Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Brewsters MillionsFollow

#127 Sep 12 2008 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
the actual quality of the care, not the quantity.
That's pretty fUcking academic for the millions of yanks who have no healthcare coverage, dontcha think?

As for medeconomics, explain how 100% coverage of healthcare costs in the UK is paid through taxes, at a lower tax cost to the US system. Never come back to me on that one yet, dipstick.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#128 Sep 12 2008 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
JPizzleofBahamut wrote:
Quote:
The government is simply vastly more efficient at delivering certain things: water, power, electricity, health care.


This is inaccurate. The only reason these seem to fail as private businesses is because people like you think it's everyone's right to have these things, even if they don't want to earn them.


I don't think it's everyone's right. Please pay attention. You appear ignorant and sloppy.
jpizz wrote:


Quote:
Take health care. The US pays 2-3 times more then government run systems with, arguably, worse care as a result.


Oh? Which country has better care (by care I assume you mean doctors) than the U.S.? I want to move there. I also want to do it illegally so I don't have to pay the taxes for it.


The US pays that much more per person, and leaves 46 million uninsured, including 9 million children. Ergo, it is quite arguably worse care.

It is quite common to have stories of near death experiences with the US health care system over failure to cover what the policy says is covered.

I'm not even giving my best arguments and your position is toast. Want to continue?
#129gbaji, Posted: Sep 12 2008 at 4:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How long are the waiting lists? How good is the quality of care for less common ailments? Tell you what. Since you're in the industry, let me give you a very specific question: If a teenage girl had a large undiagnosed AVM and began having headaches and seizures out of the blue at age 16, what are the odds that she'd live to 35 on the publicly provided UK medical system? Somewhere around zero?
#130 Sep 12 2008 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
Many words
Our waiting times for the vast majority of patients are equivalent or shorter than the US for profit systems (we're working with the VHA to learn from some of their rapid turnaround systems)

Our Breast, Lung & Pancreatic Cancer survival rates are lower (if you take the median morbidity) than USA, but in almost every other way, our outcomes and patient satisfaction results **** on the States. If you then factor in the US Citizens with no coverage, it's a different league altogether.

As for the greatest proportion of patients (who don't need invasive procedures, but need medication), I cringe at the way USA treats its citizens like idiots, charging them 3x what we do in healthcare taxes, then making them feed the Pharmaceutical beast with drug bills.



And anywho - What does the WHO know about healthcare? Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#131 Sep 12 2008 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I asked about a specific scenario Nobby. I specifically picked one that's rare enough that in every likelihood there isn't a single hospital in your entire country that has the staff or equipment to deal with it. I also asked because it's the exact scenario a very good friend of mine went through. If we'd lived in your country, my best friends wife would be dead and my goddaughter would simply not exist.

So no. Not "better". Just more focused on the lowest common denominator.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Sep 12 2008 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
I asked about a specific scenario Nobby. I specifically picked one that's rare enough that in every likelihood there isn't a single hospital in your entire country that has the staff or equipment to deal with it. I also asked because it's the exact scenario a very good friend of mine went through. If we'd lived in your country, my best friends wife would be dead and my goddaughter would simply not exist.

So no. Not "better". Just more focused on the lowest common denominator.
Yeah. America's better because they treat a condition that affects a statistically insignificant proportion of aptients who can afford to pay better than UK.

The fact that the tens of millions of Asthmatics, Diabetics, people with AF, CHD, COPD and depressive conditions have their medication funded by the populace in UK while yanks die young for lack of cash is just a political moot point, no?

As for the specifics of AVM, embolisation has (I just checked) an average 2 week wait in my region, while Gamma Knife surgery has negligible waits.

Not one British subject need worry about the cost. In the US of Amnesia, once diagnosed, only the insured are likely to get the treatment.

And either way, a diagnosis of AVM means you're fUcked, so your argument really is so random as to be a joke.

In some cases, picking a 'rare' condition can highlight anomalies. In this one, you aimed, fired and lost a toe.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#133 Sep 13 2008 at 10:46 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
I don't think it's everyone's right. Please pay attention. You appear ignorant and sloppy.


I assumed that your preference for government running these things meant that they would be provided to every U.S. citizen and you saw this as more efficient. If you would like to elaborate more on how these services would be more efficient based on another criteria, feel free. There's no need to call people names, it makes you appear desperate and pretentious.

Quote:
The US pays that much more per person, and leaves 46 million uninsured, including 9 million children. Ergo, it is quite arguably worse care.


So your standard of an efficient health care system is how many people are insured? As Gbaji said, if everyone is entitled to have leeches placed on their body to suck out the "bad blood" I would not consider it a good health care system (I understand this is not the case, but by your logic it is better than the health care system in the U.S. where not every citizen has health care).

Quote:
It is quite common to have stories of near death experiences with the US health care system over failure to cover what the policy says is covered.


So when people decide they need other things in life besides medical insurance it's the government's responsiblity to provide it? I'm not saying it's not sad, but if this is something important, then don't you think it should be at the top of someone's "to do" list? You forget that health care isn't some fruit that just grows on trees to be plucked and distributed to everyone. It has to be paid for. The doctors have to be paid. It looks like, on average, Candadian doctors make about $30,000 less than U.S. doctors. And you want them to spend the rest of their life working 12 hour days and constantly going to school to learn the latest in medicine? Don't be shocked when these doctors tell you to **** off. And don't be shocked when citizens start crossing the border to seek out decent medical care because the only ones sticking around can't get jobs in other countries. But hey, as long as you have that wonderful fruit called health insurance.


Quote:
I'm not even giving my best arguments and your position is toast. Want to continue?


If you have to declare that you're the winner, you're not. I've always sought the truth so don't hold back because you don't want to hurt my feelings. If you can convince me that your system is the best system available, I will vote for any candidate that offers to implement it in our country. At this time I am not convinced, based on the facts of reality.
#134 Sep 13 2008 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
I could see a group of people agreeing to split the cost to pay a PRIVATE company to set up a water system for them.


Then consider a democratic country as a large group of people all agreeing to pay taxes which will be used for projects such as roads, water pipes and (if the majority of that country wills it) socialised health care. By remaining in the country you are agreeing to abide by its laws (and thus agreeing to pay these taxes), and if you don't want to then you're welcome to leave, just as if you want to drink well water you're welcome to drop out of the group planning to share payment for the water pipes.

Obviously you think I'm trying to equate two different things (unless I just changed your mind, which I find extremely improbable).
#135 Sep 13 2008 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Debalic wrote:
You still don't understand sarcasm, though.

I do, I just gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were attempting to matter in this discussion.
#136 Sep 13 2008 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
You're saying I don't matter? *sob*

At least I've had you to talk to throughout the thread!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#137 Sep 13 2008 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
You made a statement, and I disagreed with it. You had several options at that point, but what you are telling me is that you chose to make a sarcastic non sequitur over any sort of response that actually relates to the situation at all.

I do not mean you don't matter as some sort of generalized insult against you, but as a specific description of what has occurred here. If your second post is actually as you have described it then only your first post in this thread relates to the topic. Every post following it was social banter.

Edited, Sep 13th 2008 5:19pm by Allegory
#138 Sep 13 2008 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Ahh, yes, social banter? I believe that is the phenomenon in which members of the same animal species come together and converse?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#139 Sep 13 2008 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
I don't think cats really "banter", Deb.
#140 Sep 13 2008 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
zepoodle wrote:
I don't think cats really "banter", Deb.

Sure they do. We just can't understand or hear hem.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#141 Sep 13 2008 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
No, I mean I think they communicate more through body language than sounds.
#142 Sep 13 2008 at 10:41 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Then consider a democratic country as a large group of people all agreeing to pay taxes which will be used for projects such as roads, water pipes and (if the majority of that country wills it) socialised health care. By remaining in the country you are agreeing to abide by its laws (and thus agreeing to pay these taxes), and if you don't want to then you're welcome to leave, just as if you want to drink well water you're welcome to drop out of the group planning to share payment for the water pipes.

Obviously you think I'm trying to equate two different things (unless I just changed your mind, which I find extremely improbable).


You see, our country doesn't always make laws by the will of the majority. And if you want to get technical we are a representative republic, not a true democracy. So, laws aren't necessarily made by a majority, they are passed by representatives elected by a majority. This may even seem like the same thing to you, but our representatives come as package deals. So if the majority votes for a representative to, let's say, end the "war in Iraq" but they don't want nationalized health care, it doesn't matter because the majority voted for a representative that wanted to end the "war in Iraq" and pass a nationalized health care package.

Now, let's say I don't like the government's health insurance plan and I choose a private insurance company. Assuming the government still allows private health insurance companies, I still have to pay taxes towards the government's health insurance. The only choice is to pay for something I am not using against my will or, like you brilliantly highlighted, move to another country (only it seems every other country has nationalized health insurance so I'm really just screwed).

I do see what you are saying, and you are correct. I am not disputing a word you said. I just don't think this is how it should be and I am explaining why. I think it would be better if you wanted nationalized health care, you can move to France since they have the best health care system in the world. There are plenty of countries where the government will take your money and spend it for you, I don't see why people go through the trouble of trying to make this country like every other country instead of just moving to Canada or England or France (sorry about the rant here at the end).
#143 Sep 14 2008 at 3:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Life expectancy is a reliable indicator of average, widespread good health outcomes. Prevention of illness, and timely and successful treatment of illness when it occurs.
Quote:
UN 2007 Life expectancy statistics, for men and women. (Original link)

Afghanistan
44 44

Australia
79 84

Canada
78 83


China
71 75

Denmark
76 81

Ethiopia
52 54

France
77 84


Iran (Islamic Republic of)
69 73

Iraq
58 61

Mexico
74 79

Netherlands
78 82

New Zealand
78 82


Nigeria
46 47

United Kingdom
77 82

United States of America
76 81
Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand and the UK all do slightly better at keeping people alive and well than the USA, while at the same time spending less tax dollars on healthcare than the USA, while at the same time providing government-paid healthcare for the poor who can't afford private health-insurance, while at the same time having extremely well-paid doctors, who were the elite of the elite high-scoring high-school students, because medical degrees are the hardest and most sought after degrees to get into.

Quote:
There are plenty of countries where the government will take your money and spend it for you, I don't see why people go through the trouble of trying to make this country like every other country instead of just moving to Canada or England or France (sorry about the rant here at the end).
That's easy. In a democracy, people look at something done better overseas, and say, we can have that here too, if we vote it in! Moving overseas means leaving all your friends, your family and your home behind, after all.

I desperately want the judicial system in Western European countries, and Japan. I want Japan's broadband, and Copenhagen's public transport system.

Edited, Sep 14th 2008 7:51am by Aripyanfar
#144 Sep 14 2008 at 5:03 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
zepoodle wrote:
No, I mean I think they communicate more through body language than sounds.

Exactly. I'm sure some of it is idle conversation.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#145 Sep 14 2008 at 5:23 AM Rating: Default
***
3,909 posts
Debalic wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
No, I mean I think they communicate more through body language than sounds.

Exactly. I'm sure some of it is idle conversation.


It's not...they're not conversing. There is no verse for them to do it with.
#146 Sep 14 2008 at 5:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Life expectancy is a reliable indicator of average, widespread good health outcomes.
To be purist, you're almost right.

When comparing efficiency across the UK & Europe, we also factor in Years of Limiting Long Term Illness (LLTI) I.e. the number of years at the end of your life where you're not fit for much (E.g. Stroke, dementia, immobility etc.)

We then deduct that from Life Expectancy for an indication of how long people live productive lives. (Google it - I can't be ******

Again, USA comes out worse than most 1st world economies, as many of the people living longer do so living on soup through a straw in a pee-soaked bed.

If you then divide years of productive life by the cost per head of healthcare spend through taxation, USA tumbles even further down the league table.

I'm not being elitist here - I know of 3 or 4 systems around the world that are more efficient or 'better' than the one I enjoy/work in. It's just that none of them tax their people as heavily as USA and then leave 'em with ***** care unless they pay through the nose.

Now cue someone to find an obscure 1 a 1,000,000 condition that USA does better than the rest of the world Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#147 Sep 14 2008 at 7:06 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Now cue someone to find an obscure 1 a 1,000,000 condition that USA does better than the rest of the world


I would suspect that they'd do best on any condition that can be solved by shooting the sufferer through the head.
#148 Sep 14 2008 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
JPizzleofBahamut wrote:
I don't see why people go through the trouble of trying to make this country like every other country instead of just moving to Canada or England or France (sorry about the rant here at the end).
Good point. Those stupid colonists who wanted representation for their tax dollars should've just moved to England instead of starting some lame-*** revolt.

What a bunch of retards.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Sep 15 2008 at 3:18 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
zepoodle wrote:
Debalic wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
No, I mean I think they communicate more through body language than sounds.

Exactly. I'm sure some of it is idle conversation.

It's not...they're not conversing. There is no verse for them to do it with.

Well, not unless they're singing. Do you sing when you talk to other people?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#150 Sep 15 2008 at 6:08 AM Rating: Default
***
3,909 posts
Debalic wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
Debalic wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
No, I mean I think they communicate more through body language than sounds.

Exactly. I'm sure some of it is idle conversation.

It's not...they're not conversing. There is no verse for them to do it with.

Well, not unless they're singing. Do you sing when you talk to other people?


Verse has nothing to do with song. It describes linguistic sound patterns. It's not limited to lyrics.

Edited, Sep 15th 2008 10:05am by zepoodle
#151 Sep 15 2008 at 11:12 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
zepoodle wrote:
Debalic wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
It's not...they're not conversing. There is no verse for them to do it with.

Well, not unless they're singing. Do you sing when you talk to other people?

Verse has nothing to do with song. It describes linguistic sound patterns. It's not limited to lyrics.

And *you* said...
zepoodle wrote:
No, I mean I think they communicate more through body language than sounds.

Does this also prevent deaf/mute people from conversing?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 248 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (248)