# Canadas health care system



## LilOlLady (Aug 30, 2009)

*CANADAS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM*

The *poorest run system *of all countries, *still better than ours *and most Canadians are satisfied with the care they receive even though Canadas President of the Medical Association say it need improvement. If we had a HC system comparable to Canada it would be better than what we now have.		
Germanys people pay 7.5% of their income for HC and it works to their satisfaction.
All of the HC systems *do not work the same *and we should not lump then into one system. Certainly not use the *poorest run system as an example*. Which turns out *better than what we have*.
Again, as usual, right wingers falsely use Canadas HC system as a* scare tactic *to control people into opposing any healthcare plan by the present administration.
There are *not waits in Canada *any longer than we have here with private HC.
*Services are not limited* or spread thin.
The *rich, poor and elderly* get the same quality of medical care. No death panels.
Radical anti-Obama right wingers will use any means to get the people, even the uninsured, to oppose what they refer to as *Obamacare* as if Obama wrote the rules of the HC plan along with a few senators so know nothing of the medical system.
Right wingers and their supporter will oppose anything the Obama administration attempt to do and want to* take the country back hundreds of years*. Aint  happening We are* moving forward with or without the radical white right wing racist*. Town hall meeting, no matter were they are, are *predominantly white.*
Even if we had a HC system comparable to Canadas, the poorest run of all systems, it would still be better than what we, the *greatest nation in the world*, have now.

Most of you cannot wait to put your parents in government *rest homes *and your mentally disabled into government run *mental institutions or halfway houses*.
Those who oppose of Socialized medicine the strongest are on *Welfare, Social Security, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid.* "Thou doest protest to loudly"


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

Is there a record for the number of limp talking points and logical fallacies in one post??


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Is there a record for the number of limp talking points and logical fallacies in one post??



I think it was previously held by Chris.


----------



## Toro (Aug 30, 2009)

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation spread by people with agendas, however, some of the points in the OP are problematic.

First, there are wait times longer in Canada than in America.  Generally, if you have a serious condition, i.e. cancer, heart attack, you are going to get to treatment pronto.  But if it is not considered serious, i.e. lifestyle problems, then you are going to have to wait.  My father had severe pinched nerves and carpal tunnel syndrome, and had to wait nearly a year to see a neurologist.  My grandfather who had had a history of cancer, and who moved from Saskatchewan to BC, had to wait five months to see an oncologist (he was cancer free at the time), because there is a three month residency wait in BC before you can see a specialist.  And then, he would have had to have waited longer had my father not known the oncologist, who was in his Rotary club, and was able to jump the queue.

Services have been spread thin.  Generally, innovations are slower to get to Canada.  A friend of mine had cancer but was not able to be treated with Avastin because it was not yet available in the country but was available in the US.  It used to take months to get an MRI.  A decade ago, Taxol was rationed in Manitoba.

Generally, Canadians are happy with their system.  And there is no doubt, listening to the debate down here by the people who oppose reform is amusing.  However, there is political spin on both sides, and people have to be informed of the potential problems to make intelligent decisions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2009)

Remind me again, which country did ailing multimillionaire Ted Kennedy go to for treatment?  Was it Canada?

He supposedly dedicated his live to health care so his choice when it came to his own treatment speaks volumes, no?


----------



## American Horse (Aug 30, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> *CANADA&#8217;S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM*
> 
> The *poorest run system *of all countries, *still better than ours *and most Canadians are satisfied with the care they receive even though Canada&#8217;s President of the Medical Association say it need improvement. If we had a HC system comparable to Canada it would be better than what we now have. ....


*Ambulance service is not provided by the Canadian System* to get patients to the hospital for treatment in an emergency; even for those with heart attacks or for pregnant women in labor - [/paraphrase] By Dr. Brian Day former President of Canada's Medical Association in an interview by Bill O'Reilly


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 30, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> *CANADAS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM*
> 
> The *poorest run system *of all countries, *still better than ours *and most Canadians are satisfied with the care they receive even though Canadas President of the Medical Association say it need improvement."



Really?

So why didn't Ted Kennedy go North or to Europe for treatment?  Why do Canadians come down to Buffalo, NY for treatment?

What prevents you from  from becoming a Canuck?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2009)

The Kennedy example is a smelly red herring.

Do not let the stoopidcons confuse here accessibility with quality.

Candians live longer than we do, they live healthier than we do.

And obviously as a people they are smarter than us here.  

Think not?  Read Crusader's, Dive's, and Elvis's upcoming stupidities.


----------



## Toro (Aug 30, 2009)

Why would Kennedy go to Canada for end of life treatment?  Virtually no Canadians come to America for end of life treatment.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 30, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Kennedy example is a smelly red herring..



Smelly red herring?!? Or a Stake to the Heart of Obama's Hellcare?


.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 30, 2009)

Toro said:


> Why would Kennedy go to Canada for end of life treatment?  Virtually no Canadians come to America for end of life treatment.



When was the malignant glioma diagnosed as "end of life treatment?

.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 30, 2009)

The Canadian Health Care System is in need of correction. However, that being said it is still the best system in the world.


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Why would Kennedy go to Canada for end of life treatment?  Virtually no Canadians come to America for end of life treatment.
> ...



Half of people with malignant gliomas die in the first year and of those that survive the first year, half of those die in the second.


----------



## Toro (Aug 30, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Why would Kennedy go to Canada for end of life treatment?  Virtually no Canadians come to America for end of life treatment.
> ...



Virtually no Canadians go to America for malignant glioma treatment.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 30, 2009)

I shall reference, again:


Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. 

Fact No. 2: *Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.*
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them. 

Fact No. 4: *Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent). 
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]*
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9] 

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12] 

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries. 

Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.

NEJM -- Quality of Care in U.S. Hospitals as Reflected by Standardized Measures, 2002-2004


----------



## Yukon (Aug 30, 2009)

Allie.....more GOP propaganda ?


----------



## Maple (Aug 30, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> *CANADA&#8217;S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM*
> 
> The *poorest run system *of all countries, *still better than ours *and most Canadians are satisfied with the care they receive even though Canada&#8217;s President of the Medical Association say it need improvement. If we had a HC system comparable to Canada it would be better than what we now have.
> Germany&#8217;s people pay 7.5% of their income for HC and it works to their satisfaction.
> ...



Well lilolady, if you are truly an old lady, you need to be truly concerned about the health care that is going to be forced on you. In fact, there won't be any for you. It's called rationing. The young will be first in line and you will become a statistic. Remember Obama, " just go home and take a pain killer." BTW- I am most definitely not on welfare or any other government program.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 30, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Remind me again, which country did ailing multimillionaire Ted Kennedy go to for treatment?  Was it Canada?
> 
> He supposedly dedicated his live to health care so his choice when it came to his own treatment speaks volumes, no?


No one doubts the US has good doctors and facilities. Luckily, Kennedy had access ... which is a problem for many.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 30, 2009)

Maple said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *CANADA&#8217;S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM*
> ...


You know that's a lie.


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Allie.....more GOP propaganda ?



yukon, more Nazi propaganda, eh?


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 30, 2009)

Yeah, Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center is a known propagandist.

As is NEJM.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Remind me again, which country did ailing multimillionaire Ted Kennedy go to for treatment?  Was it Canada?
> ...


What in hell do you mean "access", other than a different oblique way to attack the eeeeeviilll wealthy??

I just buried a best friend, who had pancreatic cancer and no insurance....She had all the "access" to  treatment she wanted, via private charities and other local programs.

Your bulshit talking points don't fly in actiual reality, bub.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 30, 2009)

"A common misconception is that health care is in a "crisis" or that most people are dissatisfied with the current system. When people are asked what they think about health care in the United States in general, they respond negatively.  A recent poll conducted by CBS and the New York Times, for example, concluded that 36 percent favored major overhauls to the system.  

When people are asked more specific questions, however, the picture looks very different.  *A 2007 Gallup poll, for example, reported that 83 percent of people rate their own health care as good or excellent&#8212;a number that has remained roughly constant during the past 20 years*.  In addition, surveys suggest that people are far less eager to support major health policy reform when they are informed about its cost.  

A 2007 Harris/Wall Street Journal poll found 76 percent of respondents favored offering a government-subsidized health insurance plan to individuals who do not have access under the current system. When asked if they would be willing to pay more income taxes to cover people under Medicare or Medicaid, however, only 26 percent responded favorably. Seventy-four percent favored requiring employers to provide health insurance for all their employees; *only 47 percent agreed that the benefits of requiring smaller employers to provide health insurance would outweigh the negative impact it might have on their businesses.*
It is this tension--systemwide cost problems, combined with a majority preference for the status quo--that makes health-care reform so difficult. Scott W. Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University School of Medicine, believes many Americans have been misled by myths about the U.S. health-care system perpetuated by &#8220;politicians, academic leaders, the media, and a host of self-anointed experts.&#8221; 

_Aside: I can think of many self-anointed experts on this site alone. And most of them aren't even US citizens._

"As the late Nobel laureate and Hoover senior fellow Milton Friedman (1912&#8211;2006) pointed out, the current system's shielding the consumer from considering cost is largely responsible for spiraling health-care costs: &#8220;The major defect of our present system is that employees, most of them, are spending in practice more on medical care than they would if they had their free choice,&#8221; Friedman said. &#8220;They&#8217;re getting something for free&#8212;supposedly for free&#8212;that somebody else is paying for.&#8221;  Experts point out that, when combined with costly new technologies, the result is the situation the public and private sectors are now grappling with."

"&#8220;Low co-payments and deductibles fuel excessive cost growth and breed wasteful medical practice,&#8221; he added.  &#8220;When medical care is purchased through a low-copayment employer-sponsored health insurance plan, the patient thinks he or she is paying only a fraction of the costs. Somebody else is paying the rest.  As a result, consumers have little incentive to limit their use of unnecessary medical care services, little incentive to shop for the health plan that best suits their needs in a cost-effective way, and little incentive to evaluate their care on the basis of value." (According to Hoover senior fellow Daniel P. Kessler)

Hoover Institution - Focus - Health Care: Policy and Politics


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

The leftists crybabies don't want medical insurance, as in financial planning for possible major medical expenses.

No, they want pre-paid medical coverage, as a vehicle to pay for even the most trivial services rendered.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 30, 2009)

Hoover Institution - Fellows - Scott W. Atlas

Scott W. Atlas 
Senior Fellow 

Expertise: U.S. health care system, health care systems of emerging nations, use of advanced medical technology


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> The leftists crybabies don't want medical insurance, as in financial planning for possible major medical expenses.
> 
> No, they want pre-paid medical coverage, as a vehicle to pay for even the most trivial services rendered.



That already happens with Medicaid.  People go to the emergency room for a cold; and we get to pay $150 for them to do so.  or they come in claiming to be in pain and they are actually drug seekers. They think the medical staff doesn't know which drugs are derivatives of street drugs.


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > The leftists crybabies don't want medical insurance, as in financial planning for possible major medical expenses.
> ...



That doesn't happen with Medicaid as much as it happens with people who don't qualify for any sort of assistance.


----------



## namvet (Aug 30, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJgkvF19QA]YouTube - Health Care: Does Canada Do It Better?[/ame]

Canada is FUBAR


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Polk said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Medicaid needs a deductible to discourage this kind of behavior.


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



The problem is the point of Medicaid is that the people in question can't afford insurance to start with, so adding a deductible is basically the same as getting rid of it for a sizable portion. Also, it wouldn't really discourage this behavior, as hospitals are required by law to treat people even if they can't pay.


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Polk said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



They would still owe the money.  If we had a single payer system, this problem would worsen exponentially.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

Polk said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


By definition, people who don't qualify for assistance can afford to pay their own way.

Since when do people who can pay their way need a handout?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2009)

I can only conclude, after having read all of the above, the far righttoids have offered nothing relevant.

The question only is accessibility of health care for all Americans.  Major civilized nations offer it, some for many decades, and their peoples live longer than ours and in better health and for cheaper.

Stoopidcons is the correct description for those who oppose health care reform.

The Dems are going to ram it through before the end of year Congressional recess.

The only question is this  -- do the Pubs want input or to face the electorate next year with the Dems telling all of America that the GOP wants the working and poor classes to die earlier than they need to.

Demagoguery?  It will work for the donkeez and it will put the elephuntz in the political graveyard with the Federalists and the Whigs.


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> I can only conclude, after having read all of the above, the far righttoids have offered nothing relevant.
> 
> The question only is accessibility of health care for all Americans.  Major civilized nations offer it, some for many decades, and their peoples live longer than ours and in better health and for cheaper.
> 
> ...



so ram it through already you chickenshits.  what the fuck are you waiting for?


----------



## namvet (Aug 30, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> I can only conclude, after having read all of the above, the far righttoids have offered nothing relevant.
> 
> The question only is accessibility of health care for all Americans.  Major civilized nations offer it, some for many decades, and their peoples live longer than ours and in better health and for cheaper.
> 
> ...





> Stoopidcons is the correct description for those who oppose health care reform.



thank you chief head stuck up your asshole !!!!! asshole


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

namvet said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I can only conclude, after having read all of the above, the far righttoids have offered nothing relevant.
> ...



Ringo can't help it.


----------



## Meister (Aug 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I can only conclude, after having read all of the above, the far righttoids have offered nothing relevant.
> ...



You have to be kidding....they don't want just their fingerprints on the boondoggle come election time 2010


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Meister said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I just don't understand it, meister.  They hold ALL the fucking cards.  They could get their health care plan if they wanted.  But no, Obama has to play Jesus and "Bring everyone together".  Like he thinks the republicans are gonna get together with him and be lovey dovey.


----------



## namvet (Aug 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Allie.....more GOP propaganda ?
> ...



i gave him a rep that will set his hair on fire


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



They still owe the money under the current system (since most of them have no coverage at all). Guess how much of that gets paid? And no, a single payer system would help that situation, since these people could get regular checkups instead of having to go to the ER for basic care.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

Regular checkups are offered at the ER??


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Regular checkups are offered at the ER??



That's not what I said. I said they go to the ER for basic care.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

Many go to fee-for-service clinics, too....Not everyone who is uninsured is a potential deadbeat.

Besides that, insurance shouldn't be for basic care in the first place. How many auto insurance policies cover oil changes and new tires?


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 30, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Regular checkups are offered at the ER??
> ...


At a cost of about $1,000. per visit ... we all pay for that, including cons.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

Again, the both of you are presuming everyone who goes to the ER for care are deadbeats-in-waiting.

Good thing leftists aren't cynical or suspicious of their fellow man.


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Many go to fee-for-service clinics, too....Not everyone who is uninsured is a potential deadbeat.
> 
> Besides that, insurance shouldn't be for basic care in the first place. How many auto insurance policies cover oil changes and new tires?



That's not even a remotely apt comparison.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

It's a totally apt and relevant comparison.

Insurance should be for the exceptions, not the mundane.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> Again, the both of you are presuming everyone who goes to the ER for care are deadbeats-in-waiting.
> 
> Good thing leftists aren't cynical or suspicious of their fellow man.


No, I didn't say all are unable to pay, but it gives me a lot of pleasure to know that you pay for those who are unable to pay for themselves.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the both of you are presuming everyone who goes to the ER for care are deadbeats-in-waiting.
> ...


It gives me pleasure to finally see a lib admit that it's about them and their petty quest for vengance, rather than for the supposed needy.

Good show.


----------



## namvet (Aug 30, 2009)

under medicare if you have plan A and B and a supplement you don't pay a red cent for anything. NO COPAYS.  A and B cover 80%. but that 20% can still be a killer. plan A is free. but only covers 20%. after being on disability for 2 years you go on medicare A automatically. no choice. 
used to be you could go to an office and say you have a bad back. bingo. your disabled. not anymore. now you may have to hire a lawyer to prove your disabled because there's a better than good chance your claim will be rejected. there's the safe guard. prove it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 30, 2009)

Actually, medicare clients do have copays for medication.

Social security is responsible for determining disability.


----------



## namvet (Aug 30, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, medicare clients do have copays for medication.
> 
> Social security is responsible for determining disability.




right. prescrips are plan D


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Polk said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Tell ya what.  My wife works in the ER.  I'll ask her about it tomorrow.


----------



## elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Polk said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



that wouldn't address the going to the ER at 3 am when nothing is open.  like I said, I'll get back to you.  fair enough?


----------



## namvet (Aug 30, 2009)

[youtube]j5YxkKvEUIU[/youtube]


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

Dude said:


> It's a totally apt and relevant comparison.
> 
> Insurance should be for the exceptions, not the mundane.



Except that with the exception of rare cases, not changing your oil or replacing the tires on your car isn't going to be what triggers the situations which your automotive insurance does cover. That's not even remotely true with the body. Leave even something relatively minor untreated and it can balloon into a huge problem.


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

namvet said:


> under medicare if you have plan A and B and a supplement you don't pay a red cent for anything. NO COPAYS.  A and B cover 80%. but that 20% can still be a killer. plan A is free. but only covers 20%. after being on disability for 2 years you go on medicare A automatically. no choice.
> used to be you could go to an office and say you have a bad back. bingo. your disabled. not anymore. now you may have to hire a lawyer to prove your disabled because there's a better than good chance your claim will be rejected. there's the safe guard. prove it.



And that 20% becomes a lot more manageable if you have a supplement policy.


----------



## Polk (Aug 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



That's more than fair.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > It's a totally apt and relevant comparison.
> ...


If that's the best example of an exception you can come up with, you have nothing.

Uning that rationale, the commited fascist do-gooder could find half a reason for federal mitigation of the purchase and cosumption of Oreos.

And don't _*even*_ say that can't happen....It already has in the cases of tobacco and margerine, with no universally socialized medicine.


----------



## LilOlLady (Aug 31, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Remind me again, which country did ailing multimillionaire Ted Kennedy go to for treatment?  Was it Canada?
> 
> He supposedly dedicated his live to health care so his choice when it came to his own treatment speaks volumes, no?





Kennedy paid for the best and he got the best but what about those who do not have the money he did?


----------



## Meister (Aug 31, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Remind me again, which country did ailing multimillionaire Ted Kennedy go to for treatment?  Was it Canada?
> ...




But wait, our healthcare system is broken.  We have infant mortality, and age issues.  Certainly he could have found better than our broken down system with all of his money.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> Is there a record for the number of limp talking points and logical fallacies in one post??



At your leisure, you might listen to Canada's former health care administrator confirm all of the points made and debunk some of the myths voiced by the callers to this program.

C-SPAN Video Player - Dr. Robert Ouelett, Frm. Pres., Canadian Medical Ass'n.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 31, 2009)

Americans believe everything fed to them by the Insurance Companies - they would never mislead people.............would they ?


----------



## gcomeau (Aug 31, 2009)

Rather than respond to the original post of the thread, which I'll just say is... less than accurate in it's details despite getting the very general big picture about right, I'm going to begin with responding to this:



AllieBaba said:


> I shall reference, again:
> 
> Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
> 
> Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.



Yes, by all means let's quote a couple studies of a few isolated cancer mortality statistics and then pretend it's representative of overall health care system performance.

Or... not (apparently posting functioning urls isn't permitted to me yet, so anyone who wants to look at the below, get rid of the spaces):

http ://www .openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1

That is a systematic review of DOZENS of scientific studies of comparative treatment outcomes in Canada and the United States. It looks at everything from cancer to coronary artery disease to chronic illnesses to surgical procedures.

And Canada achieves superior results in the clear majority of them.



> Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
> 
> ...
> 
> Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.



Even if true, much good it appears to be doing. See first point.



> Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."



Oh boy...

1. "Self reporting" a subjective "level" of personal health is incredibly unreliable. It depends completely on what every single individual respondent's personal definition of "good" or "poor" or "excellent" is. 

2. American seniors? You mean... THOSE PEOPLE ON MEDICARE? You seriously want to go there for a talking point on why universal government run Canadian style insurance is scary? The high level of self reported health of people in the US on... government provided universal insurance coverage???? 

The author of that particular talking point either wasn't thinking things through when he wrote that, or was betting on his readers not thinking. Probably not a bad bet on average really...



> Fact No.6.: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.



Kindly show me REAL wait time data for the US, then we'll talk.

And that means no pretending all the people in the US effectively *indefinitely* wait listed by being priced out of the system (or at least wait listed until they turn 65 and qualify for medicare) don't exist so you can celebrate how short "average" wait times are for everyone else are, which is what every single wait time statistic I've ever seen published for the United States does.

If Canada and Britain just didn't count all the people in their systems waiting the longest they'd come up with much better wait time stats too you know.



> Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
> 
> Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent)



People in other countries want to improve their health care systems? Good god, I'm floored.

Oh, btw:

http : //www .harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/071009E.pdf

You were saying? (Question 2 is particularly fun)



> Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.



While having lots of MRIs is nice... having them is only beneficial to people who can actually use them. A rather large chunk of the American population would need to place themselves in significant financial distress or bankrupt themselves to do that in the current system.



> Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13]



Which of course is all because of the insurance companies... those breeding grounds of groundbreaking medical research! Why, I've simply lost track of how many amazing medical breakthroughs the insurance companies have brought us!

No, seriously, totally lost track. Ummm, can you maybe share an example with me? Just to job my memory you understand.



> Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.



http : //www .commonwealthfund.org/Content/Charts/Testimony/Insurance-Design-Matters-Underinsured-Trends-Health-and-Financial-Risks-and-Principles-for-Reform/Mortality-Amenable-to-Health-Care.aspx

http : // graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic2.jpg

http : // graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpg

http : // puck.sourceoecd.org/vl=2895417/cl=23/nw=1/rpsv/factbook2009/images/graphics/10-02-01-g1.gif

Ummm, no. No it doesn't. 

BTW, would everyone do me a favor and pay close attention to that last chart? Particularly the red part of the bars? That's TAX spending on health care.

Look at how high the US is.

Now look at how high Canada is.

Then don't let me hear anything about how Canadian style health care means super high taxes please. It's stunning how many Americans don't know the facts on that one.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 31, 2009)

gcomeau said:
			
		

> Then don't let me hear anything about how Canadian style health care means super high taxes please. It's stunning how many Americans don't know the facts on that one.



Too bad your lengthy research won't get read by the people who SHOULD read it on this board. Any more than two paragraphs is exhausting for them. As for the top income tax rate in Canada, I believe the Canadian health administrator who was interviewed in the C-Span video I posted earlier said that the top rate was 46% on the highest earners, far lower than it has been in the past in the US in the 70's and 80's, ultimately reduced then raised again by Clinton to 39%, reduced again by Bush to 34%, and Obama wishing to raise it back up to 39%.


----------



## gcomeau (Aug 31, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> gcomeau said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, the top federal income tax bracket in Canada, which takes effect over $126,000 a year for a single filer, is 29%.

After that it depends heavily on where in the country you live since provincial income tax rates vary a lot. If you live in Nova Scotia you have it worst, they have a top rate of 17.5% that kinks in at the 93,000 mark. Of course, only like 2% of the country lives in Nova Scotia.

About 40% of the country lives in Ontario, and their top rate is 11.5% and kicks in at about $74,000. 

And then you have to factor in the effect of sales taxes and whatnot...

But that was all kind of beside the point. The point I was trying to make was any difference in the tax rates of Canada and the US _*have absolutely nothing to do with the differences in their health care systems*_. They both pay almost identical percentages of their GDPs in tax dollars towards those systems. (Of course Canadians get universal major medical for that money, and thus have relatively small out of pocket costs on top of that. Americans, unless they qualify for medicare or the VA, get pretty much squat for their tax dollars since certain segments of society absolutely refuse to allow the government to run a nice, cost effective universal insurance program, so they have HUGE out of pocket costs on top of that.)

What difference there is in tax rates between Canada and the US (and the difference is nowhere near what most Americans seem to think it is) is due to other social programs and of course the fact that for the last 12 straight years before the recession hit the Canadians were running federal budget *surpluses* and paying down their national debt, as opposed to what was going on south of their border which was... something very different. At least for the last 8 years.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a record for the number of limp talking points and logical fallacies in one post??
> ...


Because if anyone just oooooooozes credibility, it's a gubmint politician and/or bureaucrat!!


----------



## JFK_USA (Aug 31, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I shall reference, again:
> 
> 
> Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
> ...



Again where does it say in the Healthcare bill that the quality of care must be decreased?

Yes all doctors come here to get training, but if a person can't afford to use all those MRI machines we have, what the point of having them? 

This is about getting healthcare access to everyone. It is a right and it needs to be taken care of.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

JFK_USA said:


> Again where does it say in the Healthcare bill that the quality of care must be decreased?
> 
> Yes all doctors come here to get training, but if a person can't afford to use all those MRI machines we have, what the point of having them?
> 
> This is about getting healthcare access to everyone. _*It is a right*_ and it needs to be taken care of.


Really?...._*A RIGHT??*_

Since when do you have a right to the services of another and at the expense of everyone else??


----------



## gcomeau (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> Since when do you have a right to the services of another and at the expense of everyone else??



Since about the time the first government taxed it's first citizens to provide services for the collective society.

So...since a really, really long time ago if we're going to be that general.

I'd suggest being more specific if you want to start arguing what rights do and do not, or should and should not, exist.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> *CANADAS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM*
> 
> The *poorest run system *of all countries, *still better than ours *and most Canadians are satisfied with the care they receive even though Canadas President of the Medical Association say it need improvement. If we had a HC system comparable to Canada it would be better than what we now have.
> Germanys people pay 7.5% of their income for HC and it works to their satisfaction.
> ...



Wow, you're just all over the board with your, "My position is more moral than yours, you suck for not agreeing with me, I can't explain why I'm better but I AM" bullshit, aren'tcha?

In response to your last paragraph, which strangely was the most linear thing you said, may I just cordially invite you to kiss my ass?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> Is there a record for the number of limp talking points and logical fallacies in one post??



There is now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Allie.....more GOP propaganda ?



Yeah, the New England Journal of Medicine is known for being an unreliable rightwing political rag.  

Dumbass.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Many go to fee-for-service clinics, too....Not everyone who is uninsured is a potential deadbeat.
> ...



Sure it is.  Regular check-ups, mammograms, vaccinations, etc. like that are basic machine maintenance and upkeep, just like oil changes and tire replacement.  The only difference is that the machine in question is a human body, rather than a car.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the both of you are presuming everyone who goes to the ER for care are deadbeats-in-waiting.
> ...



Well, since you're admitting to enjoying watching people you don't like getting robbed by deadbeat scumbags, may I just say that it gives ME a lot of pleasure to watch anti-gun leftists getting mugged?


----------



## Meister (Aug 31, 2009)

Perhaps we should be debating healthcare vs health treatment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > It's a totally apt and relevant comparison.
> ...



Actually, mechanical failure such as a bald tire blowing out can cause an accident, which your insurance DOES have to cover.  If you have comprehensive insurance, then I believe it gets to cover the tow truck when you burn up your engine from not changing the oil.  I'm not sure, since I keep mine in repair.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

Meister said:


> Perhaps we should be debating healthcare vs health treatment.


Hard to keep track....The scoialized medical services croud keeps shifting the smeantics, which is no accident.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Remind me again, which country did ailing multimillionaire Ted Kennedy go to for treatment?  Was it Canada?
> ...



Not every hospital in the country is the Mayo Clinic, that's true, but that doesn't mean all the ones that aren't are crap.  I honestly can't imagine where you twits got the idea that all poor people in America are forced to go the equivalent of Guadalajara General Hospital.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 31, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Remind me again, which country did ailing multimillionaire Ted Kennedy go to for treatment?  Was it Canada?
> 
> He supposedly dedicated his live to health care so his choice when it came to his own treatment speaks volumes, no?



That would be the state of Massachusetts, which unlike the rest of the US has public health insurance.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Not every hospital in the country is the Mayo Clinic, that's true, but that doesn't mean all the ones that aren't are crap.  I honestly can't imagine where you twits got the idea that all poor people in America are forced to go the equivalent of Guadalajara General Hospital.


Mayo and Massachusetts General are for the eeeeevvvvilllll "rich people".

The Medical Marxists aren't interested in making every hospital the best.... They're into equality and unformity in mediocrity and lack.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 31, 2009)

And as for the Cancer survival rates thing, I have pointed this out in multiple threads preceding this one, but...

...In overall surviability rates for all diseases, Canada beats the US hands down.  Here are some examples:

It has been pointed out that the United State has better survival rates than Canada in cancer victims.  This is true, by about 3-4%, it would seem.

Much ado has been made in the Right-Wing media and on these boards about this fact, and it has been held up as an example of their opinion that US Health Care is better than Canadian health care.

Well, Cancer is just one disease.  It is a leading cause of death, but not THE leading cause of death.  So let's look at comparisons in other diseases, shall we?

Circulatory disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 219
United States: 265

Original Source: OECD Health Data 2003 and Health Data 2002. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's Health 2002 

Digestive disease deaths per 100,000:Canada: 17.4
United States: 20.5

Original Source: World Health Organization 

Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live birthsCanada: 5.08
United States: 6.3

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks 

Intestinal diseases death rate
Canada: 0.3%
United States: 7.3%

Original Source: World Health Organization 

Respiratory disease child death rate per 100,000Canada: 0.62
United States: 40.43

Original Source: World Health Organization 

Heart disease deaths per 100,000:Canada: 94.9
United States: 106.5

Original Source: World Health Organization 

HIV deaths per million people:Canada: 47.423
United States: 48.141

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks 

And here's an interesting fact:

Proability of not reaching age 60:Canada: 9.5%
United States: 12.8%

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 31, 2009)

In addition, The average life span in Canada is 2-3 years longer than the average life span in the United States.

Source: World Health Organization 

And notice the differences in health care costs here:







Not to mention,

Per Capita, national health expenditures in the United States are as follows, as of 2007:

Private: $3,991.00
Public: $3,429.00

As can be seen here

Source: Dpt of Health and Human Services


----------



## veritas (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Not every hospital in the country is the Mayo Clinic, that's true, but that doesn't mean all the ones that aren't are crap.  I honestly can't imagine where you twits got the idea that all poor people in America are forced to go the equivalent of Guadalajara General Hospital.
> ...




I don't know about that at all. Here in MD we have so many good hospitals and we would include those in DC too, since the cities are so close, and mediocrity is the opposite of what goes on here. I think the database would help it along even further. Comparative analysis could indicate which hospitals have the best outcomes for certain services......and the worst, so things could be improved. This could work in a regional setting as well as suggest an exchange program where we trade doctors and administrators so that they can benefit from overall exposure to more productive environments. Patients and doctors could select certain hospitals best suited to particular procedures.


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Because some of actually know some poor people.


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Not every hospital in the country is the Mayo Clinic, that's true, but that doesn't mean all the ones that aren't are crap.  I honestly can't imagine where you twits got the idea that all poor people in America are forced to go the equivalent of Guadalajara General Hospital.
> ...



We already have national health insurance, it's called Medicare.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 31, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> And as for the Cancer survival rates thing, I have pointed this out in multiple threads preceding this one, but...
> 
> ...In overall surviability rates for all diseases, Canada beats the US hands down.  Here are some examples:
> 
> ...




Those stats have a lot to do with the immigrants we have who come infested with parasites, advanced, untreated diseases etc. and so on.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 31, 2009)

All could be solved if Medicare coverage was extended from 65 year olds to birth.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Yaeh...And you apparently haven't received the memo that it's bankrupt.

But I guess therer is still room in steerage on the Titanic, huh??


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> All could be solved if Medicare coverage was extended from 65 year olds to birth.



I agree, but we need more than that.

I would like to see us mirror our system after the French system. 

Limit medical liablity, make medical schools free, and don't pay doctors ridiculous salaries. And lower the price of drugs by negotiating the price with the drug companies.


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



It's not bankrupt.

Nice lie though.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

Yeah...And apparently every credible accouting bureaucracy in D.C. -including the CBO- are lying too, Mr. hack-in-the-box dipshit lemming.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

gcomeau said:


> Rather than respond to the original post of the thread, which I'll just say is... less than accurate in it's details despite getting the very general big picture about right, I'm going to begin with responding to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since one of the truest measures of the quality of a healthcare system is how it performs on life-threatening ailments - as opposed to trying to measure it by things it has no real control over, like life expectancy and infant mortality - I'd say talking about cancer survival rates is a very good representation of the quality of American health care.

But if you'd like to look at some other measure of effectiveness, how about this:  The vaunted WHO health care ranking report of 2000, so beloved and quoted by leftists, ranks the United States number one in responsiveness.  For those of you so busy crowing over the conglomerate scores that you missed this little factoid, "responsiveness" refers to choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality.

So not only are we doing best at keeping people with life-threatening illnesses alive, but we're also doing best at treating them like people.



gcomeau said:


> Or... not (apparently posting functioning urls isn't permitted to me yet, so anyone who wants to look at the below, get rid of the spaces):
> 
> A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array
> 
> ...



Well, since I had never heard of "Open Medicine", and I know that one can find people on the Internet to say pretty much anything, I had to go research your source.  Does it seem at all suspicious to anyone else that the editorial board members of this spiffy new medical journal just happen to have formerly belonged to the editorial board of the Canadian Medical Association Journal?

Of course, I'm a little skeptical about anything that has to tell me three or four times on the first page that it's "systematic".  Who are they trying to convince?



gcomeau said:


> > Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
> >
> > ...
> >
> ...



What, that we have better survival rates?



gcomeau said:


> Oh boy...
> 
> 1. "Self reporting" a subjective "level" of personal health is incredibly unreliable. It depends completely on what every single individual respondent's personal definition of "good" or "poor" or "excellent" is.



So is self-reporting satisfaction with your health care system, but strangely, that never stops leftists from prattling on about how happy Canadians, Britons, etc. are with whatever it is they have.  In fact, since the French have indicated on many polls that they would be happy to accept lower-quality care in favor of having everyone universally covered, I think I'm MORE interested in self-reported good health and good results than I am in self-reported system satisfaction.



gcomeau said:


> 2. American seniors? You mean... THOSE PEOPLE ON MEDICARE? You seriously want to go there for a talking point on why universal government run Canadian style insurance is scary? The high level of self reported health of people in the US on... government provided universal insurance coverage????



Right now, Medicare and its patients get to access the medical system produced by largely by the HMO system and its patients.  Therefore, it doesn't change the fact that Americans get good medical care, OR the fact that that would no longer apply if EVERYONE had the equivalent of Medicare.



gcomeau said:


> The author of that particular talking point either wasn't thinking things through when he wrote that, or was betting on his readers not thinking. Probably not a bad bet on average really...



You mean as opposed to the people who tell us how wonderful it is that we have Medicare and Medicaid, and in the next breath tell us how we're letting poor people die in the gutters like flies?



gcomeau said:


> Kindly show me REAL wait time data for the US, then we'll talk.
> 
> And that means no pretending all the people in the US effectively *indefinitely* wait listed by being priced out of the system (or at least wait listed until they turn 65 and qualify for medicare) don't exist so you can celebrate how short "average" wait times are for everyone else are, which is what every single wait time statistic I've ever seen published for the United States does.



How about YOU show us REAL data for people being "indefinitely wait-listed by being priced out of the system"?  Oh, hell, how about you show us real data for people not able to get any medical care at all?  That's what "priced out of the system" is, right?



gcomeau said:


> If Canada and Britain just didn't count all the people in their systems waiting the longest they'd come up with much better wait time stats too you know.



If you're planning to contend that the US is cooking the books on this subject, you need to put your statistics where your mouth is before demanding that someone ELSE argue against your assertion.



gcomeau said:


> People in other countries want to improve their health care systems? Good god, I'm floored.



Just like I was when I heard that ::gasp:: Americans bitch about their health care sometimes.  But somehow, THAT means that the whole system sucks and should be totally replaced.



gcomeau said:


> Oh, btw:
> 
> http : //www .harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/071009E.pdf
> 
> You were saying? (Question 2 is particularly fun)



One, you really need to learn to include these little references more effectively.  Two, who the hell are these people, and why am I supposed to care? Three, didn't we just get done discussing how self-identification was kinda meaningless?



gcomeau said:


> While having lots of MRIs is nice... having them is only beneficial to people who can actually use them. A rather large chunk of the American population would need to place themselves in significant financial distress or bankrupt themselves to do that in the current system.



I know a country that has waiting lists for MRIs running into months isn't snarkily talking about whether or not AMERICANS get to use THEIRS.  How beneficial are YOUR scanty numbers of these machines to Canadian citizens who have to schedule their injuries months in advance if they want to use them?

And once again, if you're going to come in here making assertions about us just letting people die in droves with no medical care, you'd best be ready to back it up.



gcomeau said:


> > Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13]
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course is all because of the insurance companies... those breeding grounds of groundbreaking medical research! Why, I've simply lost track of how many amazing medical breakthroughs the insurance companies have brought us!



That wasn't even a good try at deflection.  I don't recall it being said that it was due to insurance companies, so you've got a hell of a nerve trying to pretend it was because you don't want to answer the REAL point, which is that it's because we still have vestiges of a free market, which allow the companies that DO produce groundbreaking research to make a profit off of it, encouraging them to make even more, rather than just giving it up and going into another line of work.

Disingenuous.  Bad way to start out.



gcomeau said:


> No, seriously, totally lost track. Ummm, can you maybe share an example with me? Just to job my memory you understand.



It's "jog" your memory.

As for examples, pharmaceuticals are by far the most-used method of treatment for illnesses and injuries.  The United States, because it doesn't have governmental price controls on pharmaceuticals the way every other industrialized nation does, ends up underwriting the costs for everyone else.  Were we to adopt a system like Canada's, the drug companies that currently look to us to pay for their R & D would simply stop developing new drugs.



gcomeau said:


> > Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, gloryosky.  If we had a medal for throwing up random graphs with no context or explanation whatsoever, you'd be a shoo-in for it.  Other than that, what's your frigging point?

Tax spending?  What does that mean, precisely?  Does it, by any chance, refer to the percentage of the individual citizen's income that goes to taxes?  Or does it refer to the percentage of its tax revenue the government then spends on health care?  Is it too much to ask that you at least ATTEMPT to give us some point of reference whereby we can figure out what you're talking about?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

gcomeau said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do you have a right to the services of another and at the expense of everyone else??
> ...



Uh, no.  There's a big difference between taxes to pay for the government itself and things like roads and infrastructure, and taxes to hand out goodies to individuals.  If you can show me where our government was taxing people for personal handouts "a really, really long time ago", please do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> And as for the Cancer survival rates thing, I have pointed this out in multiple threads preceding this one, but...
> 
> ...In overall surviability rates for all diseases, Canada beats the US hands down.  Here are some examples:
> 
> ...



And as I've pointed out in virtually all of those threads, you're full of shit, misrepresenting statistics, and out-and-out lying.

So here we are again.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 31, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> In addition, The average life span in Canada is 2-3 years longer than the average life span in the United States.
> 
> Source: World Health Organization
> 
> ...



In addition, none of that has shit to do with the quality of the medical system in question, any more than it did the other numerous times you tried these lies.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

gcomeau said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do you have a right to the services of another and at the expense of everyone else??
> ...


I asked you first and got  a platitudinous vagary.

Since when does any right impose an obligation upon someone else to perform, so someone else may have that "right"??

Please cite specifics.


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> Yeah...And apparently every credible accouting bureaucracy in D.C. -including the CBO- are lying too, Mr. hack-in-the-box dipshit lemming.



I figured you'd respond with some high school insult.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 31, 2009)

You wanna accuse people of being liars that's what you're going to get, you ignorant fuckface.

Now that we have that out of the way, debunk the CBO numbers that show Medicare/Medicaid as basically bankrupt, shithead.


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> You wanna accuse people of being liars that's what you're going to get, you ignorant fuckface.
> 
> Now that we have that out of the way, debunk the CBO numbers that show Medicare/Medicaid as basically bankrupt, shithead.




You are starting to remind me of Glenn Beck. 

Sputtering spittle and little else.


----------



## Meister (Aug 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > You wanna accuse people of being liars that's what you're going to get, you ignorant fuckface.
> ...



Chris, when you don't have the answers, and your post is what it is....that's nothing more than a lame deflection


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Deflection of what?

Medicare is not bankrupt.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 31, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Part of the problem is when their kids get sick, they have to wait to get them into see their assigned physician.

Or often, they have tooth problems that their medicaid won't cover, and in agonising pain, they head for the ER. Where they're told they're med seeking. Well no shit they're med seeking, they're in fucking pain and can't get treatment. Dental offices aren't obligated, as hospitals are, to provide treatment to ppl who can't pay.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 31, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > In addition, The average life span in Canada is 2-3 years longer than the average life span in the United States.
> ...



It has a lot to do with the genetics of the people who live in Canada. They don't have the number of blacks, who have shorter life spans, or Indians, who also suffer disproportionately from diabetes and heart and liver ailments and have a shorter life span, or Hispanics, who come here as adults with already progressive illnesses. Including TB. We also have a higher murder rate, which affects those numbers.

None of those things have anything whatsoever to do with the quality of health care in the US.


----------



## Meister (Aug 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Only because it's backed by our tax dollars.....in the private sector it would be bankrupt.  It certainly isn't breaking even.  There are billions of dollars every year in fraud.  What would you call that?  Solvent?


----------



## Polk (Aug 31, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Most of Medicare's long-run cost issues come from the exploding cost of health care. So it's not like the rest of the system is immune from the problem that is "bankrupting" Medicare.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Well, you should see this one coming.

Prove it.


----------



## Chris (Sep 1, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Prove what? Prove that every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare? 

It's posted here in this thread!


----------



## elvis (Sep 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



and their taxes are double or triple what ours are.


----------



## Emma (Sep 1, 2009)

Daily Show: Drag Me to Health - Universal Health Care Video


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2009)

Polk said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Medicare/Medicaid's long-run costs have come from the fact that politicians and bureaucrats cannot control costs, because offering something -anything- for "free" will always atrtract more  moochers than you projected (see: the clunker program), and that  there's no financial penalty to be paid for making bad decisions.

You might have a case if you could name the _*first*_ time any federal program came in under budger and delivered a better product than you could get out in the real world, but you can't.


----------



## Emma (Sep 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


WIC Works « Poverty & Policy


According to a report by the Partnership for Americas Economic Success, *every $1.00 spent on WIC saves as much as $3.13 in Medicaid costs*, plus significant other costs linked to the impacts of food insecurity.

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Final Online Brief.pdf

http://www.frac.org/pdf/cnwic.pdf


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



So continue to be stupidly uninformed and take your cues from Limbaugh & Co for all I care. I don't expect that any expert on such matters would sway the likes of someone like you.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *CANADAS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM*
> ...



How profound...


----------



## Emma (Sep 1, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Further, CMA is a _voluntary professional organization. _


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > And as for the Cancer survival rates thing, I have pointed this out in multiple threads preceding this one, but...
> ...



And so you just expect everyone to believe YOU rather than the facts posted. Incredible. A 100% rant against a 100% set of facts.


----------



## Toro (Sep 1, 2009)

Health outcomes in Canada and the US.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...are/83876-health-outcomes-in-canada-v-us.html


----------



## JFK_USA (Sep 1, 2009)

gcomeau said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do you have a right to the services of another and at the expense of everyone else??
> ...



Exactly, People have a right to life. I mean conservatives fight for this "right to life" for abortion yet as soon as the baby is safe, they don't deserve good, affordable healthcare? 

Please tell me where I am missing the point where we shouldn't be concerned about the rising healthcare costs which puts people in bankruptcy and we have one of the worst healthcare systems in developed countries.


----------



## Yukon (Sep 1, 2009)

I am a self-employeed Canadian. Last year I earned, with pension money from my ex-employer, approximately $94.000.00. I paid $12,000.00 income tax (federal and provincial combined). 

I have medicare, a drug plan which pays 80%, a dental plan which pays 85% of the ODA rate, and I get 150.00 every two years for eye-glasses. 

If you think I'm a socialist that's OK with me - you should be so lucky !


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 1, 2009)

JFK_USA said:


> gcomeau said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



People have a right to life, aka the right not to be killed.  They don't have a right to the products and services of others to extend or improve that life.  THOSE have to be purchased.

The several points you are missing are that a) it's not the free market causing rising healthcare costs, because b) we don't have a free market in healthcare in this country, c) the whole "healthcare bankrupting people" scenario is so much marsh gas being spewed as a scare tactic, and d) "worst healthcare system in developed countries" is a flat-out lie, debunked numerous times, at least once directly to you, and you stubbornly, deliberately default back to it as though nothing has been said because you don't WANT to hear anything but what you've decided is BY GOD going to be the truth whether it is or not.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, and none so ignorant as those who've decided stupidity is their God-given right.


----------



## gcomeau (Sep 1, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Since one of the truest measures of the quality of a healthcare system is how it performs on life-threatening ailments - as opposed to trying to measure it by things it has no real control over, like life expectancy and infant mortality - I'd say talking about cancer survival rates is a very good representation of the quality of American health care.



Ummm, Mr. Perceptive? What part of me posting an extensive set of data that included cancer treatment outcomes led you to the conclusion that I was arguing we shouldn't look at cancer treatment outcomes... as opposed to saying we should be looking at more comprehensive data sets than JUST one or two studies of one single condition?

Hmmm?



> But if you'd like to look at some other measure of effectiveness, how about this:  The vaunted WHO health care ranking report of 2000, so beloved and quoted by leftists, ranks the United States number one in responsiveness.



Which only benefits people with access TO the system. Which the US ranks pathetically on



> Well, since I had never heard of "Open Medicine", and I know that one can find people on the Internet to say pretty much anything, I had to go research your source.  Does it seem at all suspicious to anyone else that the editorial board members of this spiffy new medical journal just happen to have formerly belonged to the editorial board of the Canadian Medical Association Journal?
> 
> Of course, I'm a little skeptical about anything that has to tell me three or four times on the first page that it's "systematic".  Who are they trying to convince?



1. Oh. My. God. 

Some of the editors of a medical journal were previously the editors of... ANOTHER MEDICAL JOURNAL!?!?!?!?

I'm floored. Left speechless. My entire world has been turned upside down!

2. The repetition of the word "systematic" in the introductory summary somehow invalidates the data from 38 different scientific studies of comparative treatment outcomes in the US and Canada? Does it really? 

Don't let me distract you from pressing your hands firmly over your ears, squeezing your eyes shut, and hoping reality will go away if you pretend it isn't there. You seem to be concentrating rather heavily on your efforts.



> What, that we have better survival rates?



Can you or can you not read? You. Don't. Have. Those. Except in a few isolated studies of specific conditions.



> Right now, Medicare and its patients get to access the medical system produced by largely by the HMO system and its patients.  Therefore, it doesn't change the fact that Americans get good medical care, OR the fact that that would no longer apply if EVERYONE had the equivalent of Medicare.



Except everyone in Canada DOES have access to a rough equivalent of medicare and I just finished showing you the data that demonstrated they experienced equivalent or superior health outcomes in the majority of studies performed. But I know... hands over ears, eyes squeezed shut... don't let me interrupt you or anything.



> How about YOU show us REAL data for people being "indefinitely wait-listed by being priced out of the system"?  Oh, hell, how about you show us real data for people not able to get any medical care at all?  That's what "priced out of the system" is, right?



Do you live on another planet or something? Are you arguing that there is nobody in the US who can't afford insurance? Or are you arguing everyone in the US who can't afford insurance qualifies for medicare? 

In either of those cases, are the walls of your room padded by any chance?



> If you're planning to contend that the US is cooking the books on this subject, you need to put your statistics where your mouth is before demanding that someone ELSE argue against your assertion.



Have you ever even READ a wait times statistics report? They only report average wait times of people who ACTUALLY MAKE APPOINTMENTS FOR TREATMENT. 

People who can't afford treatments? They don't do that.

In Canada however effectively their entire population can afford treatment, so their wait times stats are actually accurate representations of the average citizen. The numbers in the US _are not_. 



> Just like I was when I heard that ::gasp:: Americans bitch about their health care sometimes.  But somehow, THAT means that the whole system sucks and should be totally replaced.



No, it needs to be replaced because it's ruinously expensive while producing mediocre at best outcomes and pathetic levels of access. Where have you been?



> One, you really need to learn to include these little references more effectively.  Two, who the hell are these people, and why am I supposed to care? Three, didn't we just get done discussing how self-identification was kinda meaningless?



Since I was responding directly to a claim that people in other countries didn't like their systems which was being used to imply US style health care was preferable, the actual numbers in Canada and a DIRECT question of whether Canadians would prefer US style care was a tiny bit relevant. It was not being used as an argument in favor of reform, it was being used as a "you're full of crap" visual aid. Understand now?



> I know a country that has waiting lists for MRIs running into months isn't snarkily talking about whether or not AMERICANS get to use THEIRS.



Waiting then using is better then never using.



> How beneficial are YOUR scanty numbers of these machines to Canadian citizens who have to schedule their injuries months in advance if they want to use them?



Wait time placement in Canada is based on medical urgency of need as determined by the attending physician genius. So... they're useful in direct proportion to how much the patient in question needs them to be useful. Crazy idea I know... 



> And once again, if you're going to come in here making assertions about us just letting people die in droves with no medical care, you'd best be ready to back it up.



Oh damn it all... if only I had posted a link to the statistics on health care amenable mortality rates in industrialized nations that showed the US had the worst performance on the prevention of medically preventable deaths in the entire industrialized world... boy do I feel like an idiot!

Oh wait, I did that. So either you didn't bother reading it, or the words were too big for you. Which one was it exactly? I have a dictionary you can borrow if it's the latter.



> That wasn't even a good try at deflection.  I don't recall it being said that it was due to insurance companies



It's being used as an argument against reforming health INSURANCE genius.

If you show me the part of the bill proposing reforming university medical research labs or the biotech sector you let me know.



> It's "jog" your memory.



It's "the b is right beside the g on the keyboard and we have these things called typos".



> As for examples, pharmaceuticals are by far the most-used method of treatment for illnesses and injuries.  The United States, because it doesn't have governmental price controls on pharmaceuticals the way every other industrialized nation does, ends up underwriting the costs for everyone else.  Were we to adopt a system like Canada's, the drug companies that currently look to us to pay for their R & D would simply stop developing new drugs.



Right... because they sell their products at a LOSS in other countries so the only way developing new drugs is profitable is if they sell them for massively overinflated prices in the US to make up the difference! 

Or... not.



> Well, gloryosky.  If we had a medal for throwing up random graphs with no context or explanation whatsoever, you'd be a shoo-in for it.  Other than that, what's your frigging point?



if you don't understand the point of showing the statistics that establish that the US is the worst performer in the entire industrialized world at preventing medically preventable deaths, and graphs so mind numbingly simple as "National Health Spending as a % of GDP" in a debate on health care reform then run along and play kiddo. The grown-ups are talking.



> Tax spending?  What does that mean, precisely?  Does it, by any chance, refer to the percentage of the individual citizen's income that goes to taxes?



If you don't recognize that as a graph of %GDP spending on health care after it followed the other graphs with the exact same information in it in line chart form I'm not sure how much effort it's worth explaining this subject to you.


----------



## Yukon (Sep 1, 2009)

Americans are so naive, so pathetically naive. I pity you people.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Sep 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Americans are so naive, so pathetically naive. I pity you people.



you know what you stupid fucking hack? ....you aren't doing Canada any favors by insulting all of our neighbors - pull your head out of your ass and take 5.


----------



## gcomeau (Sep 1, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



WHAT???

Canadian average marginal tax rates are like a couple percent higher than the US. And as explained in an earlier post have NOTHING to do with the cost of their health care system considering both the US and Canada pay almost identical percentages of their GDPs in tax dollars towards health care.

If you'd like some specific numbers for reference just to try to get your head around this... let's take single filers in say, Ontario (40% of Canadians live there after all) and California or New York (pretty large chunks of the US population). I just plugged the federal, state and provincial income tax rates for income ranges of $1000 through $450,000 for those three locations into excel so you could see a nice easy to understand visual of what we're talking about here (again, remove the spaces to visit the link, it's the only way I can post it for now):

http : // img206.imageshack.us/img206/5043/15372427.jpg

Now, I didn't adjust for exchange rates there so keep that in mind. And that is income tax only... you still have to factor in things like sales taxes which are higher in Canada. And that is bare bones... no factoring in various deductions and such. But where the hell do you get the absolutely absurd idea that tax rates in nations with universal health insurance systems are "two to three times" higher than the US? You realize that in many tax brackets three times the US income tax rate is over 100% right? And even two times is pushing the 90s. How do you not realize how ridiculous it is to think that?


----------



## Meister (Sep 1, 2009)

gcomeau said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



There is a Value Added Tax (VAT) on purchases.  I'm sure gas taxes are higher in Canada.
I'm not sure when all the taxes added it up where it stands with the US.  I am sure they pay a heck of a lot more taxes than we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Canada


----------



## Jay Canuck (Sep 1, 2009)

we do pay high taxes and even though I like our "free" healthcare I have had enuf......fucking Liberals in this country make Jane Fonda look like W.F. Buckley.


----------



## gcomeau (Sep 1, 2009)

Meister said:


> There is a Value Added Tax (VAT) on purchases.  I'm sure gas taxes are higher in Canada.
> I'm not sure when all the taxes added it up where it stands with the US.  I am sure they pay a heck of a lot more taxes than we do.



No, not a "heck of a lot" more... unless you consider a few percent to be "a heck of a lot". 

While we're browsing Wikipiedia:

http : // en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_economies#Taxation

Check the taxation section. It lists total tax revenue by percentage of GDP, which is a pretty good indicator of total all inclusive tax levels. They're not _that_ different.

And, like I said... that difference has NOTHING to do with cost of health care. The difference is due to things like other social programs. Oh, and the federal budget *surplus* Canada was running for 12 straight years while steadily reducing their national debt before the current global reccession hit (and which they expect to return to running shortly), as opposed to what the US was doing for the last 8 years with IT'S budget, which was... something else.


----------



## Toro (Sep 1, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Americans are so naive, so pathetically naive. I pity you people.
> ...



Yes, yes, thank you.  Yukon is a troll who makes Canadians and Catholics look bad.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/73150-i-would-like-to-apologize.html


----------



## Toro (Sep 1, 2009)

gcomeau said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > There is a Value Added Tax (VAT) on purchases.  I'm sure gas taxes are higher in Canada.
> ...



According to the most recent data from the OECD, taxes are 31% of GDP in the US and 38% in Canada.  Yet the budget deficit is much higher in the US than in Canada.  Total government spending in 2008 was 38% of GDP in the US and 39% in Canada.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Sep 1, 2009)

Toro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Each nation has it's dipshits.... it was cool you owned up for one of ours.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2009)

Toro said:


> According to the most recent data from the OECD, taxes are 31% of GDP in the US and 38% in Canada.  Yet the budget deficit is much higher in the US than in Canada.  Total government spending in 2008 was 38% of GDP in the US and 39% in Canada.


How much military empire does Canada maintain?

How much does Canada flush down the U.N. toilet?

How many nations are basically bastard political/military stepchildren to Canada?

How much does Canada fork over in non-military foreign aid?

How many of Canada's private businesses has its central bank bailed out?


----------



## veritas (Sep 1, 2009)

Canada has one tenth the people we do. They do fine, dude.


----------



## Toro (Sep 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> How much military empire does Canada maintain?



Not much, but I believe there have been relatively more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan than American soldiers, at least until recently, though I may be wrong about that.  The US spends 4% of its GDP on the military whereas Canada spends about 1.5%.



> How much does Canada flush down the U.N. toilet?



Dues at the UN are relative to GDP.  Canada pays its dues on time and is not in arrears, unlike the US.  Canada also devotes significantly more to UN peacekeeping than the US.



> How many nations are basically bastard political/military stepchildren to Canada?



Does Quebec count?



> How much does Canada fork over in non-military foreign aid?


  I can't remember the exact number but I think its 0.25%-0.3% of GDP versus 0.15% for the US.  Sweden is 0.7%.



> How many of Canada's private businesses has its central bank bailed out?



The Canadian government gave loans to the auto companies but not a single dime has been given to the financial sector as the financial sector was better regulated in Canada.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


Just for the sake of it -however hardly any decent and workable model for a fascistic takeover of an entire American industry it is- that's _*ONE*_.

Name some more.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 1, 2009)

Canad sucks ... the US rules ... for now anyway.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2009)

Toro said:


> Not much, but I believe there have been relatively more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan than American soldiers, at least until recently, though I may be wrong about that.  The US spends 4% of its GDP on the military whereas Canada spends about 1.5%.
> 
> Dues at the UN are relative to GDP.  Canada pays its dues on time and is not in arrears, unlike the US.  Canada also devotes significantly more to UN peacekeeping than the US.
> 
> ...


Yeah...When the raw numbers fail you, go to percentages.

Suffice to say that a lot more in _*hard money*_ comes out of the American treasury for global welfare -especially military empire- than it does out of Canada's.

America also has incredibly overpriced and overcompensated bureaucrats, and waaaaaaaaay too many of them.

Likewise, America's military-industrial empire has tropps stationed in well over 100 nations.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Canad sucks ... the US rules ... for now anyway.



Canada's O.K....if you don't venture too far outside of soutwest Ontario.


----------



## Toro (Sep 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Canad sucks ... the US rules ... for now anyway.
> ...



FFS, that's the worst place!


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2009)

....with the best fishing.


----------



## Toro (Sep 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Not much, but I believe there have been relatively more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan than American soldiers, at least until recently, though I may be wrong about that.  The US spends 4% of its GDP on the military whereas Canada spends about 1.5%.
> ...



First of all, the American dollar ain't "hard money" no more.

Of course you go to percentages.  Who is more generous, the man who makes $50k a year and gives away $25k or the guy who makes $10 million a year and gives away $100k?

You are judged by the resources you have.

Oh, and Canadians pay their bureaucrats more.  I can tell you that having worked in both the US and Canadian governments, Canadian government workers have it WAAAAAAAAAY easier than Americans.  Canadians also have more government and thus more bureaucrats.  Its one of the pluses of America actually.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2009)

Toro said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Weak as the USD is, it's _*still *_the world's reserve currency.

Your gubmint may be more "generous" with taxpayer money, but when push comes to shove (like the 26 Dec tsunami) it's Americans who break out the wallets and show the whole world who the real compassionate givers are.

And like I said, we have a tremendously overpriced bureaucracy and a military empire that costs waaaaaaay too much...Lest I fail to mention other programs that end up costing more than projections, often by factors of 10+.


----------



## gcomeau (Sep 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Not much, but I believe there have been relatively more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan than American soldiers, at least until recently, though I may be wrong about that.  The US spends 4% of its GDP on the military whereas Canada spends about 1.5%.
> ...



The percentages ARE the hard numbers.  When you're comparing a country with a population of 300 million with a country with a population of 30 million it's the only way to rationally do it. 



> Suffice to say that a lot more in _*hard money*_ comes out of the American treasury for global welfare -especially military empire- than it does out of Canada's.



So... just going to ignore the numbers he posted that showed that was wrong then? 



> Likewise, America's military-industrial empire has tropps stationed in well over 100 nations.



So... stop doing that. Who's forcing you?



> Your gubmint may be more "generous" with taxpayer money, but when push comes to shove (like the 26 Dec tsunami) it's Americans who break out the wallets and show the whole world who the real compassionate givers are



Ahem:

http : // www .guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/16/tsunami2004.internationalaidanddevelopment2



> Private donations made to the tsunami appeal in the first 15 days. In £ per head of population.
> 
> Norway £7.06
> Sweden £6.44
> ...



Now, maybe the US totally reversed that trend later of course... but I'd like to see those numbers.


----------



## Yukon (Sep 2, 2009)

You pathetic, fcking, stupid, dumb assed Amerixcans think you are the "best" in the world but you are nothing but international jokes of the highest order. We laugh at you as does the rest of the western world. Pathetic, dumb, and stupid...............


----------



## gcomeau (Sep 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> You pathetic, fcking, stupid, dumb assed Amerixcans think you are the "best" in the world but you are nothing but international jokes of the highest order. We laugh at you as does the rest of the western world. Pathetic, dumb, and stupid...............



Dude, speaking as a fellow Canadian, shut the fuck up already. As if it's "Americans" disagreeing with whatever the hell has you all upset as opposed to just a specific ideological subset of people. Or as if people are made unintelligent or ignorant by virtue of the name of the country on their passports or something.

There are dumbasses everywhere (you yourself would appear to be a prime example of the concept), and the degree of their dumbassery has very little to do with their nationality.


----------



## Vast LWC (Sep 2, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Those stats have a lot to do with the immigrants we have who come infested with parasites, advanced, untreated diseases etc. and so on.



Heard this one before too.  No proof to back up this claim though, I see.


----------



## Vast LWC (Sep 2, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> And as I've pointed out in virtually all of those threads, you're full of shit, misrepresenting statistics, and out-and-out lying.
> 
> So here we are again.



Yes, here you go again.

*As you "pointed out" in all these threads, providing NO supporting evidence for your assertions whatsoever, except links to OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS OF THE DATA.

I provided evidence that the Canadian health care system is in fact better than ours, in general.  

This evidence was compiled by world-wide, non-partisan agencies that have NO MOTIVATION TO FALSIFY EVIDENCE.

Meanwhile, you've provided NOTHING but a bunch of BS, opinion, and propaganda to refute it, and you have EVERY MOTIVATION TO FALSIFY EVIDENCE.

So tell me, who should we all believe?  The World Health Organization, the dept of Health and Human Services, the CIA and OECD,

Or you, a partisan hack, and a couple of other partisan hack opinion pieces that you have linked in other threads?*

Mind you, I have never contradicted the fact that the US has a lead in Cancer care.  That is a fact.  A fact that you and your buddies bring up continuously.

But that fact, some opinions, and a few personal stories does not constitute proof to disprove the data I presented.


----------



## Vast LWC (Sep 2, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> and their taxes are double or triple what ours are.



First of all, if their taxes were "triple" what ours are, they would be paying a 75-95% income tax.  That is an obvious lie.

Secondly, whether their paying for their health care through taxes or privately, they still have to pay for their health care.

So, if they pay half of what they would privately, through their taxes, they are making out quite well in the end.


----------



## Vast LWC (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Medicare/Medicaid's long-run costs have come from the fact that politicians and bureaucrats cannot control costs, because offering something -anything- for "free" will always atrtract more  moochers than you projected (see: the clunker program), and that  there's no financial penalty to be paid for making bad decisions.
> 
> You might have a case if you could name the _*first*_ time any federal program came in under budger and delivered a better product than you could get out in the real world, but you can't.



Medicare and Medicaid serve the OLD and the POOR.  

These two groups are the most likely to have medical issues.

And yet they STILL do it 15% cheaper than Private insurance.


----------



## Vast LWC (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > According to the most recent data from the OECD, taxes are 31% of GDP in the US and 38% in Canada.  Yet the budget deficit is much higher in the US than in Canada.  Total government spending in 2008 was 38% of GDP in the US and 39% in Canada.
> ...



How does any of this help your claim?  

In order to prove your point you'd have to include the price the average American pays for health care in the total for comparison.

In addition, are you really saying that we shouldn't pay for public health care *because we need to spend the money on our military empire?*


----------



## Vast LWC (Sep 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> You pathetic, fcking, stupid, dumb assed Amerixcans think you are the "best" in the world but you are nothing but international jokes of the highest order. We laugh at you as does the rest of the western world. Pathetic, dumb, and stupid...............




Just so everyone knows, this "Yukon" guy is obviously not a real poster.  He's just some jackass trying to make Canadians look bad by posting under a pseudonym.


----------



## keee keee (Sep 2, 2009)

If canadian health care service so good why do all the rich sick Canadians come here? even when their healthcare is free


----------



## Vast LWC (Sep 2, 2009)

keee keee said:


> If canadian health care service so good why do all the rich sick Canadians come here? even when their healthcare is free



They don't.  Except for cancer patients, because as I said, the US has better cancer care.


----------



## gcomeau (Sep 2, 2009)

keee keee said:


> If canadian health care service so good why do all the rich sick Canadians come here? even when their healthcare is free



1. Comparing the health care available to millionaires to the health care avaiable to the average person in two nations sytems is ridiculous.

2.  Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians' Use Of Health Care Services In The United States -- Katz et al. 21 (3): 19 -- Health Affairs

They don't. The US insurance lobby invented the story of Canadians flocking across the border for care in the 90s to scare people out of health reform under Clinton. It was studied. See above. It was fiction. Nothing has changed to alter that since. A tiny handful of Canadians trickle across the border for care once in a while. In the meantime, 750,000 Americans went overseas for medical care in 2007.


----------



## Toro (Sep 2, 2009)

keee keee said:


> If canadian health care service so good why do all the rich sick Canadians come here? even when their healthcare is free



All the rich sick Canadians don't come to America.  Where do you get your information?

In the most recent study of cross-border medical treatments, 0.8% of Canadians come across the border to the US, and the costs are usually covered by the provincial health insurance systems.


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

gcomeau said:


> keee keee said:
> 
> 
> > If canadian health care service so good why do all the rich sick Canadians come here? even when their healthcare is free
> ...



And busloads of seniors go to Mexico because prescription drugs are cheaper there.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> gcomeau said:
> 
> 
> > keee keee said:
> ...



... and who controls prescriptions and doesn't allow us any competition?


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gcomeau said:
> ...



Big Pharma.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The second step up isn't a full picture, there is a *government* agency that tells them what to do.


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



No, their is a Big Pharma lobbyist that tells the Congress what to do.

Are you really this dumb?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



 Someone as clueless as you calling me dumb ... that's rich.

Even from that angle, who has the power? Who is at fault? Congress doesn't have to crooked.


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



The people who vote for Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are to blame.

And the people who are now opposing Obama's reform plan.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Okay, that's just too damned funny, so people who oppose the plan of those who created the problem (Democrats) are to blame! You like forcing people into corners ... 

So, you admit that regulation is the problem yet you think that more regulation will fix it?

I can keep this up all day just off that one comment. Here's a clue for you, take off the blinders for once in your robotic life.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Toro said:


> keee keee said:
> 
> 
> > If canadian health care service so good why do all the rich sick Canadians come here? even when their healthcare is free
> ...


So, by your numbers, _*240 THOUSAND PEOPLE*_ leave Canada for on-demand medical services in America....Out of a population of 30 million.

That's some kind of "universal" coverage.


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Time to remove Obama's dick from your throat.


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Ah so your Messianic democratic party isn't so perfect after all, eh Monica?


----------



## Meister (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Are you really this dumb?


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



He tries to have his own opinion but then Obama's dick goes farther up his ass and he capitulates.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > keee keee said:
> ...


In 2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care. As depicted in Figures 2 and 3, this number is estimated to increase to six million by 2010.

The impact of dramatically rising U.S. health care costs is felt in every household and by every company. Even consumers with employer sponsored health insurance are increasingly considering outbound medical tourism as a viable care option: As their plan deductibles increase, many of the services available in outbound settings may be purchased under the deductible limit, thus conserving their Health Savings Account (HSA) balance.

Medical care in countries such as India, Thailand and Singapore can cost as little as 10 percent of the cost of comparable care in the United States. The price is remarkably lower for a variety of services, and often includes airfare and a stay in a resort hotel. Thanks, in part, to these low-cost care alternatives which almost resemble a mini-vacation, interest in medical tourism is strong and positive.
--------
In 2008, more than 400,000 [median estimate] non-U.S. residents will seek care in the United States and spend almost $5 billion for health services.

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_chs_MedicalTourismStudy(1).pdf


----------



## Toro (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > keee keee said:
> ...



Actually, it is 0.8% of those receiving medical treatment, so the answer is smaller.

What is the percentage who are not able to receive the appropriate treatment in the US?  I bet its higher than 0.8%.

What happens if you have cancer and cannot afford the treatments?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



A lot of those are simply for procedures the FDA won't allow in the US, but don't let that slow you down.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Perhaps you should read the link before you post


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


750,000 out of a population of 300 million works out against 240,000 from a nation of 30 million favorably in what way?


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



It's a PDF, I only read those if I have to.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Toro said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


I have recent personal experience in this area, pal.

My friend got the best care that she could get, despite her lack of insurance.

You really oughtta consider the possibility that someone with real-life experience might run into your collectivist talking point.


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



The real life experience of a person with cancer who can't work to pay for insurance premiums?

You are the one with no real life experience.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

Toro said:


> What happens if you have cancer and cannot afford the treatments?



More often than not, those with no or inadequate coverage aren't diagnosed until late stages, when a remission or cure is unlikely. And those with insurance aren't necessarily better off. 

Recently had a relatively young man (late 40's) diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma. It was aggressively treated and dear God, the treatments tore him up. He was in the hospital repeatedly and for extended stays, getting his chemo and then recovering from the complications of treatment. He came close to dying many times. He'd worked hard all his life, had saved up and had his own home. He took FMLA leave to protect his job while he was going through all of this. In a way, he was lucky to have been diagnosed at the end of last year, so he was able to piggyback 2 leaves extending into early spring of this year. 

In any case, the treatments worked. He was in remission, and there was no sign of residual disease. Not long before his last discharge and ONE fucking day after his FMLA leave for this year was used up, his boss notified him he was fired. He had used up all his savings. He no longer had health insurance, nor was he eligible for another policy. The last time I saw him his home was being foreclosed. He had lost everything he'd worked for all those years... savings, home, retirement. He was devastated and lashed out at those who dared to tell him he was fortunate to have survived. "For _what_???"

This isn't uncommon. I've seen it happen time and again. It's a goddamned fucking shame that in a country as rich as this people are going without adequate healthcare, and losing everything because they happen to get sick. It's *bullshit.*


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



It could turn out to be you since you're too much of a fucking irresponsible shitstain to get your own Goddamned insurance, you fucking leech, you.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


Ok. Just so you know, you're wrong.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



What the hell are you babbling about now? I bet you I can blow holes in your point here if you post it.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I think he clarified that number for you... _0.8% of those receiving medical treatment. _


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Fuck you, you heartless shitheel fucking prick.

And I thought it wasn't possible to have less respect for your sorry useless excuse for a skidmark existence.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > What happens if you have cancer and cannot afford the treatments?
> ...



Our country is rich ?  Really ?


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Your typical classy response.

Many people die in this country every day because they can't afford healthcare.


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Hopefully, you'll be next.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


What would you know about class, shitstain??

My friend died and there wasn't anything all the "healthcare" in the goddamn world could've done to stop that inevitability.

You're easliy the lowest form of scum posting at this forum.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Yes. Rich enough that *no* one should go without routine preventative/maintenance healthcare or lose everything because they get sick. 

I want to go to DC and kick every Dem's ass for pissing around and not getting this passed. To _hell_ with reconciliation and reaching across the aisle. I told y'all what the hell they should have done from the beginning.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

If our country is so rich, the why do we owe everyone *else* a fortune?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



There are some. But not MANY. I've been a caseworker for years, have had exactly two ppl who came in sick who because they didn't have kids in the home couldn't get any of our programs.

One worked and had worked all his life. He applied for disability, and eventually got it.

 The other never has worked. It never occurred to her to apply for disability or SSI. The one who had worked was getting his treatment, even before his disability kicked in. It hurt, but nobody was denying him treatment. And he continued to work when he was able.

The other won't provide for herself. For whatever reason...I referred her to OHSU, told her to apply for disability and told her good luck. Will she do it? Probably not. Her choice.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Yes. Rich enough that *no* one should go without routine preventative/maintenance healthcare or lose everything because they get sick.
> 
> I want to go to DC and kick every Dem's ass for pissing around and not getting this passed. To _hell_ with reconciliation and reaching across the aisle. I told y'all what the hell they should have done from the beginning.


Then break open the wallet.

Your auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes. And even if if did, the grease monkey at Grease Monkey can't tell you when your tranny might go to hell.

Life's tough...Shit happens...Wear a fucking helmet.


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> If our country is so rich, the why do we owe everyone *else* a fortune?



Because Ronald Reagan and George Bush cut the marginal tax rate for the rich and wasted our money on ridiculous military expenditures.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Rich enough that *no* one should go without routine preventative/maintenance healthcare or lose everything because they get sick.
> ...



I'll pay more in taxes for universal coverage. No problem.


----------



## veritas (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



As will I.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > If our country is so rich, the why do we owe everyone *else* a fortune?
> ...



Well, we are not rich then, because when you have to borrow money, you have none. So, we are *not* a rich country, plain and simple.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


Don't _*even*_ try to slide that weak-assed shit by me.

You want a service _*YOU*_ pay for it.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


lol

I'm willing to pay through taxes. I'm just pissed that we're not going to see a single-payer system.


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



We are a very rich country, but we are squandering our resources on useless things and ignoring the things that are important like education, healthcare, and clean energy.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> If our country is so rich, the why do we owe everyone *else* a fortune?



It's only *11 TRILLION DOLLARS *


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


Fucking rube.


----------



## Emma (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



And we'd be considerably richer if we weren't spending nearly 18% of our GDP to line the pockets of the health insurance and pharma industries.


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



stimulus package, anyone?


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



yes, we all know Old Rocks gave you the Clap.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> And we'd be considerably richer if we weren't spending nearly 18% of our GDP to line the pockets of the health insurance and pharma industries.


We'd be considerably richer if medical insurance were a free field of interstate  commerce, and the goddamn FDA didn't make each and every new medication or procedure cost 1/2 _*BILLION*_ to get through their red tape.

Fucking rube.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 2, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Just pay the medical bills of one person who doesn't have medical instead. You'll find that when properly motivated, ANYONE can and will get medical care, whether they can pay for it or not.


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Wow ... you really are stupid. Again, you can't be rich without said resources, if we had resources we wouldn't be borrowing money, period. It's not rocket science.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


I disagree.

He's goddamned evil.


----------



## veritas (Sep 2, 2009)

I am not feeling the dudeness.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Shut the fuck up, Donny...You're out of your element.


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Shut the fuck up, Donny...You're out of your element.



Osmond?


----------



## veritas (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Shut the fuck up, Donny...You're out of your element.



Quite. And you are out of your league.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Not by a dam sight, noob fuckface.

I eat freeper and DU hack-in-the-box dickweeds like you for midnight snax.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Shut the fuck up, Donny...You're out of your element.
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjYJ7zZ9BRw]YouTube - big lebowski - shut the fuck up donny![/ame]


----------



## Chris (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Not by a dam sight, noob fuckface.
> 
> I eat freeper and DU hack-in-the-box dickweeds like you for midnight snax.



No, mostly you just make a fool of yourself with childish insults.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 2, 2009)

Eat shit, asshole.

I'm now repping more of my buds just so I can fuck your commie ass up some more....You waste of semen.


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not by a dam sight, noob fuckface.
> ...



What's the matter?  did old rocks come in your eye again?  Is that what happened you whiney little bitch?  I bet he makes you squeal like a pig, doesn't he, Monica?


----------



## elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> Eat shit, asshole.
> 
> I'm now repping more of my buds just so I can fuck your commie ass up some more....You waste of semen.



Yeah, that load should have been spit for sure.


----------



## veritas (Sep 3, 2009)

Connor: Now you will receive us.
Murphy: We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry.
Connor: We do not want your tired and sick.
Murphy: It is your corrupt we claim.
Connor: It is your evil that will be sought by us.
Murphy: With every breath we shall hunt them down.
Connor: Each day, we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies.
Murphy: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
Connor: These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
Murphy: There are varying degrees of evil, we urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over, into true corruption, into our domain.
Connor: For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three. And on that day, you will reap it.
Murphy: And we will send you to whatever god you wish.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 3, 2009)

**yawn**


----------



## Yukon (Sep 3, 2009)

Let's see now. According to the GOP (Conservatives) a government administered Health Care System will result in:

* Death Panels
* Nazism
* Higher taxes
* Lower premiums
* Bureaucrats telling doctors how to treat the sick
* Extermination of the elderly
* the end of the "American Dream"
* etc.
* etc.
* etc.

Oh by the way. here are a few more GOP (Conservative) facts:

* The moon is made of cheese and that's why the Dems faked the moon landing in 1969 
* America actually won the Vietnam war
* Elvis is working in an arcade in Nashville
* Michael Jackson is really in seclusion and is not dead
* The were WMD's in Iraq
* G Bush Junior was a great president
* Barack Obama is the anti-christ
* Barack Obama is not an American
* Barack Obama is Hitler re-incarnate
* Barack Obama won because the Negros all voted for him
* Barack Obama is really Rush Limbaugh in "black-face"


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 3, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gcomeau said:
> ...



Unfamiliar territory for you, I guess. The answer to your question is the Big Pharma lobbyists, who wrote the Part D Prescription Drug Bill for Tom DeLay. When Democrats refused to sign on because BP refused to allow comparison shopping, DeLay brought out the heavy artillery (i.e., IOUs) and it was a done deal. Price fixing.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 3, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Not by a dam sight, noob fuckface.
> ...



Hear hear. I love it when Dude & Elvis team up like five-year olds. They make such profound and enlightening statements.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 3, 2009)

Dude said:


> Eat shit, asshole.
> 
> I'm now repping more of my buds just so I can fuck your commie ass up some more....You waste of semen.



Incredible. "Repping" is your priority? Says volumes... Got ego?


----------



## elvis (Sep 3, 2009)

The whiniest bitch on the board has spoken.


----------



## Yukon (Sep 4, 2009)

Yes Elvis, you have spoken.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 4, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Eat shit, asshole.
> ...


Back off, missy.

This is none of your business.


----------

