For the socialized medicine bunch

[billvon 2,435]

>Abuse of EMS is damn sure NOT 'nationalized health care.'

Ah, OK. Then let's just come up with a way for poor people to get free medical care (like they do now) but in a way that does not force hospitals out of business. We won't call it "nationalized health care" so I am sure you'll be 100% OK with it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Abuse of EMS is damn sure NOT 'nationalized health care.'

Ah, OK. Then let's just come up with a way for poor people to get free medical care (like they do now) but in a way that does not force hospitals out of business. We won't call it "nationalized health care" so I am sure you'll be 100% OK with it.

Nice strawman, Bill - let us know when you're finished, m'kay?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,435]

OK. You just keep those conservative blinders firmly in place. Free public medical care is not socialized medicine. Check. (Just whatever you do, don't go to any ER's! I hear reality can be painful when it hits you all at once.)

[MartinOlsson 0]

Quote

And you insisting it is doesn't make it true, even if you say it a thousand times.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5108

written by Richard E. Ralston, Executive Director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine. Also lacking any numbers - you know objective stuf.

Quote

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=amVFPFBe40Ak&refer=exclusive

And I raise you a list of the countries with the best cancer survival: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm, guess what you can survive cancer just as good at a fraction of the cost.

Quote

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4618

Another article from an openly biased sorce. Let me cite: "the failure of Canada's experiment with socialist medicine is readily apparent". Experiment? And this is just the first paragraph.

Quote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1503982/Birthplace-of-NHS-finds-deficit-solution-shut-down-a-hospital.html

Ahh, they are trying to be more efficient ... oh wait ... what was your argument ?

But again, Americans pay the most for health care and there are no indicators that they receive better health care. These are facts supported by statistics. The only statistic you bring is google hits.

And to make this clear, this is an ok choice! I just want to expose the consequence of this choice

/Martin

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And I raise you a list of the countries with the best cancer survival link, guess what you can survive cancer just as good at a fraction of the cost.

From your link:

Quote

"The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. "

"The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer. "

You were saying?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

And I raise you a list of the countries with the best cancer survival link, guess what you can survive cancer just as good at a fraction of the cost.

From your link:

Quote

"The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. "

"The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer. "

You were saying?

You missed a bit (deliberately, I'm sure).

Japan came out best for male colon and rectal cancers, at 63% and 58.2% respectively, while France fared best for women with those cancers at 60.1% and 63.9%.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You missed a bit (deliberately, I'm sure).

Japan came out best for male colon and rectal cancers, at 63% and 58.2% respectively, while France fared best for women with those cancers at 60.1% and 63.9%.

And the US outperforms the rest of the world, with those exceptions - what was your point, again?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[MartinOlsson 0]

Quote

You were saying?

That you prefer cherries over oversight, statistics and facts.

/Martin

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You were saying?

That you prefer cherries over oversight, statistics and facts.

/Martin

It's not my fault if your own link proves MY point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

That's where pursuit of happiness comes in.

Would you kindly show us where the Constitution mentions the "pursuit of happiness", please?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You were saying?

That you prefer cherries over oversight, statistics and facts.

/Martin

It's not my fault if your own link proves MY point.

You say it does. Seems to me that you can cherrypick any point you like out of it. It certainly doesn't prove that universal care systems are inferior.

And there's always life expectancy too!

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And there's always life expectancy too!

Which is much more dependent upon lifestyle choices and heredity than medical efficacy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

That's where pursuit of happiness comes in.

Would you kindly show us where the Constitution mentions the "pursuit of happiness", please?

I didn't say it was. Sorry if you didn't catch the point.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[diablopilot 2]

Hmmmm, the responsible member of society takes care of securing their own medical and other needs before luxuries.

The irresponsible member of society becomes a drain on the resources of the responsible member and somehow not only thinks this is acceptable but expects more of a hand out.

Why should I shoulder the load for slackers?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Why should I shoulder the load for slackers?

Because you are one.

Seriously, you make a very good point.

_________________________________________
Chris

[lawrocket 3]

Yeah. I agree. Of course, JP will be accused of being someone who just doesn't care.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

And I raise you a list of the countries with the best cancer survival link, guess what you can survive cancer just as good at a fraction of the cost.

From your link:

Quote

"The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. "

"The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer. "

You were saying?

Dropped into SC for a visit. OK. I'll start here. Infant mortality rate. USA sucks. Why is that? W/ the best care (a lot) money can buy? >http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

And there's always life expectancy too!

Which is much more dependent upon lifestyle choices and heredity than medical efficacy.

Funny how you always resort to "culture" when data show your preferences for both guns and healthcare lead to poor outcomes compared to other nations.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Hmmmm, the responsible member of society takes care of securing their own medical and other needs before luxuries.

The irresponsible member of society becomes a drain on the resources of the responsible member and somehow not only thinks this is acceptable but expects more of a hand out.

Why should I shoulder the load for slackers?

Define "slacker". How many are there? What is the extent of the "slacker" problem?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Hmmmm, the responsible member of society takes care of securing their own medical and other needs before luxuries.

Agree absolutely.

Quote

Why should I shoulder the load for slackers?

It's infuriating to be put in the situation where you're expected to help provide what others should do for themselves, I agree. However, you might consider that not everyone who finds themselves needing help are slackers. When I was at the University of Arizona my wife's best friend was putting herself through grad school, and supporting herself working half-time (without benefits) as a sales clerk. She was working hard, without taxpayer support, to better her education so she could become a "responsible member of society". Unfortunately she began having severe stomach pain, but lacking health insurance (as her "luxury" money was spent on tuition), she put off seeing a doctor until the situation became intolerable. She was diagnosed with severe Crohn's disease, which by that time had done so much damage that surgery was required. As she couldn't pay for that, she was required (by the hospital, so they could get paid) to apply for the Arizona medicaid program, but that specifically excluded students from coverage so she was forced to quit grad school. She then had the surgery, but by that time so much damage had occurred that most of her intestine had to be removed, in a series of very expensive taxpayer-funded surgeries, and she ended up on a feeding tube and colostomy bag. Despite all that, she developed septicemia and died. All of that could have been avoided, had she had access to medical care when she first became ill. Was she a "slacker"? Did she deserve to die because she had to choose between getting an education or health insurance? Should education beyond high school be available only to those who can afford both? By what standard do we decide who's a slacker and who's working to improve their situation and is only temporarily unable to afford insurance?

Another point, what about the homeless person who has tuberculosis (or any other communicable disease)? We (as a society) are put in the position of treating them, at our expense, or allowing them to roam the streets, potentially infecting everyone they encounter. I guess we could incarcerate them, put them in solitary so they can't infect anyone, and wait for them to die.

Have you ever known a skydiver who doesn't have health insurance, and also doesn't have the financial resources to even pay for an ambulance ride? A helicopter flight to the trauma center can cost $10,000 easy. I have known such people, the kind that pack to make enough money for a few jumps because they love the sport. I have even heard a skydiver say that they don't need to pay for insurance, because if they're hurt the hospital has to treat them, and they're too poor to be worth suing afterwards. If they have an accident, would you suggest they be left to die by the side of the runway? Would you support a drop zone requiring proof of insurance or means to pay a big hospital bill before allowing people to jump? I'm sure neither alternative is attractive, but if you don't want to "shoulder the load for slackers", isn't it kind of one or the other?

One last point, I think there are "costs" to a society beyond money. A society that has made peace with refusing medical care to people based on their inability to pay (or prove in advance that they can pay) has paid a price, albeit an intangible one, in the loss of the value we supposedly place on human life. If we agree it's OK to leave someone on the street to die because we decide they're a "slacker", I suspect that would be a truly dog-eat-dog anything goes to get ahead society. And that, I think, would violate our basic human nature and not be acceptable to anyone (well maybe with a few exceptions). We are a social species, successful in large measure because we do live/work cooperatively. Individuals who can't empathize with anyone else, who will do anything, without any sense of right or wrong, to benefit themselves, are diagnosed as psychopaths, and I suspect most people don't want to live in a psychopathic society.

What's the answer? I don't know, actually, it's obviously not an easy problem. Maybe a basic level of care, patch-'em-up and send them on their way (as we actually do have now, and that people complain is "shouldering the load for slackers"), paid for by sales taxes? Even the poor have to buy stuff, so they pay sales tax if not income tax. In principle, since private health insurance would not have to cover certain costs (such as trauma care), premiums could go down.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

It doesn't what we want anymore. It's gonna happen so we might as well get used to it.

I wonder how all those docs with huge student loans are gonna repay them when the government controls their income.

The same way they do in the UK

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I work in healthcare so I can rant on this one.

[Rant]Is healthcare a "RIGHT"? Im pretty sure (or at least to me anyway) it is a privalige. I think people quit realizing that a long time ago.[/Rant]

I too work in Healthcare, and you've hit the nail on the head. In the US it is a privillage, in Europe it is a right. (I know which society I'd rather live in)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

You're living in the past, your country was once great but not any more, just like Great Britain once had an Empire... Its gone and the USA has had its day also. You now have a Socialist President and he was voted in by the people who were sick of the semi fascist Neo Cons.
The fact is that there are many countries in the world that have first class Nationalised Healthcare systems (Including the NHS) If the USA is lucky they may well join the club.

You also are living in a dream world if you think that the USA has the best Healthcare in the world. Acording to the the World Health Organizations 2000 analysis 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
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand


Interesting that most of the countries in fromt of the USA have socialised Healthcare.

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

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[lawrocket 3]

I really don't care how many this pisses off at this point.

How many times have I read about a skydiver getting injured and without insurance? "Uninsured skydiver" is a prime example of what JP is talking about. Insurance for a year? Why, that would cost as much as a new rig! Skydiving is by no means an inexpensive hobby, now is it?

The choice is, of course, simple micro-economics. And I understand it. "Nobody will subsidize my new rig. If I femur in it will be subsidized by the tax payer. The marginal cost and marginal utility make the choice clear - I will buy a rig and forego insurance."

A socialist program gives people an incentive to take risks with a lower cost. They are not paying any more than the person who is not taking risks. There is no additional cost. Once marginal costs are removed from individual activities because those risks are pooled, the actual costs increase because of an increased incidence in risk taking.

Of course, the socialist program is funded by those who have higher earnings. This creates an economic disincentive to do things like get a higher level education, etc. From an economics standpoint, the marginal utility and marginal costs of earning more money is lessened. This results in fewer high-income earners, which puts a greater strain on the system.

Then you are left with earners like U2 moving to a different place. If Ireland simply lowered its tax rate, it could receive more revenues.

But since there are those who would rather pay for skydives and new rigs and buy their beer than get insurance, well, I absolutely understand their choices. It's a simple decision based upon governmental policy that ensures that decisions can be made whereupon costs can be shifted to others.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nanook 1]

Quote

was putting herself through grad school, and supporting herself working half-time (without benefits) as a sales clerk.

What is a person with a Bachelors degree doing working half-time as a sales clerk. She put herself in this situation by taking a low paying job when she had the ability to get a higher job to afford the insurance. There was a choice here. She went the risky route of going underemployed to get that degree faster. Also, going for a graduate degree does not automatically erase the "slacker" title.

[

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln