An Attack Dog Meets His Match

[Greco]

One of the leading Republican attack dogs opposing health care reform is Glenn Beck, host of a program on Fox Television. He rants, he rails, he gets red in the face as pleads, "Don't fix it if it's already awesome."

But Glenn Beck has a problem. There is a prominent individual that debunks his claims, one by one. That individual also has a network television program, and his discussion of health care reform takes on Glenn Beck's current claims and pulverizes them, leaving Beck crumpled in shameful defeat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/aug/14/glenn-beck-healthcare

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Clipped from your piece: Meanwhile Stewart's former Daily Show colleague Stephen Colbert reported on sponsors pulling ads from Beck's show because the Fox News presenter said he believed Obama is a "deep-seated racist". Moments later, Beck claimed he wasn't saying the president "doesn't like white people".
Such flip-flopping seems to be part of a pattern on Beck's show. During one broadcast, the presenter played a video montage comparing Obama's healthcare plan to Nazi Germany's eugenics programme. Immediately after the clip, Beck said we wasn't claiming eugenics is coming.

If Glenn Beck is listed as a 'comedian' then, his feeble attempt to be funny is falling far short of the mark, but I don't believe that he's trying to be a 'funny commentator' but I so totally dislike this guy as to never listen to him. What is the fascination of this blow-hard verbally attacking our President?

 

[Greco]

The debate is between Glenn Beck and Glenn Beck. And the loser is....

 

[pocketfullofshells]

the problem is the losser is America

and the other problem is, most of his listeners I think could care less what the facts say, they just want to hear what they want to hear told to them.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

The problem is that both sides have taken to projecting sound bites and throwing unsupported slurs. Glenn Beck walks a very fine line in an attempt to make his point, but so does Rep. Pelosi when she suggests we are un-American to protest. She is old enough and liberal enough to remember the '60s. Barnie Frank isn't funny when when he compares his Townhall guests to furniture and makes light of his perjury and lies 21 years ago. Palin is out of line suggesting "Death Panels" when there is no such commentary in the House bill. Rep. Massa scares me when he claims to know better than his constituents and will vote against their will even if he knew their wishes were for him to vote "no". Finally, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Kennedy wanting to change the rules just to get their way.

I guess the difference for me is that Beck and Palin are private citizens with no given power. The others supposedly work for us and should be held to a higher standard, while looking out for our best interest.

 

[Andy]

Yeah, this is kind of pointless, unless you are just trying to say Glen Beck changes his views. Well that's fine. I can remember some hilarious times when people who were actually elected officials changed their views in an instant just to get votes. Of course them lying through their teeth is a bit more important than if a talk show host does it.

Of course when you actually investigate the evidence, we have the best health care system in the world. Are their problems? Sure. They are known as "socialism". We need to fix those problems.

But as far as the quality of care goes, we have the best system in the world. You have a better chance of surviving an illness here, than anywhere else in the world.

 

[Greco]

"Of course when you actually investigate the evidence, we have the best health care system in the world. But as far as the quality of care goes, we have the best system in the world."

Well it's too bad you didn't actually investigate the evidence. You might have avoided coming off as a uninformed bloviator.

Currently there are 47 million Americans without any health insurance. That's a shameful statistic, and effects all of us. It's a compelling reason to actually discuss this issue, and resolve it. During the debate on this topic, Republicans frequently make several claims, which are unsupported by the facts. We've heard them insinuate that this is "socialized medicine". That's totally false. It's insurance. Health care providers would not become employees of the government. It's insurance!

We've also heard Republicans claim that this change in health insurance coverage would destroy our health care system. Pure hogwash. It's insurance. It wouldn't "break" anything, it only involves all Americans being able to afford health care that would be paid by an insurance plan. It only involves providing a safety net for Americans, avoiding a financial disaster brought on by a major health crisis. It's insurance for all Americans.

Republicans have frequently expanded that claim and stated that our health care system is the best in the world. We do have the "best health care system in the world", except for the 36 nations ahead of us. We're only one notch above Slovenia at #38, followed by Cuba at #39. The category where we do rank first in the world is in spending. The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country in the world, but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, which was published in a report issued by the World Health Organization.

Here are the rankings issued by the World Health Organization of the world's health systems.

1. France
2. Italy
3. San Marino
4. Andorra
5. Malta
6. Singapore
7. Spain
8. Oman
9. Austria
10. Japan
11. Norway
12, Portugal
13. Monaco
14. Greece
15. Iceland
16. Luxembourg
17. Netherlands
18. United Kingdom
19. Ireland
20 Switzerland
21. Belgium
22. Colombia
23. Sweden
24. Cyprus
25. Germany
26. Saudi Arabia
27. United Arab Emirates
28. Israel
29. Morocco
30. Canada
31. Finland
32. Australia
33. Chile
34. Denmark
35. Dominica
36. Costa Rica
37. United States of America

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_...lth_ranks.html
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

On this issue, addressing the shameful fact of 47 million having no health insurance available to them, the Democrats have the superior position. It's past time for America to resolve this problem. All surveys have indicated that Americans want this measure. Republicans want to make up claims and spew them out as "facts".

 

[TheFranklinParty]

"Of course when you actually investigate the evidence, we have the best health care system in the world. But as far as the quality of care goes, we have the best system in the world."

Well it's too bad you didn't actually investigate the evidence. You might have avoided coming off as a uninformed bloviator.

Currently there are 47 million Americans without any health insurance. That's a shameful statistic, and effects all of us. It's a compelling reason to actually discuss this issue, and resolve it. During the debate on this topic, Republicans frequently make several claims, which are unsupported by the facts. We've heard them insinuate that this is "socialized medicine". That's totally false. It's insurance. Health care providers would not become employees of the government. It's insurance!

We've also heard Republicans claim that this change in health insurance coverage would destroy our health care system. Pure hogwash. It's insurance. It wouldn't "break" anything, it only involves all Americans being able to afford health care that would be paid by an insurance plan. It only involves providing a safety net for Americans, avoiding a financial disaster brought on by a major health crisis. It's insurance for all Americans.

Republicans have frequently expanded that claim and stated that our health care system is the best in the world. We do have the "best health care system in the world", except for the 36 nations ahead of us. We're only one notch above Slovenia at #38, followed by Cuba at #39. The category where we do rank first in the world is in spending. The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country in the world, but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, which was published in a report issued by the World Health Organization.

Here are the rankings issued by the World Health Organization of the world's health systems.

1. France
2. Italy
3. San Marino
4. Andorra
5. Malta
6. Singapore
7. Spain
8. Oman
9. Austria
10. Japan
11. Norway
12, Portugal
13. Monaco
14. Greece
15. Iceland
16. Luxembourg
17. Netherlands
18. United Kingdom
19. Ireland
20 Switzerland
21. Belgium
22. Colombia
23. Sweden
24. Cyprus
25. Germany
26. Saudi Arabia
27. United Arab Emirates
28. Israel
29. Morocco
30. Canada
31. Finland
32. Australia
33. Chile
34. Denmark
35. Dominica
36. Costa Rica
37. United States of America

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_...lth_ranks.html
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

On this issue, addressing the shameful fact of 47 million having no health insurance available to them, the Democrats have the superior position. It's past time for America to resolve this problem. All surveys have indicated that Americans want this measure. Republicans want to make up claims and spew them out as "facts".

I am so tired of hearing that our healthcare is so poor compared to the rest of the world. Based on what criteria? If you are judging by the lowest common denominator then maybe, but you can't compare our care to Colombia or Canada. I'm not even going to reiterate the Canadian challenges. Have you been to Colombia? Like many of these places, the haves get healthcare and the have nots don't even get counted.

Please keep in mind that many of these countries are very small. For the bigger ones, do the French and Germans include there non-citizens in their data on Healthcare provisions? 17M of our uninsured are illegal.

I agree that we can improve the insurance side of the equation and the providers can improve their efficiencies. Oh yeah, how about Tort Reform? I'm all for making it better, but that is don't by increasing productivity and improving efficiencies, not by spreading the resources so thin that no one really benefits.

 

[dahermit]

It is obvious that the World Health Organization has some hidden agenda for ranking the U.S. so low. They either must hate the U.S. or has become infiltrated by communists or Muslims jehodists, or some other group that wants to destroy our wonderful health system by making it available to the poor (who just happen to be mostly children), and the homeless (a high percentage of military veterans).

Not only that, but know that we have the very best health care system in the world...if we are rich.

 

[Greco]

I don't have the time this morning to actually link up the facts, so you can either blast me on that, or spend a few moments yourself looking it up. However, statistically we spend more money on health care than any other nation, but the results are way below most other major countries. We're not getting the bang for our bucks. That's just a fact, and leaves a lot of room for improvement. The criteria for the World Health Organization list is stated on the link.

By the way, yes I've been to Colombia.

Also, keeping the status quo doesn't equate to improvement.

 

[BigRob]

It is obvious that the World Health Organization has some hidden agenda for ranking the U.S. so low. They either must hate the U.S. or has become infiltrated by communists or Muslims jehodists, or some other group that wants to destroy our wonderful health system by making it available to the poor (who just happen to be mostly children), and the homeless (a high percentage of military veterans).

Not only that, but know that we have the very best health care system in the world...if we are rich.

Certainly the WHO report cannot be entirely discarded, but if you read the methodology in their introduction, they place a heavy emphasis on "access" when determining the rankings.

That puts the US at a disadvantage immediately given the number of uninsured, but it does not automatically mean that the quality here is worse than other places. It also (and we have talked on this before) discounts the idea that those uninsured can still go to the ER and at least get some form of care.

 

[Andy]

I don't have the time this morning to actually link up the facts, so you can either blast me on that, or spend a few moments yourself looking it up. However, statistically we spend more money on health care than any other nation, but the results are way below most other major countries. We're not getting the bang for our bucks. That's just a fact, and leaves a lot of room for improvement. The criteria for the World Health Organization list is stated on the link.

By the way, yes I've been to Colombia.

Also, keeping the status quo doesn't equate to improvement.

Yes, the WHO criteria is crap. I know, I've read it. It based the ranking system on things completely unrelated to health care, and used questionable information to boot. If you understood the information given by WHO, you'd know that too.

We on the other hand have the best quality of health care in the world. Your chances of surviving cancer here, is greater than anywhere else in the world. Your chances of waiting months and/or years for doctor/tests/treatment/surgery is lower here, than anywhere else in the world. Your chances of getting a transplant is greater here than anywhere else in the world.

In short, for all major, and even elective health care services, you have a better chance of getting it, getting it done right, and surviving, in the US more than any other socialized care system in the world.

Does that mean it is perfect? No. But as far as getting the best quality care, yes.

Transplants.

Heart Austria and Belgium had 8 per Million people. Norway had 5.6
The US had 2,210 Heart Transplants in 2007 with a population of around 306 Million, or 7.2 per million. We're third. Notice where Canada, UK, France, and others are on the list.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tra_hea_percap-health-transplants-heart-per-capita
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4588

Kidney: Cyprus: 58 per million. Austria: 47 Per Million.
The US had 15,331 Kidney transplants in 2001 with a population of 278 Million, or 55 per million. We're second. Again notice where the socialized countries are?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tra_kid_percap-health-transplants-kidney-per-capita
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/k/kidney_transplant/stats.htm

Liver: Belgium: 21 per million Austria: 18 per million
The US had 5,300 in 2002 with a population 208 Million, or 25 per million.
We're number one.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tra_liv_percap-health-transplants-liver-per-capita
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/liver_transplant/article_em.htm

And I could go on and on with how we have the fewest in hospital deaths from hospital related illnesses, or other hospital quality issues (France had people die from heat stroke INSIDE their hospitals).

You might also notice Austria on that list, which is ironic since they have one the of the largest private, non-government funded insurance systems. Yes they do have a publicly funded system, but their private non-public system is massive.

Of course France, Canada and the UK, which has no completely private system, does horribly in all the rankings.


Basically, in all the statistics that actually matter, the US does better. When you read the WHO report, based on BS, then the US doesn't do so well.

 

[dahermit]

All this good stuff, of course ignores the fact that in the European countries all people are included in the data due to socialized medicine, whereas the U.S. data is skewed because it only includes wealthy, those with insurance, and excludes those who are not in the system due to poverty...they just die.

 

[dahermit]

Certainly the WHO report cannot be entirely discarded, but if you read the methodology in their introduction, they place a heavy emphasis on "access" when determining the rankings.

As it should be. A "high quality" system means nothing to those who cannot afford it.

That puts the US at a disadvantage immediately given the number of uninsured, but it does not automatically mean that the quality here is worse than other places. It also (and we have talked on this before) discounts the idea that those uninsured can still go to the ER and at least get some form of care.

There is nothing an ER is going to do for a person who walks in with any on going, long term condition (Cancer, Diabetes, Emphysema, Et.AL.). These are virtually a death sentence for the person without health care.

 

[dahermit]

I don't have the time this morning to actually link up the facts, so you can either blast me on that, or spend a few moments yourself looking it up. However, statistically we spend more money on health care than any other nation, but the results are way below most other major countries. We're not getting the bang for our bucks. That's just a fact, and leaves a lot of room for improvement. The criteria for the World Health Organization list is stated on the link.

By the way, yes I've been to Colombia.

Also, keeping the status quo doesn't equate to improvement.

This indeed is the quandary; If we spend so much more on health care per capita than other countries, why do we get so little? Follow the MONEY! Health care is a business, the more money that goes to the insurance companies than is actually spent on patient care, the better for the companies bottom line. That is where President Obama has failed the people. As long as insurance companies are in the system, they will find a way to siphon off the money spent on heath care.