3 times the number of nobel prizes than the UK in its entire history, then yes, we have far less winners.

With about six times our population as well. Looks like your education system might be fethed as well then.

Because they are applied to medicine.

Our universities are top notch, just ask all of the foreigners that come to america just for the education. In fact my chemistry T.A. is going back to India because her four years are up.

halonachos wrote:Our universities are top notch, just ask all of the foreigners that come to america just for the education. In fact my chemistry T.A. is going back to India because her four years are up.

yeh your universities, many of which are publicly funded. Again, what does that have to do with your healthcare system?

Universities are a hotbed of socialism and subversive thinking as well. Best close them.

halonachos wrote:I guess nobody saw it, so I guess I hid it in there pretty well.

There are 3 people here who clearly made the same inference.

halonachos wrote:
When europe stops thinking that america is barbaric because we don't have a healthcare plan and we can actually own guns, then I will stop calling them backwards.

And this only furthers the point.

halonachos wrote:
And Dogma, I ask you; would you rather wait for a ip replacement or just get it done? Keep in mind the pain that comes from it.

Preference isn't a factor here. A bad hip is not life threatening. Does it hurt? Sure. So do all those back injuries, joint problems, and other assorted issues which go untreated due to insufficient or nonexistent insurance. And that doesn't factor in the potential for early diagnosis, and therefore scheduling, in a system with superior preventative measures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
Too bad some of you guys don't count all born babies as living.

I take it you've never heard of stillborn infants?

reds8n brought it up. BTW universities are funded by city or state, not by federal government .

Also, it depends on which university you go to...



Is that gunfire, yes. But that's what they use at VMI to wake students sometimes.
Virginia Military Institute, I doubt that there are liberals there.

halonachos wrote:Because they are applied to medicine.

Uh, yeah, some of them are. But that isn't really the point. The point is that looking at the history of Nobel prize is irrelevant when considering the present state of healthcare. Not that looking at the Nobel prize is particularly relevant to the matter at all. Scientific breakthroughs are frequently not brought to market in the nation in which they are made. Just ask the English how they feel about the American commercialization of technical development in the old country.

halonachos wrote:
Our universities are top notch, just ask all of the foreigners that come to america just for the education. In fact my chemistry T.A. is going back to India because her four years are up.

Sure, right after I ask all the American students who go abroad to earn their post-graduate degrees. One of the main reasons so many people come here to be educated arises from the generous aid packages, and preferential admission status, granted to foreign students.

Our universities are great, but they aren't significantly better than European universities.

Well, what are the reasons for going abroad? Surely seeing the world isn't one of them.

halonachos wrote:reds8n brought it up. BTW universities are funded by city or state, not by federal government .

I guess those Federal Stafford Loans which I used to pay for school don't count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Well, what are the reasons for going abroad? Surely seeing the world isn't one of them.

Right, because all those international students that study in the States have no interest in seeing the world.

As far as how the schools compare, I don't know who wins, or if anyone truly wins for that matter.

I mean to compare the US school to another country is disasterous. I mean we all have different policies, like japan will take those who don't pass enough out of school and teach them a trade. IIRC.

Also, like I have said before, the schools are run by city government. The schools I went to had "academy" programs that included an extra class in a specific field while the next city over doesn't have anything like that.

halonachos wrote:As far as how the schools compare, I don't know who wins, or if anyone truly wins for that matter.

I mean to compare the US school to another country is disasterous. I mean we all have different policies, like japan will take those who don't pass enough out of school and teach them a trade. IIRC.

Also, like I have said before, the schools are run by city government. The schools I went to had "academy" programs that included an extra class in a specific field while the next city over doesn't have anything like that.

That's incorrect. Public schools are overseen by the district board, which is itself an extension the state board. Private schools are overseen by their own board, and mus qualify for accreditation with the state. Well, they don't have to, but it would stupid of them not to do so. However, we weren't talking about the public education system. We were talking about the university system, which is a different beast altogether.

And yes those stafford loans don't count. They aren't used to fund the school specifically. While a state collects taxes and distributes them among universities in the state only, the stafford loan is given to a prospective student for them to pay for tuition for any college across the nation and more often than not, you'll get screwed over by the amount they loan. My loan didn't even cover the base cost of my classes and I was only taking 14 credit hours.

halonachos wrote:reds8n brought it up. BTW universities are funded by city or state, not by federal government .

yeh aka. "publicly funded," as in not private like your healthcare system. And I'm still not being told what it has to do with your healthcare system. Whoever brought it up, you still seemed to be using it as an argument against public healthcare.