Ted Kennedy would have died ....

[Libsmasher]

..... with NHS care.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Ted_Kennedy_Health_Care_/2008/06/05/101954.html

[Bunz]

And probably millions have died from a lack of insurance because they cant afford it or are denied it outright under our draconian insurance industry.

[pocketfullofshells]

I would have died in America under what her have.

[PLC1]

The quality medical care Ted Kennedy quickly received after his brain cancer diagnosis would not be available to Americans if the U.S. adopted the healthcare policies advocated by the Massachusetts Senator and other liberals, an expert opines.

Would the same quality care be available to the average person under the current system?

"an expert opines"? Now, there is proof positive.

I have a little grand nephew who was born in Copenhagen. He was born with a condition that causes oxygen deficiency in newborns, and would have died had the hospital there not been ready for this unexpected eventuality.

Hospitals in Denmark routinely prepare for this condition, while those in the US do not.

The boy's grandfather, a staunch "Roosevelt sold the country down the river" kind of ultra conservative, told me that the boy would most likely have died had he been born here.

The boys father, a Jesus as personal god, very religious type, thinks that he was sent to Denmark as part of God's plan to save the child.

While I can neither confirm nor disprove the opinions of my relatives, I can confirm that a healthy little boy is now a part of the family, and most likely wouldn't have been under our "best health care system in the world."

My anecdote trumps yours.:D

[Libsmasher]

And probably millions have died from a lack of insurance because they cant afford it or are denied it outright under our draconian insurance industry.

Proof?

[Libsmasher]

Would the same quality care be available to the average person under the current system?

"an expert opines"? Now, there is proof positive.

I have a little grand nephew who was born in Copenhagen. He was born with a condition that causes oxygen deficiency in newborns, and would have died had the hospital there not been ready for this unexpected eventuality.

Hospitals in Denmark routinely prepare for this condition, while those in the US do not.

The boy's grandfather, a staunch "Roosevelt sold the country down the river" kind of ultra conservative, told me that the boy would most likely have died had he been born here.

The boys father, a Jesus as personal god, very religious type, thinks that he was sent to Denmark as part of God's plan to save the child.

While I can neither confirm nor disprove the opinions of my relatives, I can confirm that a healthy little boy is now a part of the family, and most likely wouldn't have been under our "best health care system in the world."

My anecdote trumps yours.:D

Not hardly - you offered an anecdote. My cited article gave evidence such as waiting times for MRIs in Canada (anyone in the US can get one within a few days at most), and the prohibition of a drug in the UK routinely used in the US for cases such as Kennedy's. Socialized medicine ALWAYS gets down to such limitations and rationing - "socialized medicine" is actually a misnomer - people are excluded from treatment in the NHS because the drugs/services they need were excluded from that year's budget - they are simply told that "nothing can be done", and sent home to die. "Socialized medicine".

[pocketfullofshells]

Proof?

What you need proof to prove to you that millions don't have coverage and they yes having no coverage actually means you can die from things you would not if Covered? If it was true that if you had no coverage, they would just do it anyway, why would anyone buy coverage?


Also all this Bull about under NHS X would happen...and talking about some other nation...Guess what, we can have a NHS and run it any way we want, we don't have to copy some other system. There is no current system you can even base what would happen, because you don't even know what would be covered or what would not, or anything about the system...as there are many versions of it talked about.

[Libsmasher]

What you need proof to prove to you that millions don't have coverage and they yes having no coverage actually means you can die from things you would not if Covered? If it was true that if you had no coverage, they would just do it anyway, why would anyone buy coverage?


Also all this Bull about under NHS X would happen...and talking about some other nation...Guess what, we can have a NHS and run it any way we want, we don't have to copy some other system. There is no current system you can even base what would happen, because you don't even know what would be covered or what would not, or anything about the system...as there are many versions of it talked about.

??:rolleyes:

[PLC1]

Not hardly - you offered an anecdote.

As did you. My anecdote was about a family member, yours about a politician.

My cited article gave evidence such as waiting times for MRIs in Canada (anyone in the US can get one within a few days at most),

Hardly. Anyone with good insurance who actually needs an MRI can get one. People with very good insurance who don't need one are likely to get one as well, since the hospital can collect for unneeded as well as for needed medical tests.

and the prohibition of a drug in the UK routinely used in the US for cases such as Kennedy's.

Which is a result of "socialized" medicine, or something else?

Socialized medicine ALWAYS gets down to such limitations and rationing -

We have limitations and rationing as well. There are limitations to the ability of any system to provide medical care.

We also have the most expensive medical care in the world.


"socialized medicine" is actually a misnomer - people are excluded from treatment in the NHS because the drugs/services they need were excluded from that year's budget - they are simply told that "nothing can be done", and sent home to die. "Socialized medicine".

Yes, socialized medicine is a misnomer. Socialized medical insurance is a much more accurate term. No one is advocating that the government actually take over the hospitals and run them, at least no one that is likely to be taken seriously.

Here's another anecdote: My wife recently had an angiogram, a simple medical test that doesn't require a hospital stay, or surgery, or a multi-million dollar machine, or anything like that. The amount billed to the insurance, just for the hospital, was $17,000.

We can't afford prices like that much longer.

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Not hardly - you offered an anecdote.

As did you. My anecdote was about a family member, yours about a politician.

I'm not going to debate with you if you keep up this sort of silly-ass distortion in real time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
My cited article gave evidence such as waiting times for MRIs in Canada (anyone in the US can get one within a few days at most),

Hardly. Anyone with good insurance who actually needs an MRI can get one. People with very good insurance who don't need one are likely to get one as well, since the hospital can collect for unneeded as well as for needed medical tests.

Reread the above comment - the issue is not whether you can get one, but how long you have to wait. In 2007, the grand average is 10.1 weeks:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/10/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-hit-record.html

What if you have a brain tumor but don't know it? Is the brain tumor going to suspend its damage for 10.1 weeks??? Why is this stuff so damn hard for libs to grasp???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
and the prohibition of a drug in the UK routinely used in the US for cases such as Kennedy's.

Which is a result of "socialized" medicine, or something else?

One again, "socialized medicine" and rationing go hand in hand - read up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Socialized medicine ALWAYS gets down to such limitations and rationing -

We have limitations and rationing as well. There are limitations to the ability of any system to provide medical care.

There is nothing in the US that approaches that in such systems as the NHS in the UK - see the "horror story" post above under world news. NOTHING like that, and certainly not to the degree and frequency, happens in the US. The closest thing to that in the US would be such as trauma centers closing down in LA county because they've been bankrupted by non-paying illegal aliens.

We also have the most expensive medical care in the world.

What's worse - "expensive", or "go home and drop dead - there's no money in the state budget for your ailment this year."

Here's another anecdote: My wife recently had an angiogram, a simple medical test that doesn't require a hospital stay, or surgery, or a multi-million dollar machine, or anything like that. The amount billed to the insurance, just for the hospital, was $17,000.

The reasons for the the expense of US medical care are well known - most can be fixed, as I ennumerated - again, see my NHS horror story thread.

[Bunz]

Libsmasher
You fail to deal with a very real, and pressing problem to millions of Americans. They work, and for any number of reasons, either dont have access to/or cant afford medical insurance through thier employer, or cannot afford the insurance on thier own. Meanwhile, those people when inflicted with various health issues, are less willing to seek medical treatment, either making thier situation potentially worse, or in terms of illness, risk spreading it to others. This is a overly simplified issue that is a major issue in matters of life and death to Americans.
There needs to be a reasonable way that Americans can have access to affordable health care. The way the system operates now is flawed very deeply.
Now NHS, or Socialized medicine or whatever right wing vomit you want to dish out, has proven it isnt going to minimize your health care any under our modern system. Those who can afford it, get better service. We are still a capitalist economy. There wont be a rationing of Xrays, or Botox injections.
France has a good system, as does Australia, and dozens of other countries. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. There is no excuse for American citizens going without a modern level of health care.

[Libsmasher]

Libsmasher
You fail to deal with a very real, and pressing problem to millions of Americans.

No, I didn't fail to deal with it - I offered some solutions in the NHS Horror story thread.

They work, and for any number of reasons, either dont have access to/or cant afford medical insurance through thier employer, or cannot afford the insurance on thier own.

"dont have access" is a meaningless lib political term. EVERYONE has access to american hospitals - even illegal aliens, who are bankrupting them. The problem isn't lack of access, it's TOO MUCH access. Also, what does the "can't afford" really mean?

- They spent their money on something else?
- They want to foist the expenses of life on the "government"?
- They have made no provision for one of the big expenses in life, and want the adults to come rescue them?

Health care is expensive - I am an independent contractor, and my monthly premium now exceeds my mortgage payment. I suck it up, and don't do lots of other things I would do with that money.

Meanwhile, those people when inflicted with various health issues, are less willing to seek medical treatment, either making thier situation potentially worse, or in terms of illness, risk spreading it to others. This is a overly simplified issue that is a major issue in matters of life and death to Americans.

90% of the people you are talking about are just people who have screwed up their own lives, and somehow have gotten it in their head that something that is inherently expensive should be cheap. I'm tired of having my rates run up by people who have crummy life styles and get sick, whether from smoking (27% of the population), or being fat (50% of the population), or sedentary, or taking sexual risks, or being rotten drivers, or not fastening their seatbelts, or being drunks or druggies, or getting pregnant when they have known bad hereditary risks.

There needs to be a reasonable way that Americans can have access to affordable health care. The way the system operates now is flawed very deeply.

The "deep flaw" is a population most of whom take big risks with their health, and then think highly trained doctors, expensive medical equipment, and drugs which took decades to develop should all be given them free, or at least "affordably".

Now NHS, or Socialized medicine or whatever right wing vomit you want to dish out, has proven it isnt going to minimize your health care any under our modern system.

There's no debating someone like you who just waves away the widely known, well-documented facts. :rolleyes:

[SW85]

What you need proof to prove to you that millions don't have coverage and they yes having no coverage actually means you can die from things you would not if Covered? If it was true that if you had no coverage, they would just do it anyway, why would anyone buy coverage?

I think you misunderstand the nature of insurance coverage.

The population of uninsured is not fixed -- that is, it's not necessarily the same 45 million people who go from one year to the next without insurance. It's a rotating population of people who are transitioning between jobs or even just between insurance plans. Going a few weeks or months without insurance is not a particular cause for alarm, since it's intrinsic to the nature of insurance that you're insuring against an unlikely event -- catastrophic illness or injury. Routine health problems can be dealt with by paying in installments, which most medical professionals are willing to do.

The big concern is the population of people who go consistently without health insurance, which I'd posit is (a) relatively small, and (b) largely voluntary. I can offer proof, if you like, that sizable proportions of the uninsured population opt out of insurance voluntarily -- small business owners, for instance, or young'uns like myself who are in great health and would rather save money than squander it on insurance he doesn't plan on using (and a sizable population of foreign-born non-citizens, who tend not to work in jobs that offer insurance and who aren't our problem, anyway). As I mentioned earlier, since you get health insurance against the unlikely probability of catastrophic illness or injury, it's a perfectly rational economic choice for people to forego it.

Now I'm not saying there are no people who are genuinely desperate. I am, however, saying the issue is probably severely overblown here, and that those who really are in bad straights can be taken care of without yet another massive government entitlement program.

[top gun]

The Kennedy example is a flawed example. Anyone who wishes to pay and can afford any procedure would certainly be able to get it with or without National Healthcare.

National Healthcare addresses major "pieces" of the healthcare model for everyone in a timely manor.

If you have no heathcare and are just brought in as an indigent does anyone believe that person would get better heathcare services than someone on a National Plan... of course not.

So if you're a person with means like Ted Kennedy you get whatever treatment is available immediately because you can afford it immediately.

People who have nothing now have something with a National Plan that covers one heck of a lot of healthcare services in a timely manor.

If you're financially well off your situation stays the same (excellent). Everyone else's situation improves.

[pocketfullofshells]

No, I didn't fail to deal with it - I offered some solutions in the NHS Horror story thread.

:

yes you did, and it was a horrible system, you had enough bad ideas to make sure both sides would hate it.

[Libsmasher]

[COLO]The Kennedy example is a flawed example. Anyone who wishes to pay and can afford any procedure would certainly be able to get it with or without National Healthcare.

National Healthcare addresses major "pieces" of the healthcare model for everyone in a timely manor.

If you have no heathcare and are just brought in as an indigent does anyone believe that person would get better heathcare services than someone on a National Plan... of course not.

So if you're a person with means like Ted Kennedy you get whatever treatment is available immediately because you can afford it immediately.

People who have nothing now have something with a National Plan that covers one heck of a lot of healthcare services in a timely manor.

If you're financially well off your situation stays the same (excellent). Everyone else's situation improves.[/COLOR]

Not a chance - some socialized systems PROHIBIT private health care (eg canada up till 2005) - the dynamics of such systems is like the government school semi-monopoly in the US - they don't want anyone to escape their wretched system. And the drugs and procedures that Kennedy got would be available to anyone with insurance in the US now, the overwhelming majority of the population, not just the "rich". In the socialized system, such treatments WOULD be super-expensive, as in the boutique tiny private system in the UK, and would be limited to the rich, and prohibited now in the NHS. The "timely manor[sic]" claim is just false, as is widely known. Further, being treated AT ALL, is limited to the the government system's budget for that year, and their current ad hoc rules, as in the NHS. (Example - for a given year, it might be decided that heart transplants are prohibited for people over 55. Why? Because of limitations of medical technology? Nooooooo.... because of a decision made by an unanswerable bureacrat.)

[top gun]

Libsmasher;41403]Not a chance - some socialized systems PROHIBIT private health care (eg canada up till 2005)

some socialized systems Prohibit... (eg canada up till 2005 ;)

The fact is we can create a system anyway we want. We can pick the best parts of National Healthcare and offer additional services as well. We are not locked into what anyone else does or did. We can do better.

The doctors... the professionals in charge of supplying the care see the terrible trends we are encountering now and endorse a major change.

U.S. Health Care Worse by the Decade
By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group.
April 3, 2008.

With quality and access down, support for a national health plan is up.
Also in Health and Wellness

WASHINGTON -- Americans would like to change up-- up to a less expensive, less irrational health insurance system in which 47 million people aren't left out of coverage. Up to a system in which those who are lucky enough to have coverage aren't confronted with continually rising co-payments and deductibles and convoluted schemes for limiting payment when someone gets really, really sick.

It turns out their doctors want to move up, too. They are way ahead of politicians in daring to go where the rest of the industrialized world has already gone: to a national health insurance system.

New research by the Indiana University School of Medicine shows that 59 percent of doctors support legislation to establish a national health insurance system, up from 49 percent in 2002. Only 32 percent of doctors said they were opposed. A slightly lower percentage, 55 percent, agreed with a different question on what researchers considered "incremental" reform -- that is, one that relies on tweaking the existing employer-based insurance system and filling in the gaps from there.

"National health insurance is national health insurance," says Aaron Carroll, director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at the medical school. "They (doctors) support a plan where there is government legislation to establish government financing for health care -- a Medicare-for-all type of plan."

In this campaign that has offered a bumper crop of politicians and a thicket of platitudes about the American health insurance system, no one except Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who long ago abandoned his presidential run, has proposed a national, single-payer system of insurance. The fear factor keeps politicians well behind doctors, even though many physicians might see their incomes shrink under a national health insurance plan.

Carroll says that what struck him most about his current data, compared with the 2002 survey, is the extent to which doctors in every specialty increased their support for a national health plan. "Every group went up that we measured," he told me. Those who back national health insurance the strongest are psychiatrists, who see mentally ill people suffer from some insurers' outright ban on coverage for mental health, or from low reimbursement rates for mental health treatment. Those in pediatrics and emergency medicine were also strong supporters. "Most of the people who are exposed to the uninsured are in primary care, or they're psychiatrists -- and emergency physicians who have to see people come into the ER without insurance all the time," Carroll says.

Carroll's center studies how health care is delivered in the United States, assessing its cost, quality and patients' access. By all those measures, he says, things have gotten worse in the past decade. That's one reason opinion polls taken during the past year or more have shown an increasing proportion of the public warming to national health insurance, even when the questions include the caveat that taxes might have to be raised to pay for it.

So, as they tend to say in those drug-company ads, doctors and patients agree.

It's the politicians who are lacking in courage, too cautious to confront the fear tactics that the insurance industry, the drug industry and other big players roll out every time. As for interest groups that represent doctors, Carroll says, those organizations supporting only incremental reform appear to be out of step. "We know what the representative groups are saying," he notes. "We wanted to see what actual physicians believe."

Belief isn't political action, and it comes up awfully short against the lobbyists' talking points opposing national health insurance -- the same arguments made against the creation of Medicare back in the 1960s. So maybe a bit of common sense is in order. "Nobody ever says, 'Let's get rid of Medicare,'" Carroll says. "Nobody says, this is horrible, we've got to go back the other way."

We should go forward instead.

[Libsmasher]

some socialized systems Prohibit... (eg canada up till 2005 )

Actually, almost all state health rationing systems prohibit private insurance - eg, that in France does. From wiki:

Private insurance
In countries with universal coverage, private insurance is most often used as a supplement, covering what the core safety net service does not provide, Examples include elective cosmetic surgery and special comforts like private rooms.

The fact is we can create a system anyway we want. We can pick the best parts of National Healthcare and offer additional services as well. We are not locked into what anyone else does or did. We can do better.

This is naive at best. Here's a paper that explains the economic dynamics of state health rationing systems - basically, the bureaucrats know that if they allow a private system or its corollary private insurance to exist, the best doctors will go to the private system, leaving the "care" available in the state health rationing system even worse.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004710.asp

The doctors... the professionals in charge of supplying the care see the terrible trends we are encountering now and endorse a major change

I doubt most doctors do - and in any case, doctors are not economists, and don't understand the larger implications.

U.S. Health Care Worse by the Decade
By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group.
April 3, 2008.

Oooooo - an editorial from the lib bastion Washington Post! :D

With quality and access down, support for a national health plan is up.
Also in Health and Wellness

Proof? I'm guessing not.

WASHINGTON -- Americans would like to change up-- up to a less expensive, less irrational health insurance system in which 47 million people aren't left out of coverage. Up to a system in which those who are lucky enough to have coverage aren't confronted with continually rising co-payments and deductibles and convoluted schemes for limiting payment when someone gets really, really sick.

A huge amount of those who aren't covered are young or very healthy people who just don't want the expense. The often-quoted above figure leaves this out when it is cited by the lib media. Also, claiming that because some are dissatisfied with the current system that they want state health rationing systems is illogical. "Not A" doesn't imply "B". And if ANYTHING is irrational, it's state health rationing systems, which make promises they won't keep and can't keep.

It turns out their doctors want to move up, too. They are way ahead of politicians in daring to go where the rest of the industrialized world has already gone: to a national health insurance system.

New research by the Indiana University School of Medicine shows that 59 percent of doctors support legislation to establish a national health insurance system, up from 49 percent in 2002. Only 32 percent of doctors said they were opposed. A slightly lower percentage, 55 percent, agreed with a different question on what researchers considered "incremental" reform -- that is, one that relies on tweaking the existing employer-based insurance system and filling in the gaps from there.

Cite the actual study. Usually when not credible claims like this are made from a "study", there is something deficient in the "study" methodology.

"National health insurance is national health insurance," says Aaron Carroll, director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at the medical school. "They (doctors) support a plan where there is government legislation to establish government financing for health care -- a Medicare-for-all type of plan."

This is completely impossible to believe - many doctors will not even accept medicare/medicaid patients because what happens is medicare and medicaid reimbursements never keep up with even the costs of services, much less a profit. This is a foretaste of what will happen with a state health rationing system.

http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/note-to-medicaid-patients-the-doctor-wont-see-you/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-medicare.htm

In this campaign that has offered a bumper crop of politicians and a thicket of platitudes about the American health insurance system, no one except Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who long ago abandoned his presidential run, has proposed a national, single-payer system of insurance. The fear factor keeps politicians well behind doctors, even though many physicians might see their incomes shrink under a national health insurance plan.

There is good reason for ALL to fear a state health rationing system.

Carroll says that what struck him most about his current data, compared with the 2002 survey, is the extent to which doctors in every specialty increased their support for a national health plan. "Every group went up that we measured," he told me. Those who back national health insurance the strongest are psychiatrists, who see mentally ill people suffer from some insurers' outright ban on coverage for mental health, or from low reimbursement rates for mental health treatment. Those in pediatrics and emergency medicine were also strong supporters.

And are we surprised at that? Nooooo..... The pediatrics/obstetrics medical profession has practically been wiped out in some states like West Virginia by tort predators like John Edwards, and elsewhere carries a crushing burden of liability insurance for the same reason - such doctors would obviously prefer not to be preyed upon any longer. As for the emergency doctors, they're probably tired of being stiffed by non-paying illegal aliens. Here you see the death spiral of statism - government failures in some areas (tort law, immigration enforcement) create the "need" for more statism.

It's the politicians who are lacking in courage, too cautious to confront the fear tactics that the insurance industry, the drug industry and other big players roll out every time.

What is there to fear? If the politicians are supported by people and doctors, what can the insurance companies do? Send a hit-man after them? :D This narrative isn't holding together. ;)

As for interest groups that represent doctors, Carroll says, those organizations supporting only incremental reform appear to be out of step. "We know what the representative groups are saying," he notes. "We wanted to see what actual physicians believe."

Don't the leaders get elected by the rank and file? How could they be out of step?

Belief isn't political action, and it comes up awfully short against the lobbyists' talking points opposing national health insurance -- the same arguments made against the creation of Medicare back in the 1960s.

And now medicare has become a titanic liability, which after the baby boomer retire the country won't even be able to support. :D

[top gun]

Libsmasher;41468]Actually, almost all state health rationing systems prohibit private insurance...

Again WE can do it any way WE want. There could be the overall National Plan and there could also be specialty clinics where one could pay directly 100% out of pocket if one had the money to do so.

The bottom line is Healthcare is rapidly becoming something regular working class people cannot afford for their families and more & more often many companies don't even offer.

I remember when I was growing up my Dad had Blue Cross Blue Shield on the whole family. Zero taken out of his check for that company plan and 90% / 10% on the copay. We went to the Doctor and the bill was $100 my Dad paid $10.

Now for a family they often take $100 a week or more and still many things they then pay on they only pay on @ 60%... and that's often after you've paid out even more and reached the plans yearly deductable. It's a total screw job!

Something has to be done. Just not doing anything but watch prices go up is no longer an option. This is people's health were talking about not some frivolous expense.

This is America where we spend $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH ENDLESSLY on a fake made up war & occupation at the drop of a hat

We can help Americans with a less expensive more inclusive heathcare system.

[PLC1]

The United States already has a federal health care program, and it allows private insurance. It is called Medicare.

Unfortunately, it only covers people who have managed to live for 65 years or more already.

A couple of facts:

The US is the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal medical care.

We pay more than any other country in the world for our medical care.

You can spin it any way you want, but can't disprove the above.

[Libsmasher]

The United States already has a federal health care program, and it allows private insurance. It is called Medicare.

Unfortunately, it only covers people who have managed to live for 65 years or more already.

Uh, we also have Medicaid, which covers poor people of any age. Some states, including California, have state medical insurance programs covering children.

A couple of facts:

The US is the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal medical care.

Not an argument.

We pay more than any other country in the world for our medical care.

Because it's not the degenerate product offered by state medical rationing systems. We don't wait eight months for an MRI and die while we're waiting. We don't not get an advanced drug because a state bureaucrat decides it's too expensive. We don't have our parents or grandparents sent home to die because the state planners have precluded the needed treatment for someone beyond their arbitrary age cutoff. You get what you pay for, and what you get with a state rationing system is exactly that - rationed medicine.

[PLC1]

Uh, we also have Medicaid, which covers poor people of any age. Some states, including California, have state medical insurance programs covering children.



Not an argument.



Because it's not the degenerate product offered by state medical rationing systems. We don't wait eight months for an MRI and die while we're waiting. We don't not get an advanced drug because a state bureaucrat decides it's too expensive. We don't have our parents or grandparents sent home to die because the state planners have precluded the needed treatment for someone beyond their arbitrary age cutoff. You get what you pay for, and what you get with a state rationing system is exactly that - rationed medicine.

Good spin.

The two facts remain.

One more: The WHO, which I contend is in a better position to objectively compare health care systems than any radio talk show host, rates France's health care #1 in the world, while that of the US is #37. France spends 7% of its GDP on health care, while we spend 16%.

Now, spin those facts. I know you can.

[Libsmasher]

Good spin.

Yeah - people dying because of a "health care system" is "spin".


The two facts remain.

One more: The WHO, which I contend is in a better position to objectively compare health care systems than any radio talk show host, rates France's health care #1 in the world, while that of the US is #37. France spends 7% of its GDP on health care, while we spend 16%.

Now, spin those facts. I know you can.

I'll despin your spin. But actually, since you don't know what you're talking about, the above doesn't even rise to the category of spin. :D As just about EVERYONE except you knows, WHO statistics and criteria are biased toward statist systems because it is staffed largely by employees from such systems, and it makes use of such bogus "statistics" as the well-known to be rigged against the US "infant mortality" statistic.

[PLC1]

Yeah - people dying because of a "health care system" is "spin".



I'll despin your spin. But actually, since you don't know what you're talking about, the above doesn't even rise to the category of spin. :D As just about EVERYONE except you knows, WHO statistics and criteria are biased toward statist systems because it is staffed largely by employees from such systems, and it makes use of such bogus "statistics" as the well-known to be rigged against the US "infant mortality" statistic.

Three facts still in the blender, spinning around:

The US spends more than any other nation on health care.
It is the only nation without universal coverage of one kind or another.
The WHO rates it #37 in the world.

Facts. Inconvenient facts.

[Libsmasher]

Three facts still in the blender, spinning around:

The US spends more than any other nation on health care.
It is the only nation without universal coverage of one kind or another.
The WHO rates it #37 in the world.

Facts. Inconvenient facts.

Three refutations:

The US spends more than any other nation on health care.

That's because people get MORE - MUCH more from the US system.

It is the only nation without universal coverage of one kind or another.

The supposed "universal coverage" of rationed systems is simply a lie - when the annual rules of rationing systems exclude a drug or a service for a particular person, they don't get it. What meaning can possibly be attached to the claim that you are "covered", when you don't get what you need?

The WHO rates it #37 in the world.

You wanna go in circles? :D OK! EVERYONE except you knows the WHO "rating system" is bogus.

Refutations. Inconvenient refutations.

[SW85]

The US spends more than any other nation on health care.
It is the only nation without universal coverage of one kind or another.
The WHO rates it #37 in the world.

Facts. Inconvenient facts.

(1) Because other countries have socialized healthcare systems, meaning they have an incentive to suppress costs -- i.e., by offering lower quality services. Lots of healthcare spending is a positively good thing. And at any rate, it shows we actually have money to spend on it, which suggests there's not a "crisis" after all.

(2) Irrelevant; see above.

(3) IIRC the WHO criteria includes "access," which means we are penalized right off the bat for not having a socialized healthcare system, its merits notwithstanding.

[PLC1]

Three refutations:



That's because people get MORE - MUCH more from the US system.



The supposed "universal coverage" of rationed systems is simply a lie - when the annual rules of rationing systems exclude a drug or a service for a particular person, they don't get it. What meaning can possibly be attached to the claim that you are "covered", when you don't get what you need?



You wanna go in circles? :D OK! EVERYONE except you knows the WHO "rating system" is bogus.

Refutations. Inconvenient refutations.

None of which are actual refutations. The facts remain. You have done nothing to show that the US doesn't spend more, that we do have a universal care system, or that WHO doesn't rate us #37. All you've done is to try to spin the facts.

Yes, around and around we go, spinning in the whirlpool.

Actually, I agree with you from an ideological standpoint. Universal medical care would be a huge increase in the size of government, which is already way too big and powerful. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, we seriously need to address our health care system before it bankrupts us.

A universal care system run by the feds is a scary proposition, no doubt about it. Continuing the spiraling costs we currently face is even scarier. Maybe what we really need is 50 systems run by the 50 states.

What we need is rational discussion, not a continuation of "we're the greatest, we have the best system, we get a lot more for our money", none of which is supported by the facts. Health care is a huge challenge facing this nation, and discussion of ideologies isn't going to meet that challenge.

[SW85]

The facts remain. You have done nothing to show that the US doesn't spend more, that we do have a universal care system, or that WHO doesn't rate us #37. All you've done is to try to spin the facts.

He didn't say they weren't true, only that they didn't matter.

[Libsmasher]

None of which are actual refutations.

You refuse to debate? Don't blame ya! :D

The facts remain.

And the REAL facts refute your statist spin.

You have done nothing to show that the US doesn't spend more,

I agreed that we did - who are you arguing with - yourself?

that we do have a universal care system,

There's no such thing - there are systems that use that PR term, but they cut people off when it isn't in the budget.

or that WHO doesn't rate us #37.

I didn't claim that WHO doesn't have their "ratings" - I said their ratings are bogus. Do you even READ my posts before you start talking to yourself??

Actually, I agree with you from an ideological standpoint. Universal medical care would be a huge increase in the size of government, which is already way too big and powerful. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, we seriously need to address our health care system before it bankrupts us.

While that is true, it is hardly the only thing against state systems. Such systems decide who lives or dies based on bureaucrats decisions. In the US system, people live or die based on is there a treatment available. State run systems take every choice away from you - where you get treated, who your doctor is, what drug to use. State systems ration care and put you on long waiting lists - people have died while waiting.

[Iraducky]

Many,k many more will die with NHC. There is no excuse for not having health care in a society that provides free education and a job if you are willing to work. Nearly everyone of those you cry about dieing for lack of health care are able to afford the usual luxuries of new cars, jewelry, wide screen TV, $150 tennis shoes, gold chains, and etc. The fact that you wish the government to assume responsibilty for its citizens simply denies your admittance of your private obligation to provide these services through non govt means.

[PLC1]

I agreed that we did - who are you arguing with - yourself?

Yes, you agree that we spend more than any other nation, yet you post that you've refuted that fact.

There's no such thing - there are systems that use that PR term, but they cut people off when it isn't in the budget.

If there is no such thing, in your opinion, that hardly refutes the fact that the US does not have a universal health care system.

I didn't claim that WHO doesn't have their "ratings" - I said their ratings are bogus. Do you even READ my posts before you start talking to yourself??

Saying that they are bogus does not refute the fact that they rate us #37. It just means that you say that we're better than that. Such a declaration merely leaves us to decide whether Libsmasher or the WHO is in a better position to objectively rate health care systems.
.

While that is true, it is hardly the only thing against state systems. Such systems decide who lives or dies based on bureaucrats decisions. In the US system, people live or die based on is there a treatment available. State run systems take every choice away from you - where you get treated, who your doctor is, what drug to use. State systems ration care and put you on long waiting lists - people have died while waiting.

People have died here, too. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as unlimited health care.

You aren't debating the facts at all, but merely giving your conclusion to those facts.

The US has no universal health care system, yet it pays more than any other nation for health care.

Now try again, but without the ideological spin. Try attacking the above from the position of causation vs correlation, and you might have better luck.

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
I agreed that we did - who are you arguing with - yourself?

Yes, you agree that we spend more than any other nation, yet you post that you've refuted that fact.

No I didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
There's no such thing - there are systems that use that PR term, but they cut people off when it isn't in the budget.

If there is no such thing, in your opinion, that hardly refutes the fact that the US does not have a universal health care system.

Technically, yes, but it reveals it as a meaningless point - like saying "the US doesn't have martians". :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
I didn't claim that WHO doesn't have their "ratings" - I said their ratings are bogus. Do you even READ my posts before you start talking to yourself??

Saying that they are bogus does not refute the fact that they rate us #37. It just means that you say that we're better than that. Such a declaration merely leaves us to decide whether Libsmasher or the WHO is in a better position to objectively rate health care systems.

They rate Morocco better than the US. Now c'monnnnn - if you needed surgery, would you prefer to have it done in Morocco, hmmm? :D
Here's a list of the death rates in various countries for the current period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

If the US is so bad, why does the death rate exceed that of the US in Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, France, Japan, Norway, Macedonia, Austria, Finland, United Kingdom, Greece,Denmark, Italy, Portugal, and Germany?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
While that is true, it is hardly the only thing against state systems. Such systems decide who lives or dies based on bureaucrats decisions. In the US system, people live or die based on is there a treatment available. State run systems take every choice away from you - where you get treated, who your doctor is, what drug to use. State systems ration care and put you on long waiting lists - people have died while waiting.

People have died here, too. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as unlimited health care.

You're ducking the issue. If you have a suspected tumor, you can wait to get to the MRI machine for months and months. In the US, you'll get it today or tommorow. You can try to duck the rationing issue all you want, but it stands there staring in you in the eye, unmoved:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RATIONING<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You aren't debating the facts at all, but merely giving your conclusion to those facts.

Yes, I am debating, and you are refusing to respond, switching the issue, etc.

The US has no universal health care system, yet it pays more than any other nation for health care.

There is no universal system ANYWHERE, and US costs more because you get more and don't have to wait eight months. If you want to keep repeating, so will I. (Hint: the fallacies in your point of view don't get any better with repetition.)

Now try again, but without the ideological spin.

I'm hearing this "spin" nonsense more and more here - apparently it's the last refuge of people who back down in debate - when all else fails just blubber "Duh! Spin! Duh!" :D

[GenSeneca]

WHO's fooling WHO

The first thing to realize about the WHO
health care ranking system is that there is
more than one. One ranking claims to measure
“overall attainment” (OA) while another
claims tomeasure “overall performance” (OP).
These two indices are constructed from the
same underlying data, but the OP index is
adjusted to reflect a country’s performance
relative to how well it theoretically could have
performed (more about that adjustment
later). When using the WHO rankings, one
should specify which ranking is being used:
OA or OP.
Many popular reports, however, do not
specify the ranking used and some appear to
have drawn from both. CNN.com, for example,
reported that both Canada and France
rank in the top 10, while the United States
ranks 37th. There is no ranking for which
both claims are true. Using OP, the United
States does rank 37th. But while France is
number 1 onOP, Canada is 30.UsingOA, the
United States ranks 15th, while France and
Canada rank 6th and 7th, respectively. In neither
ranking is the United States at 37 while
both France and Canada are in the top 10.
Which ranking is preferable? WHO presents
the OP ranking as its bottom line on
health system performance, on the grounds
thatOP represents the efficiency of each country’s
health system. But for reasons to be discussed
below, the OP ranking is even more
misleading than the OA ranking. CATO (http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf)

[Libsmasher]

Just I thought. The WHO ratings are rigged by such non-medical related criteria as "financial" fairness" and "health distribution", contain HUGE statistical uncertainties (80%!), and operate on a methodology that is fundamentally flawed, in that it neglects social driving factors other than the health system, such as diet, smoking prevalence, amount of violent crime, etc etc etc. As CATO points out, all these flaws are never mentioned by the lib media, even though the ratings are frequently mentioned.

[PLC1]

No I didn't.



Technically, yes, but it reveals it as a meaningless point - like saying "the US doesn't have martians". :D



They rate Morocco better than the US. Now c'monnnnn - if you needed surgery, would you prefer to have it done in Morocco, hmmm? :D
Here's a list of the death rates in various countries for the current period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

If the US is so bad, why does the death rate exceed that of the US in Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, France, Japan, Norway, Macedonia, Austria, Finland, United Kingdom, Greece,Denmark, Italy, Portugal, and Germany?




You're ducking the issue. If you have a suspected tumor, you can wait to get to the MRI machine for months and months. In the US, you'll get it today or tommorow. You can try to duck the rationing issue all you want, but it stands there staring in you in the eye, unmoved:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RATIONING<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



Yes, I am debating, and you are refusing to respond, switching the issue, etc.



There is no universal system ANYWHERE, and US costs more because you get more and don't have to wait eight months. If you want to keep repeating, so will I. (Hint: the fallacies in your point of view don't get any better with repetition.)



I'm hearing this "spin" nonsense more and more here - apparently it's the last refuge of people who back down in debate - when all else fails just blubber "Duh! Spin! Duh!" :D


I tried to give you the weakness in my own argument, and yet you won't even address it. You insist on posting that you have "refuted" my facts, then post again that you didn't claim to have refuted my facts. You don't seem to have a very good grasp on the difference between a fact and an opinion.

You would d a much better job of debating if you weren't looking at everything from an ideological point of view.

I think we now agree that the US spends more than any other nation, and is the only nation that doesn't cover everyone. Those are facts. You did come up with a new definition of "universal coverage", meaning that there is no limit to health care coverage. Of course, no nation has that, and never will.

The only weakness in the syllogism:

We spend more than anyone else,
We're the only ones that don't have universal care (my definition, please),
Therefore, we should explore universal care.

is that there is no proven cause and effect. I have not proven, nor can anyone prove, that we pay more because we don't have a universal care system.

That leaves the question: How much longer can we afford a health care system that eats up 16% of our GDP and keeps getting even more expensive? Just how much are we willing to spend on this "best system in the world", even if we really do have the best system? Is 25% too much? 35%? Just where are we going to draw the line and say, "We can't afford this any more?"

And, when we can't afford health care any more, what do we do about it?

[Libsmasher]

I tried to give you the weakness in my own argument, and yet you won't even address it. You insist on posting that you have "refuted" my facts, then post again that you didn't claim to have refuted my facts. You don't seem to have a very good grasp on the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Uh, you seem to be flailing in a sort of whirpool of misunderstanding of what I have said and not said - I suggest you pull yourself out. :rolleyes:

You would d a much better job of debating if you weren't looking at everything from an ideological point of view.

Putting aside that that's false, what's wrong with looking at everything from an ideological point of view?

I think we now agree that the US spends more than any other nation, and is the only nation that doesn't cover everyone. Those are facts. You did come up with a new definition of "universal coverage", meaning that there is no limit to health care coverage. Of course, no nation has that, and never will.

No - you still don't understand what I said. Listen carefully now:

That the US doesn't have "universal coverage" is of no import in a discussion comparing different types of health systems, since NO system offers universal coverage, how they advertise themselves to the contrary notwithstanding.

The only weakness in the syllogism:

We spend more than anyone else,
We're the only ones that don't have universal care (my definition, please),
Therefore, we should explore universal care.

is that there is no proven cause and effect. I have not proven, nor can anyone prove, that we pay more because we don't have a universal care system.

That leaves the question: How much longer can we afford a health care system that eats up 16% of our GDP and keeps getting even more expensive? Just how much are we willing to spend on this "best system in the world", even if we really do have the best system? Is 25% too much? 35%? Just where are we going to draw the line and say, "We can't afford this any more?"

While this is an important question, it is not germane to a discussion comparing types of systems. This gamut is often used by state rationed health system supporters using false dichotomy illogic: because the present system is untenable (they claim) we have to go to socialized health care.