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.
Jihadin wrote:Have to start somewhere. Either Frazzled, R&R get into office or have O be in office with a reublican senate.
Edited for you
A vote for Frazzled is a vote for FREEEEEEDOM!!!*
*Freeeeedom means the immediate annexation of Canada, Mexico, and Tahiti. All your handy vacation spots and maple deliciousness are belong to us!!!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Whats the Democratic plan? Whats the Republican plan? Lets debate the actual plans, the actual ideas.
Well, you've just seen my analysis of the Ryan plan. Anything to say in it's defense?
Yeah the Ryan plan doesn't call for any cuts to the national parks system and the Fed is self funded so it can't be cut in any budget until and unless it stops making money on its security investments. Beyond that I just dismissed your analysis because those are to me glaring errors.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Why is this important? Erskine Bowles has a long pedigree as a Democratic budget thinker — and presidential adviser. When Barack Obama needed to pick the co-chair for his deficit committee, which he roundly ignored in the end, he chose Bowles to represent his side on the panel. Bowles served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and earlier ran the Small Business Administration for Clinton. Ezra Klein predicted on Friday that Bowles would be the front-runner for Tim Geithner’s job at Treasury if Obama wins a second term. Bowles stated:
“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere.
And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.
The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”
Wow. That guy is so far up Paul Ryan's ass I hope he bought him dinner first.
@Frazzled: I don't know what Obama's budget includes. However, Ryan's budget is so bad that I believe you are making an error in assuming that any publicized budget is better than no publicized budget. Compared to the budget Ryan proposed, short of cancelling all government programs and allocating those funds toward roving posses of rapist clowns, Obama can't not have a better budget.
I realize that so far I've used some colourful editorialization here, but putting that aside, let me be completely serious: Paul Ryan's proposed budget will plunge your country into Mad Max times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:*Freeeeedom means the immediate annexation of Canada, Mexico, and Tahiti. All your handy vacation spots and maple deliciousness are belong to us!!!
Last time y'all tried this, the White House was razed.
Also, happy bicentennial! I couldn't resist...
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/13 21:56:47
Why is this important? Erskine Bowles has a long pedigree as a Democratic budget thinker — and presidential adviser. When Barack Obama needed to pick the co-chair for his deficit committee, which he roundly ignored in the end, he chose Bowles to represent his side on the panel. Bowles served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and earlier ran the Small Business Administration for Clinton. Ezra Klein predicted on Friday that Bowles would be the front-runner for Tim Geithner’s job at Treasury if Obama wins a second term. Bowles stated:
“Have any of you met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing, uh. I always thought that I was OK with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me. And, he is honest. He is straightforward. He is sincere.
And, the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion…just like we did.
The President came out with his own plan and the President came out, as you will remember, with a budget and I don’t think anyone took that budget very seriously. Um, the Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework and, in the new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10 year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it was about a $2.5 trillion cut.”
Wow. That guy is so far up Paul Ryan's ass I hope he bought him dinner first
Uh... Bowles is a Democrat from Oregon ( a very liberal region ). He's was Clinton's Chief of Staff for cripes sakes... My point was that he's respected in both aisles.
@Frazzled: I don't know what Obama's budget includes. However, Ryan's budget is so bad that I believe you are making an error in assuming that any publicized budget is better than no publicized budget. Compared to the budget Ryan proposed, short of cancelling all government programs and allocating those funds toward roving posses of rapist clowns, Obama can't not have a better budget.
I realize that so far I've used some colourful editorialization here, but putting that aside, let me be completely serious: Paul Ryan's proposed budget will plunge your country into Mad Max times.
whembly wrote:Uh... Bowles is a Democrat from Oregon ( a very liberal region ). He's was Clinton's Chief of Staff for cripes sakes... My point was that he's respected in both aisles.
And my point was that Bowles is so far up Paul Ryan's ass that I hope he bought him dinner first. I don't understand how party lines comes into play, outside of a Romeo & Juliet allegory.
Tell me which one of his ideas will bring us to Mad Max times???
Having nothing but blank pages beyond his empty rhetoric on page 7 isn't a great start.
I should note: I'm a pretty staunch defender of government regulation for the private sector, and in favour of single-payer universal health care, so I'm diametrically opposed to most of his budget cuts, as I view the privatization of public services with loathing and contempt, as services provided by the private sector represent a conflict of interest: the conflict between the private sector's goal of maximizing their profit whilst being expected to provide a service that can only be viewed as an expenditure on their books.
Anyway, I'll start with his rhetoric: -The 1.9 trillion tax increase under Obama will only apply to the very rich. And feth those guys. In the 1940s they were paying 94% and still lived like kings. How much better does someone need to eat?
-Ryan claims to "reduce debt as a share of the economy ... reforming the drivers of the debt", yet also says there will be no reduction to defense spending, implying he has no understanding the defense spending accounts for the majority of the debt.
-I won't defend Obamacare as anything other than being better than what you had before it. Obamacare is a bad policy, but it's better than nothing. Basically the equivalent of going to the vet because you can't afford to go to the hospital. However, any health care system that creates a conflict of interest as is common in the private sector between the well-being of the patient and the profit of the company should be completely removed from the table for obvious reasons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/14 00:25:42
whembly wrote:Uh... Bowles is a Democrat from Oregon ( a very liberal region ). He's was Clinton's Chief of Staff for cripes sakes... My point was that he's respected in both aisles.
And my point was that Bowles is so far up Paul Ryan's ass that I hope he bought him dinner first. I don't understand how party lines comes into play, outside of a Romeo & Juliet allegory.
Uh... Democrats vs Republicans are like Hetfield and McCoys...
Tell me which one of his ideas will bring us to Mad Max times???
Having nothing but blank pages beyond his empty rhetoric on page 7 isn't a great start.
I should note: I'm a pretty staunch defender of government regulation for the private sector, and in favour of single-payer universal health care, so I'm diametrically opposed to most of his budget cuts, as I view the privatization of public services with loathing and contempt, as services provided by the private sector represent a conflict of interest: the conflict between the private sector's goal of maximizing their profit whilst being expected to provide a service that can only be viewed as an expenditure on their books.
Whoa... don't take this the wrong way... but... I'm glad you live in Canada. Stay THERE!
Those views run contrary to most Americans.
Or... move to San Francisco... you'll fit in there.
whembly wrote:Whoa... don't take this the wrong way... but... I'm glad you live in Canada. Stay THERE!
Those views run contrary to most Americans.
Or... move to San Francisco... you'll fit in there.
The San Francisco quip I can only assume is a strange attack on my sexuality (Kinsey 0 heterosexual, if that at all matters), which I assume comes from some twisted idea you have that there is a direct association between homosexuality and increased health care, beyond the tertiary notion that homosexuals are statistically more likely to identify as being progressive, and therefore more likely to be in favour of universal health care. However, by that virtue one could also claim that homosexuals are statistically less likely to vote against their own interests because they are less likely to be swayed by foolish propaganda such as considering socialist policies to be an antithesis of a foolish notion of what it means to be a "Red-Blooded Real 'Merican".
In any case, please be careful with loaded statements like the San Fransisco bit.
As to the rest, I absolutely do not take it the wrong way: a xenophobic statement endorsing the patriarchal status quo by implying that new ideas which do not conform to the current moral majority are not desired and should stay away so as to remove any possibility of progressive social change.
At least, that is what you said. What you meant to say, however, was likely "please do not take offense to this, but... stay THERE!", in which case you have nothing to worry about. I am neither offended nor would I ever have any intention to immigrate to any country without real universal health care.
whembly wrote:Whoa... don't take this the wrong way... but... I'm glad you live in Canada. Stay THERE!
Those views run contrary to most Americans.
Or... move to San Francisco... you'll fit in there.
The San Francisco quip I can only assume is a strange attack on my sexuality (Kinsey 0 heterosexual, if that at all matters), which I assume comes from some twisted idea you have that there is a direct association between homosexuality and increased health care, beyond the tertiary notion that homosexuals are statistically more likely to identify as being progressive, and therefore more likely to be in favour of universal health care. However, by that virtue one could also claim that homosexuals are statistically less likely to vote against their own interests because they are less likely to be swayed by foolish propaganda such as considering socialist policies to be an antithesis of a foolish notion of what it means to be a "Red-Blooded Real 'Merican".
In any case, please be careful with loaded statements like the San Fransisco bit.
I knew I walked into that one...
Just implying that what you believe in from your previous post... you'd fit it with their politics. That's all...
Fyi... I have a gay friend... and he's a chick magnet! Got me numerous um... opportunities with the fairer sex, if you get my drift.
As to the rest, I absolutely do not take it the wrong way: a xenophobic statement endorsing the patriarchal status quo by implying that new ideas which do not conform to the current moral majority are not desired and should stay away so as to remove any possibility of progressive social change.
O.o Yah... that's one way to put it. I'm against full blown "progressive social change".
At least, that is what you said. What you meant to say, however, was likely "please do not take offense to this, but... stay THERE!", in which case you have nothing to worry about. I am neither offended nor would I ever have any intention to immigrate to any country without real universal health care.
Cool... I like debating you...
So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/14 01:10:49
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
Why do Canadians migrate down to the lower 48 states for healthcare services?
So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
We don't. Depending on income we have:
-The best care on the planet for extreme upper class wealth levels. -Roughly middle of the road for western countries care for median wage earners. -One of the worst care rates in the west for low income earners.
It's a system built by the rich for the rich and benefits the rich. We also pay three times as much per capita for the system than the next highest spender. We don't have the best system by a long shot, arguably we have the worst systems in the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
I'll do it. What do you do in healthcare? Is it every job in every hospital? Is it aggregate performance tracking? Are you a comparative analyst? Do you own a sizeable practice? If it's not one of these than you're personal experience doesn't really trump collected data from every hospital in the country aggregated by thosuands of people with the same results being found tens of thousands of times. It's nice that you can wave a flag though.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/14 01:33:18
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
Why do Canadians migrate down to the lower 48 states for healthcare services?
Because sometimes the extremely rich in Canada don't want to have to wait for the heart transplant patients to be cared for before getting their ingrown toenails looked after. So they go down to your neck o' the woods, where triage is based on how fat your wallet is, and not on actual need.
Your 'migrate down for healthcare' example is anecdotal, I'm afraid. And while I'm not gonna be on much longer, I'll happily engage in that debate with you. The numbers are not on your side, I'm afraid. But hey, if you wanna start some jingoistic chants of "We're number thirty-seven! We're number thirty-seven!", well, go ahead.
And since I already know what your counterpoint to this tired argument is, I shall pre-empt you:
You cannot invalidate the WHO's rankings with the criticism that "the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior", as that is exactly why they are there: to rank the health care available to everybody, not just the rich. Health care isn't like the olympics: you don't win a medal because you've got one guy that's the best. You have to look at the entire population. And when you do that, the USA fails hard with the private health care system.
So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
We don't. Depending on income we have:
-The best care on the planet for extreme upper class wealth levels.
-Roughly middle of the road for western countries care for median wage earners.
-One of the worst care rates in the west for low income earners.
Any studies you'd care to support this?
It's a system built by the rich for the rich and benefits the rich. We also pay three times as much per capita for the system than the next highest spender. We don't have the best system by a long shot, arguably we have the worst systems in the world.
Wow... a really loaded statement that indict just about everything we do in healthcare.
While it's true we pay the highest per captia for the system than the next highest spender... you wanna know why? (take a guess)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
I'll do it. What do you do in healthcare? Is it every job in every hospital? Is it aggregate performance tracking? Are you a comparative analyst? Do you own a sizeable practice? If it's not one of these than you're personal experience doesn't really trump collected data from every hospital in the country aggregated by thosuands of people with the same results being found tens of thousands of times. It's nice that you can wave a flag though.
Where's your source supporting this?
FYI... I've been in the industry for over 15 years and I have interest in policy affecting Healthcare. Currently, I'm in IT working with informatic teams preparing for ACA's Meaningful Use regulatory requirements.
I'll give it a shot(from UN International Health Organization):
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.
Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.
By only beef with this (and its sort goes against what I'm trying to say), is that NO ONE Nation aggregates the data the same way.. so, comparing statistics from one country vs another is practically useless... ( )
My sister works for a Clinical Research firm conducting research in multiple countries, and this is a major challenge for them in acquiring the necessary data for their research (it's why she makes the big bucks).
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
Why do Canadians migrate down to the lower 48 states for healthcare services?
The quest for half decent queso?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
azazel the cat wrote:Because sometimes the extremely rich in Canada don't want to have to wait for the heart transplant patients to be cared for before getting their ingrown toenails looked after. So they go down to your neck o' the woods, where triage is based on how fat your wallet is, and not on actual need.
Your 'migrate down for healthcare' example is anecdotal, I'm afraid. And while I'm not gonna be on much longer, I'll happily engage in that debate with you. The numbers are not on your side, I'm afraid. But hey, if you wanna start some jingoistic chants of "We're number thirty-seven! We're number thirty-seven!", well, go ahead.
And since I already know what your counterpoint to this tired argument is, I shall pre-empt you:
You cannot invalidate the WHO's rankings with the criticism that "the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior", as that is exactly why they are there: to rank the health care available to everybody, not just the rich. Health care isn't like the olympics: you don't win a medal because you've got one guy that's the best. You have to look at the entire population. And when you do that, the USA fails hard with the private health care system.
Okay... I'm a data geek... I'm curious how WHO came up with these rankings, I wanna do some research before commenting on that ranking.
I want to reiterate something I mentioned before... comparing statistics from one region to another is almost futile, because it's so easy to skew data.
And let me say something here... Major US Hospital Systems are typically NOT ran purely with "for profit" mentality. In fact, that's impossible since most hospitals are a "non-for-profit" entity.
Case in point. The place where I work... over 50% of the ED patients who walked in the door DO NOT PAY ANYTHING. Is that a problem... eh, maybe... becuase SOME of the visit are patients who COULD get insurance, but chose not to...
So what this does, is transfers the cost (or it's attempted) to those folks who are paying for their hospital visits.
Remember, I didn't say it's a perfect system... but, it's one of the better ones.
That's why that Ryan plan resonate with me... get the GOVERNMENT OUT of Healthcare.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:So then, why do we have the best healthcare in the world then? (remind you, there is NO perfect system).
You don't. Not even close.
You have the potential to receive the best healthcare in the world, but unless you have millions of dollars sitting around in an emergency fund, you will never receive it. Instead, you will receive the most cost-effective healthcare that can be legally minimally assigned to you.
Such is the nature of the conflict of interest between a for-profit private agency and the cost of keeping you alive.
Uh, I blatantly reject this premise.
I work in the HealthCare industry... is this something you wanna get into?
Why do Canadians migrate down to the lower 48 states for healthcare services?
The quest for half decent queso?
Okay... that's funny... buuuuuut, the BEST mexican foodie I've ever had, was in Anchorage, AK....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/14 02:07:52
whembly wrote:I'll give it a shot(from UN International Health Organization):
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.
Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.
So I'll end this with a reasonably concise coup de grace for you:
My argument is that your health care system overall is crappy because it offers the best treatment to some people, and outright denies treatment to many others.
You argument is that your health care system is awesome because it gives the best treatment to some people.
You see, all those stats you quoted have the qualifier "who received treatment", which means those numbers do not reflect all the people that were denied coverage. What you have done is the equivalent of claiming that Sports Team X is the greatest ever because they have 200 wins, ignoring the fact that Sports Team X has an overall W-L-D record of 200-3000-50.
Like I said once already: health care is not the Olympics. You do not get to say you have the best health care because one guy got really great treatment. Doing so is like saying Americans are the greatest swimmers on earth because Michael Phelps is an outboard motor. We both know that it doesn't work that way, and that is why the WHO ranked the US #37 with a really crummy bullet: because they took into account the millions of Americans who are denied health care for economic reasons, whereas your skewed stats do not.
Anyway, I'll leave Shuma to take over from there if you need to discuss this one further. I'm off for now.
Find it yourself or pay me. I'll give you what two seconds of typing will give. I'm not here to educate people who don't want to learn. It's in french since the article contributor was probably french. If you don't trust outside sources and just want what the goubbaments got then https://www.cia.gov/index.html try to find it in that puzzle. No one thinks we do a good job. Not even us. It's just people who need to believe in american exceptionalism who still cling to notions that our healthcare system is great.
Wow... a really loaded statement that indict just about everything we do in healthcare.
Yes. It is. It does. It's also true. There is a business aspect to modern healthcare that I suspect you know blissfully little about.
While it's true we pay the highest per captia for the system than the next highest spender... you wanna know why? (take a guess)
Because the health insurance system is a logically flawed middle man that produces graft and corruption as a side effect to introducing a moneylender whose primary profit motivator is to provide for cheap care and charge as much as possible. Health insurance has no logical purpose in a modern healthcare system and is one of the primary motivators for our current systems ballooning costs.
If you're trying to infer that it's because we have superior care that doesn't really survive basic inspection of foreign populations. Japan and germany for instance pay a fraction what we do and have significantly healthier populations with much more effective treatment rates in regards to chronic and acute illnesses and injuries.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/14 02:20:43
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
whembly wrote:I'll give it a shot(from UN International Health Organization):
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.
Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.
So I'll end this with a reasonably concise coup de grace for you:
My argument is that your health care system overall is crappy because it offers the best treatment to some people, and outright denies treatment to many others.
You argument is that your health care system is awesome because it gives the best treatment to some people.
You see, all those stats you quoted have the qualifier "who received treatment", which means those numbers do not reflect all the people that were denied coverage. What you have done is the equivalent of claiming that Sports Team X is the greatest ever because they have 200 wins, ignoring the fact that Sports Team X has an overall W-L-D record of 200-3000-50.
Like I said once already: health care is not the Olympics. You do not get to say you have the best health care because one guy got really great treatment. Doing so is like saying Americans are the greatest swimmers on earth because Michael Phelps is an outboard motor. We both know that it doesn't work that way, and that is why the WHO ranked the US #37 with a really crummy bullet: because they took into account the millions of Americans who are denied health care for economic reasons, whereas your skewed stats do not.
Anyway, I'll leave Shuma to take over from there if you need to discuss this one further. I'm off for now.
This is so wrong...
*sigh*
I really wanna articulate why this is wrong, because it goes MUCH deeper than that...
Lemme give you some personal experience.
1) I donated a kidney to my sister-in-law.
2) sis and her hubby were still in college and were NOT on their parent's plan.
3) sis was able to get Medicaid and Medicare (how this happen, I could never figure out) to pay for procedure and hospital cost
4) transplant coordinator worked with Pharmaceutical companies to get 6 month-ish rebates from some meds
5) ME... gak, I never saw a bill for anything, so honestly, I have no idea who paid what for MY services... but, it happened.
So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.
As Shuma stated, we pay a GAK-TON into healthcare. Regulation and Legal implications DRIVES up the cost. The Administrative architecture is so byzatine, it's assinine.
There's enough money spent into the system... but the system needs to be overhauled to be more efficient. It does not need to be replaced with a different system.
Since it seems we are focusing on three countries;
Life Expectancy:
Canada: 80.54 UK: 79.58 US: 77.97
Infant Mortality (deaths per 1000 births):
UK: 5 Canada: 5 US: 7
Under-5 mortality (deaths under age 5 per 1000 births):
UK: 6 Canada: 6 US: 8
Adult mortality (deahts between 15-60 years of age per 1000 people).
UK: 79 Canada: 75 US: 111
The "I work in healthcare" is a nice excuse, but I figured you didn't actually work with sick people or at a delivery-of-care point. There are a lot of people here working in healthcare, myself included. I have worked in prehospital medicine, emergency rooms, for-profit hospitals, non-profit hospitals, and a hospital that is run by the federal government. I will just let you guess which hospital is my favorite.
I honestly think that anybody who says "the United States has the best healthcare system" has either never been sick or has been privilidged enough to afford getting sick.
Either that or it is just pure patriotism-talk.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/14 02:44:17
Sweet emprah... you using THIS to support your claim that our healthcare SUX!
Man... you really need to look at any large statistical analysis with truck full of salt. Unless you can ensure that the data gathering are using the same methodolgy, you need to be careful when looking at charts like these.
Here's something I know: In some countries... the death of preemie babies are NOT counted as actual death (wierd, I know). Whereas here, in US, that does count.
There are numerous way the data can be skewed.
But, having said that... could it be, just maybe that the 10yr difference to avg lifespan between #1 vs U.S.of A. is attributed to our obese lifestyle? And that effectively 50% of the population are clinically obese?
Find it yourself or pay me. I'll give you what two seconds of typing will give. I'm not here to educate people who don't want to learn.
Um... I'm having this conversation and I'm asking questions. You think I'm wrong... why? That's all I'm asking.
It's in french since the article contributor was probably french. If you don't trust outside sources and just want what the goubbaments got then https://www.cia.gov/index.html try to find it in that puzzle. No one thinks we do a good job. Not even us. It's just people who need to believe in american exceptionalism who still cling to notions that our healthcare system is great.
And I believe that there's a segment of the American population who believes that no matter what we do, it isn't good enough...
Wow... a really loaded statement that indict just about everything we do in healthcare.
Yes. It is. It does. It's also true. There is a business aspect to modern healthcare that I suspect you know blissfully little about.
Really... care to enlighten me? I've worked with the Patient Accounting department, so I think I know where some of the numbers come from.
While it's true we pay the highest per captia for the system than the next highest spender... you wanna know why? (take a guess)
Because the health insurance system is a logically flawed middle man that produces graft and corruption as a side effect to introducing a moneylender whose primary profit motivator is to provide for cheap care and charge as much as possible. Health insurance has no logical purpose in a modern healthcare system and is one of the primary motivators for our current systems ballooning costs.
I didn't say it's perfect... I'm just defending the system a little bit...
The Health Insurance industry needs to be recalibrated... the whole system is a bit FUBAR, but I think you're directing your IRE too much in the insurance co... their hands are so tied it's not even funny.
If you're trying to infer that it's because we have superior care that doesn't really survive basic inspection of foreign populations. Japan and germany for instance pay a fraction what we do and have significantly healthier populations with much more effective treatment rates in regards to chronic and acute illnesses and injuries.
Me thinking you think the grass is greener over there... eh?
If I ever get an illness that is expensive to care for then I'm using my right of return and booking it to Israel, or I'll try to find a job in the UK and go join family their, otherwise I have a very high chance of dying from the disease or will go into bankruptcy. Any healthcare system were you would rather flee the country then be treated under it is probably a bad system.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
d-usa wrote:Since it seems we are focusing on three countries;
Life Expectancy:
Canada: 80.54
UK: 79.58
US: 77.97
Infant Mortality (deaths per 1000 births):
UK: 5
Canada: 5
US: 7
Under-5 mortality (deaths under age 5 per 1000 births):
UK: 6
Canada: 6
US: 8
Adult mortality (deahts between 15-60 years of age per 1000 people).
UK: 79
Canada: 75
US: 111
Don't get me started on statistics again...
The "I work in healthcare" is a nice excuse, but I figured you didn't actually work with sick people or at a delivery-of-care point. There are a lot of people here working in healthcare, myself included. I have worked in prehospital medicine, emergency rooms, for-profit hospitals, non-profit hospitals, and a hospital that is run by the federal government. I will just let you guess which hospital is my favorite.
Which is your favorite? Just asking....
I honestly think that anybody who says "the United States has the best healthcare system" has either never been sick or has been privilidged enough to afford getting sick.
Right... we kill all poor people... never knew that... must have wool of my eyes and I don't know nuthin.
Either that or it is just pure patriotism-talk.
Do you find ANY redeeming qualities with our healthcare system... anything at all?
How 'bout this...
THE underlining argument is really about ACCESS... right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:If I ever get an illness that is expensive to care for then I'm using my right of return and booking it to Israel, or I'll try to find a job in the UK and go join family their, otherwise I have a very high chance of dying from the disease or will go into bankruptcy. Any healthcare system were you would rather flee the country then be treated under it is probably a bad system.
Why is everyone saying you can't get care?
Was there someone you know who was denied coverage?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/14 03:00:23
Um... I'm having this conversation and I'm asking questions. You think I'm wrong... why? That's all I'm asking.
You have google and you're holding a position that is indefensible with a minimal amount of research. You're also not debating anything anyone posts, just how their sources are biased or misrepresented. You have no interest in learning, you have every interest in being right in the beliefs you already have. This is a waste of time, and it's one that I'm not going to bother with. Maybe dogma or sebster or killkrazy or.. Anyone who actually has the heart to care about exceptionalist healthcare nutters can dive on this. That part of my soul was burnt out last year.
Don't get me started on statistics again...
Case in point. You are dismissing evidence because its contrary to what you believe, not because the evidence isn't relevant or meaningful. The backflips are so visible you could see them from the moon.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/14 03:05:00
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.
Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.
Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.
You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.
Um... I'm having this conversation and I'm asking questions. You think I'm wrong... why? That's all I'm asking.
You have google and you're holding a position that is indefensible with a minimal amount of research. You're also not debating anything anyone posts, just how their sources are biased or misrepresented.
You have no interest in learning, you have ever interest in being right in the beliefs you already have. This is a waste of time.
Don't get me started on statistics again...
Case in point. You are dismissing evidence because its contrary to what you believe, not because the evidence isn't relevant or meaningful. The backflips are so visible you could see them from the moon.
"What evidence" am I dismissing exactly? That CIA life expectancy chart? I've already gave a retort.
d-usa wrote:My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.
Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.
Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.
You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.
Since losing my insurance I've had three respiratory infections. One of which was somewhat severe. Had I attempted to get them treated I would have lost my car and apartment due to the outrageous cost of antibiotics and prescribed treatment (I ended up losing the apartment anyway!). The cost bubble insurance has created had made care inaccessible to the bottom wage earners in America without federal assistance. If you're banking on government assistance to take care of a third of a countries population in order to shore up a system that really only works for one twentieth of it then there is a major systemic problem.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
My mother was denied chemotherapy as the insurance company viewed as an unnecessary and elective procedure, when I was injured in a motorcycle accident the insurance company refused to pay for physical therapy. If you honestly think that a lower to mid income family has good health care in the US then you are by far the most deluded person I have ever met, and I talked with Galbraith
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
d-usa wrote:My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.
Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.
Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.
You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.
Oh...right...that CAN'T happen here. (cancer rates? where did I state this?)
Didn't you ask for studies, and post your own statistics? But then you complain about statistics others post because statistics are "unreliable".
The "I work in healthcare" is a nice excuse, but I figured you didn't actually work with sick people or at a delivery-of-care point. There are a lot of people here working in healthcare, myself included. I have worked in prehospital medicine, emergency rooms, for-profit hospitals, non-profit hospitals, and a hospital that is run by the federal government. I will just let you guess which hospital is my favorite.
Which is your favorite? Just asking....
Federal, by far.
I honestly think that anybody who says "the United States has the best healthcare system" has either never been sick or has been privilidged enough to afford getting sick.
Right... we kill all poor people... never knew that... must have wool of my eyes and I don't know nuthin.
No we don't kill people, but we let a lot of people die because of the way our system works.
Either that or it is just pure patriotism-talk.
Do you find ANY redeeming qualities with our healthcare system... anything at all?
When you are actually sick enough to be almost dead, then the system is pretty good at getting you well enough again quickly to kick you out the door. If you can afford to play the game, then the system is good.
How 'bout this...
THE underlining argument is really about ACCESS... right?
Not just access. I have worked in hospitals for enough years to realize that it is the insurance companies that tell the doctors how to treat their patients and when they should be discharged. Not the other way around. The system is broken.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--