This health care reform debate is crazy!
08-13-2009, 09:29 AM
#101
Contributors
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550I LOADED, all options except HUD and NV
Originally Posted by DRANGED' post='975151' date='Aug 13 2009, 09:31 AM
Ahh yes, the UN. A completely non-partisan group who always has the United States best interest in mind. 
The WHO/UN is a joke.
Did you bother to read the report or just accept the rankings? It was not based on quality of healthcare.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/p...e/en/index.html
"WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/21/world/eu...html?sec=health
"The five measures used are: overall level of health or life expectancy; health fairness or life expectancy as measured across various populations within a country; responsiveness or how well people rated performance of their health care system; fairness in responsiveness among different groups in the same country; and fairness in financing among different groups, which looked at what proportion of income is devoted to health care.
According to the report, the five top nations for health care were France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra and Malta.
One surprise in the findings, said Dr. David Evans of the W.H.O.'s Global Program on Evidence for Health Policy, was the good rankings for southern European countries such as Italy and Spain."
''People in those countries don't believe their health systems are doing very well,'' he said.
Amazing, people in the top countries as rated by the WHO dislike their health care, while the majority of American's are satisfied with their current health care.
The report was based on FAIRNESS and cost was the main determining factor, not access to healthcare or quality of health care.
Of course health care will be cheaper in a third world country, does that mean I want their health care because the WHO deemed it better? Yeah, I'll fly to Slovenia for open heart surgery. 
These lower costs associated with better health care are achieved by rationing care. People are denied care, there is less care, hence it is cheaper. You get what you pay for.
A BMW E60's cost is more than 3 times as much as a Ford Focus. By the WHO's assessment, the Taurus is a much better vehicle. By the WHO's estimate it is not FAIR that I drive a BMW while someone else drives a Focus. Instead of aspiring that everyone drive a BMW, national health care aspires to have everyone in the US drive a Focus. Again, our gov't sets out to tear down inequities by lowering standards instead or raising the bar. This is the problem with SOCIALISM. Everyone loses.
BTW, China is ranked 144...you know why? They no longer have public healthcare. Shame on them.
I agree, we must do something socially but taxing corporations is not the answer. How about holding individuals accountable for their behavior? How about allowing insurance companies to assess risk like car insurance companies and charge consumers accordingly? How about tort reform to reduce the cost malpractice insurance?
I know where the ranking came from, the UN. A completely worthless organization that is incapable of any task it sets out to undertake. It might as well have come from your ass, the UN is shitty and stinks.
The WHO/UN is a joke.Did you bother to read the report or just accept the rankings? It was not based on quality of healthcare.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/p...e/en/index.html
"WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/21/world/eu...html?sec=health
"The five measures used are: overall level of health or life expectancy; health fairness or life expectancy as measured across various populations within a country; responsiveness or how well people rated performance of their health care system; fairness in responsiveness among different groups in the same country; and fairness in financing among different groups, which looked at what proportion of income is devoted to health care.
According to the report, the five top nations for health care were France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra and Malta.
One surprise in the findings, said Dr. David Evans of the W.H.O.'s Global Program on Evidence for Health Policy, was the good rankings for southern European countries such as Italy and Spain."
''People in those countries don't believe their health systems are doing very well,'' he said.
Amazing, people in the top countries as rated by the WHO dislike their health care, while the majority of American's are satisfied with their current health care.
The report was based on FAIRNESS and cost was the main determining factor, not access to healthcare or quality of health care.
Of course health care will be cheaper in a third world country, does that mean I want their health care because the WHO deemed it better? Yeah, I'll fly to Slovenia for open heart surgery. These lower costs associated with better health care are achieved by rationing care. People are denied care, there is less care, hence it is cheaper. You get what you pay for.A BMW E60's cost is more than 3 times as much as a Ford Focus. By the WHO's assessment, the Taurus is a much better vehicle. By the WHO's estimate it is not FAIR that I drive a BMW while someone else drives a Focus. Instead of aspiring that everyone drive a BMW, national health care aspires to have everyone in the US drive a Focus. Again, our gov't sets out to tear down inequities by lowering standards instead or raising the bar. This is the problem with SOCIALISM. Everyone loses.
BTW, China is ranked 144...you know why? They no longer have public healthcare. Shame on them.
I agree, we must do something socially but taxing corporations is not the answer. How about holding individuals accountable for their behavior? How about allowing insurance companies to assess risk like car insurance companies and charge consumers accordingly? How about tort reform to reduce the cost malpractice insurance?
I know where the ranking came from, the UN. A completely worthless organization that is incapable of any task it sets out to undertake. It might as well have come from your ass, the UN is shitty and stinks.
Actually this is ridiculous post: Go ahead (God forbid) get in an accident and end up at a "non-member" hospital, or have you treatment performeed at a member hospital but by a non-member doctor and we'll see if you can still afford your 5 er much less mods. Because the result would thousands of dollars in medical bills. Good luck with that. Especially when you are critically in need of care and the last thing you ask is: "hey you're not a member, can you send to one that is?" right as you flatline.
The great thing about universal healthcare is you can go anywhere, anytime and receive the same coverage - regardless of membership. Also, yes, I do think hard decisions need to be made in "end-of-life" situations, and they always will be that will never change.
08-13-2009, 09:31 AM
#102
Contributors
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by rogerj' post='974662' date='Aug 12 2009, 09:24 PM
In all seriousness though. I understand the arguements on both sides. Once you want to introduce pundits like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh... I am out of the debate because it has become ridiculous. For those of you that associate yourself with one or more of the following... you have marginalized your significance to me. Peace Out!
08-13-2009, 09:34 AM
#103
Contributors
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550I LOADED, all options except HUD and NV
Originally Posted by skelevirus' post='975205' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:25 AM
not racist, bigoted maybe but c'mon let a person talk, censorship is un american, and this and thats racist is besides the point! which she clearly has one. statement are said to provoke passion in a response which she clearly has, lighten up! do you get all fired up when you watch carlos mencia as well? and yes im just defending her cuz she's "just a girl!"
Watching Carlos is a different story, you go to a comedy show you expect - what? That's right comedy, give the man a gold star. When you are expressing yourself seriously expect to be taken seriously and also expect the backlash your comments may induce.
08-13-2009, 09:34 AM
#104
Contributors
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by rogerj' post='974676' date='Aug 12 2009, 09:42 PM
Phil,
I admit that I am not familiar with all the faces on your post but do you genuinely think that Jesse and Al are altruistic pioneers for the black community? I think we all know them to be opportunistic and self absorbed. They played no role in the election of our president and may have have hindered the process if they attempted to play a larger role. I would be interested to know why you think they are important or relevant.
I admit that I am not familiar with all the faces on your post but do you genuinely think that Jesse and Al are altruistic pioneers for the black community? I think we all know them to be opportunistic and self absorbed. They played no role in the election of our president and may have have hindered the process if they attempted to play a larger role. I would be interested to know why you think they are important or relevant.
08-13-2009, 09:40 AM
#105
Contributors
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by pjinca' post='974690' date='Aug 12 2009, 09:51 PM
Agreed - "common sense is a misnomer, because it is far from common"
However, ignorance does not excuse the comments made, instead it highlights the true level of racism in a person. I am assuming your dad is over 60? Brett is not, so there is no societal or historical context for her use of those terms.
However, ignorance does not excuse the comments made, instead it highlights the true level of racism in a person. I am assuming your dad is over 60? Brett is not, so there is no societal or historical context for her use of those terms.
haha J/K pc police JOKE!!
08-13-2009, 09:44 AM
#106
Contributors
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550I LOADED, all options except HUD and NV
Originally Posted by mjfloyd1' post='974982' date='Aug 13 2009, 07:12 AM
I tend to think that people's poor choices - be it dietary habits, smoking, dangerous activities, IV drug abuse, alcohol abuse, ... as well as people who have cash pay jobs who abuse the system by not reporting any income and get on medicaid, people who know how to work the system and get on medicare (poorly defined illnesses or pain syndromes and they know the right words to use), young people who would rather have an iphone and its monthly data fee than pay for health insurance. It goes on and on. Surely there are some people who truly fall through the cracks and need some sort of catastrophic health coverage, but I don't think the number is as high as was originally thought.
Why has the legal system and tort law reform been left out of the picture?
Why has the legal system and tort law reform been left out of the picture?
Originally Posted by mjfloyd1' post='974982' date='Aug 13 2009, 07:12 AM
If we go to universal health care, will physicians be allowed to collectively bargain as nurses now can? It's illegal for physicians.
Much of what you said are valid points and I agree, I am a smoker, I do drink alcohol on occasion (can't remember the last time I drank too much). On the flip side I try to eat fairly healthy and I workout 6 days a week (very proud that yesterday I managed 4 sets of 15 @ 325 on the bench
). However, people will ALWAYS make poor choices, especially in a country where the cigarette tax goes up about every other day but fast food is available more readily and, not surprisingly Heart Disease is also the #1 killer in America. We will not change peoples decisions without changing the culture, period. As for legal reform, that is definitely required. Too many shady lawyers and patients trying to get huge payouts over the slightest mistake. Granted, are people entitled to be compensated for negligence, absolutely. Do they really require the ridiculous amounts you see on the news? Absolutely not. So reform of the legal side needs to accompany healthcare reform for this to work.
08-13-2009, 09:46 AM
#107
Contributors
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by DRANGED' post='974725' date='Aug 12 2009, 10:19 PM
What does health care have to do with the American spirit? Show me where in the constitution it says we have a right to health care. More Gov't intrusion into our lives is exactly the opposite of the American spirit.
France is #1, we are #37? On what basis were we ranked 37? Who did this study?
Which country has successful socialized medicine? Please define successful? Is success merely saying that everyone has health care. EVERYONE in the United States DOES have access to medical care whether or not that can pay for it. Any hospital that accepts Medicaid by law has to treat you in an emergency. What you are looking for is Universal Insurance, not health care.
France is #1, we are #37? On what basis were we ranked 37? Who did this study?
Which country has successful socialized medicine? Please define successful? Is success merely saying that everyone has health care. EVERYONE in the United States DOES have access to medical care whether or not that can pay for it. Any hospital that accepts Medicaid by law has to treat you in an emergency. What you are looking for is Universal Insurance, not health care.
08-13-2009, 09:48 AM
#108
Contributors
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550I LOADED, all options except HUD and NV
Originally Posted by skelevirus' post='975219' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:40 AM
OH JESUS!! for the love of christ people WTF? yall are so uneducated you forgot that using the term "BLACK" is also uncouth... even the smart ones on here dont pay attentino.. ok say it with me AFRICAN AMERICAN... or at least it is for now till those damn blacks change it again... haha J/K pc police JOKE!!
haha J/K pc police JOKE!!yes, and Teddy Roosevelt said in 1918 - "We have no room for hyphenated Americans, because a hyphenated American has divided loyalties and will surely be the downfall of this great nation" (paraphrase, but I will post the original in a bit)
My point is by your reasoning I am a hispanic-American (a term I detest). I am not HALF an American, not when I have served, fought, and bled for the country I love. I despise people that try to make me out to be less than what I am, a full-blooded, loyal, American first and foremost.
08-13-2009, 09:49 AM
#109
Contributors
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My Ride: 2008 550I LOADED, all options except HUD and NV
Originally Posted by skelevirus' post='975228' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:46 AM
thats true but try sitting at county general w a broken leg and no insurance... it blows..
sitting at county general WITH insurance blows if it is not a "member" hospital, better hope you can hop to one that is
08-13-2009, 09:49 AM
#110
Contributors
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by skelevirus' post='975219' date='Aug 13 2009, 12:40 PM
OH JESUS!! for the love of christ people WTF? yall are so uneducated you forgot that using the term "BLACK" is also uncouth... even the smart ones on here dont pay attentino.. ok say it with me AFRICAN AMERICAN... or at least it is for now till those damn blacks change it again... haha J/K pc police JOKE!!
haha J/K pc police JOKE!!if i need to make reference to an ethnicity, it is easy (and now socially acceptable) to use skin color. last i checked, most of the black people i have met are just "american". therefore prompting me to use another discriptor. skin color is the easiest.
when you deviate pronunciation of the color, then you start tipping the scale to unacceptable, ie. blacky, whitey... regardless of which direction you are going in.