MartinOlsson

Do you have any full power video? Any new info on the opening date? Me and a bunch of guys up here in the north are considering the Bottrop tunnel for our next tunnel trip and would really love some more info/proof :) /Martin

Do you want some real discourse on the subject or do you just want to relieve some angst? Seriously ! I could try to explore the horrors of hooligans in a more in depth way if I'm sure that you are interested. /Martin

No a corporation will not contribute or do the right thing if the corporation does not believe that it will gain from it. Companies work only in the best interest of their stockholders. However, charity can be good pr and can be a good investment. I believe the analogy with a functional psychopath is relevant. Not to say that it should be any other way, but believing that corporations are moral institutions is just wrong. /Martin

I really don't want to disappoint you but that will not happen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiger But Switzerland is nice too you know ;) /Martin

But that is a modern (or at least post migration period) phenomenon. Since skin color probably has evolved during many generations i would say there is mostly evolutionary drive. I'm deeply offended by your questioning of the evolutionary value of my light skin ;) /Martin

Well, I'm fully and thoroughly aware of what a mutation is. Maybe I was just marking words, but what I was aiming at is that light colored skin is a result of evolutionary force. Not a fluke that is allowed just because of lack of disadvantage.

I don't understand this. Do you believe that light colored skin is a benign, but not advantageous, mutation and not an evolutionary adaptation? /Martin

I'm getting a bit side stepped now but, I would rather get rid of all corporate power in decisions concerning health care. Insurance companies, lawyers and lobbyists. I was just trying to point out that basically the same group that you are accusing of destroying healthcare are the ones you trust the most. /Martin

Who do you believe those special interest groups are? I'm guessing corporations looking out for their shareholders. /Martin

I never cited that report, we were discussing infant mortality rates. And as it turns out, even the CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/) believes that the US have a much higher rate than other industrialized countries. I haven't read the report you are referring to so I'm not going to debate that one. /Martin

I disagree I'm not that well educated in american corporate law but I'm pretty sure it's a criminal offense for a company board not to work in the best interest of the shareholders. Maybe Lawrocket can help us out here. Much in the same way the government should be working for the best interest of the people. Intentionally not doing that is in most cases also a criminal offense (i.e. corruption). You might disagree on the outcome of a shift in policies. But if you are implying that the corporate sphere is more interested in what's best for the people is just wrong.

Mostly in swedish: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/NR/rdonlyres/A0B57695-D18F-4F6B-9D1D-84CDEB4392F7/1968/9942009.pdf But it's the definition used by WHO and that one should be easier to find. On a side note: Even CIA seem to agree with WHO https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Here the definition is "any breathing or other sign of life". So it seem pretty much the same. Thanks for the info though. /Martin

How could I possibly convince you when you regard a scientific study with a clear result is as irrelevant? And no, actually I'm not saying that European healthcare is immensely better than American. My main argument is that public healthcare can be more efficient than privately funded. /Martin

Come on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Defending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. /Martin

Diabetes, heart disease and stroke are common in all ethnic groups living in western countries. I know, I meet them all, every day, at work. 20 % is actually an national average of people born abroad. In America there may be more people (all people) with ancestors from abroad but I don't think 20% are born outside the US. Correct me if I'm wrong. All of your listed diseases are lifestyle related. My perception after visiting the US is that lifestyle is as homogeneous as where I live. The whole concept of publicly funded health care being unable to adapt to a heterogeneous population seems very far fetched. Regarding the satisfaction level, that is an valid point. I think this is because of the incentives. In a commercial system pleasing the customer might have stronger incentives, but on the other hand producing quality health care is stronger in the public one. /Martin

The only thing that is sure is that those busting their ass at the Golden Seagull* is getting a little extra cash by the end of the month. If every other variable in the equation seems more or less stable, then how could this be bad? /Martin *local name for McDonalds :)

Just a thought from someone that has worked at both publicly funded teaching hospitals and just plain publicly funded: The inefficiency don't seem to be because of the funding rather the teaching and the subsequent super specialization and academically vain atmosphere. Wouldn't it be nice to take most of the lawyer and funding crap out of this equation? Would that really make it less efficient? /Martin

Please define "fairly homogeneous". I would venture to say that in a way Europe has become more diverse than America. Most European countries have fugitive laws that probably makes it "easier" to come to Europe, because of humanitarian reasons, than the US. There is for example small cities in Sweden that has taken more Iraqi fugitives than the whole of America. The same goes for Somalis a couple of years back. Where i live 20 % of the residents are not native. /Martin

A problem with comparing these kind of statistics is that in a publicly funded system health prevention is payed with the same hand that is later producing health care. This is a great incentive. But one that in direct comparison makes it look that the people just simply makes better choices. Even though i believe many European countries have a healthier culture, I don't think that is the sole reason. I believe the system in itself makes people healthier because there is a clearer incentive to keep people healthy.

That you prefer cherries over oversight, statistics and facts. /Martin

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

Haven't we been through this. Americans pay considerably more per capita (for health care) than any other industrialized country and still have lousy general health. What you do have is a greater freedom of capital... and thats ok, but don't say that publicly funded health care is less efficient. That is a lie that you can't make the truth even if you say so a thousand times. /Martin

Did you even click the link? I didn't link to a report. There is a database there. Check out the percentage of GDP that is used for Health care, the infant mortality rate or average life expectancy. Are you telling me that these numbers are fraudulent or not relevant? Examples: USA Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070 Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 6,347 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 15.2 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8 NORWAY (Chosen because of the high GDP - better comparison) Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 50,070 Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 4,331 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 9.1 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/83 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4 SPAIN (Chosen because to show that even less GDP works) Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 28,200 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 8.2 Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 2,242 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/84 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4 Can you seriously tell me that American health care is cost efficient?

Those are opinions. The simple fact that they all use the words "socialized medicine" is a sign of their week base, and their avoidance of the real subject. If you would like facts there are plenty of research done on the health care quality in different countries. WHO is one very good source of statistic: http://www.who.int/en/ ... the statistics seems to suggest that publicly financed health care in industrialized countries is the way to go. /Martin