# Socialized medicine does not work...



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


----------



## Wiskers Von Pussyboots (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



Duh


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

And yet is does work in countries that have a mixture of both....hhhmmm...


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> And yet is does work in countries that have a mixture of both....hhhmmm...


There is no way It can work in the US... there are too many parasites in society


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> There is no way It can work in the US... there are too many parasites in society



What do you call parasites?

Me? The insurance companies are the parasites...


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way It can work in the US... there are too many parasites in society
> ...


Millions that live in urban areas expecting something for nothing


----------



## Wiskers Von Pussyboots (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way It can work in the US... there are too many parasites in society
> ...



They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Millions that live in urban areas expecting something for nothing



Depends if they work or not...


----------



## Wiskers Von Pussyboots (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> And yet is does work in countries that have a mixture of both....hhhmmm...



You should buy a cheeseburger in Finland.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Millions that live in urban areas expecting something for nothing
> ...


The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:


> They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.



They set the rates. They are the parasites. How come your premiums are so expensive? Because they have to make a profit. Health is one of the few industries that should not be for profit (I'm talking about the hospital side of things, not the drugs and all the peripheral stuff)


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst of people in the United States… Fact


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term



Don't know about the US. All I do know is that works in the three places I have lived (UK, NZ and Australia)..


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst of people in the United States… Fact



We have people who try and rort the system. When they get court they get fined or go to jail.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:
> 
> 
> > They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.
> ...


Tell that to the career politicians it's all about profit with a career politician...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > And yet is does work in countries that have a mixture of both....hhhmmm...
> ...



Too cold. They speak a funny language too..


----------



## 12icer (Feb 10, 2017)

Actually the democratic party are the parasites. They passed oshitscumcare to raid the policy holders TRUST FUNDS in all of the private healthcare insurance companies to give free healthcare to those who never paid a damn earned penny for anything in their lives.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Tell that to the career politicians it's all about profit with a career politician...



That is true for a lot of them...


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term
> ...


It can't work in the United States because it's been tried for decades, socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst in people.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work in the United States because it's been tried for decades, socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst in people.



in what sense though? I mean if somebody needs a heart bypass, they need a heart bypass no?


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Tell that to the career politicians it's all about profit with a career politician...
> ...


You become a career politician federally in this country you become a millionaire overnight, don't let fucking pieces of shit like Bernie Sanders fool you he's a two-faced piece of shit that should be treated as such...


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work in the United States because it's been tried for decades, socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst in people.
> ...


People should take care of their own shit, and not depend on the federal government because it gives the federal government power and the federal government is all about control.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> You become a career politician federally in this country you become a millionaire overnight, don't let fucking pieces of shit like Bernie Sanders fool you he's a two-faced piece of shit that should be treated as such...



Yeah, but this thread isn't about that...


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > You become a career politician federally in this country you become a millionaire overnight, don't let fucking pieces of shit like Bernie Sanders fool you he's a two-faced piece of shit that should be treated as such...
> ...


It is, the federal government of the United States is the most corrupt organization on the planet and has been for many, many decades. They use things like climate control and health care to control the citizens.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> People should take care of their own shit, and not depend on the federal government because it gives the federal government power and the federal government is all about control.



not really. I want my tax dollars to go on health. It is my insurance policy. My wife had an ankle problem. She could get it done privately for $10,000 or go on a public waiting list for 9 months. She went on the waiting list. Do I feel guilty? Nope, those public hospitals are paid for by my tax dollars. That is my insurance policy right there.


----------



## jillian (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



it is not the people in urban areas (meaning black people in your useless, vestigial organ of a brain) it's the white trash in the red states.

but it's not like rightwingnuts ever met a fact they like


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It is, the federal government of the United States is the most corrupt organization on the planet and has been for many, many decades. They use things like climate control and health care to control the citizens.



I don't think so. You're getting into conspiracy theory territory here. Doesn't interest me in the slightest.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > People should take care of their own shit, and not depend on the federal government because it gives the federal government power and the federal government is all about control.
> ...


Here in the United States 100% of anything that goes to the federal government goes to the career politicians. I can't trust anything about the federal government because I know they are going to fuck me over.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

jillian said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


First of all I happen to be a libertarian and second I am a minority... I grew up on the Indian reservation and I would say 99.999% of most on Indian reservations are parasites because of the federal government...


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It is, the federal government of the United States is the most corrupt organization on the planet and has been for many, many decades. They use things like climate control and health care to control the citizens.
> ...


The federal government is nothing but fraudulent, hundred plus years of proof...


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> And yet is does work in countries that have a mixture of both....hhhmmm...



Sure, if you lower the quality of care.  That's how they do it.   You end up with crappy care.

Or, you end up with all the rich getting private insurance, while the poor end up dying on waiting lists.

Or, you end up with the system going broke, and there are several that are in desperate situations right now.

The best system is a Capitalist system.  The more we move away from that, the more we have those same problems here.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

The fact remains Socialism has never worked long term in the history of the planet, and that includes socialized medicine...


----------



## Care4all (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


We are already paying for the deadbeats...in the most expensive forms of health care there is.... like thru the emergency rooms.

Why not try to find a way to help out the rest of us, on our costs?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work in the United States because it's been tried for decades, socialist entitlement programs bring out the absolute worst in people.
> ...



Your Knee hurts.

You could go to a local GP.
You could go to a local clinic.
You could go to an urgent care.
You could go to a hospital and make an appointment.
You could go to the ER.

Which do you do?   

Well let's look at the incentives.   Under a free health care system, the cost to you is equally nothing, no matter where you go.

Why would you go to a GP, when you could go to the ER, and get seen immediately, for no extra cost to you?

When Massachusetts enacted universal health care, the first thing that happened was wait times at the ER drastically increased.   Nearly double the wait time of the national average.... of course the average include non-public hospitals that charge fees for usage.

This is unavoidable.   This is why in many government run systems, you have no choice but to see a GP first, who must prescribe you going to a specialist, who must prescribe you going to a clinic, and so on.

It's a method of rationing the care.

Another example is, the doctor asks you how much it hurts, and you say.... 10 out of 10, so he gives you prescription for oxicodine.    Does it really hurt that bad?  Maybe you could deal with something less powerful?

But since the cost is the same to you, why not go for the best stuff you can?  

I had a co-worker that said they made $500 a month off of selling extra oxicodine.  When the doctor asked how much pain he was in... oh yeah massive pain.  Of course medicaid was covering most of the cost.   Great for the doctor, great for the druggies, and great for him.  Bad for the country.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


It works in every leading country except the US, where it works in the form of Medicare. France ranks number one in the world.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 10, 2017)

jillian said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



IF true... so what?  I don't care who is getting money from tax payers.  It's bad no matter who it is.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Sure, if you lower the quality of care.  That's how they do it.   You end up with crappy care.
> 
> Or, you end up with all the rich getting private insurance, while the poor end up dying on waiting lists.
> 
> ...



No. My wife got great care. So did I when I broke my leg in the UK.

We have great health care in Aust and NZ. It is mainly public, but there is private too. The weird thing is, you pay for private and it doesn't even pay for the hospital visit. It's very weird and skewed towards the health industry making a profit. The UK system is okay as are most of the Scandinavian countries.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Your Knee hurts.
> 
> You could go to a local GP.
> You could go to a local clinic.
> ...



I'm not saying it doesn't have its problems. But nowhere near the problems the US system has. I've said this before, my wife got offered two jobs - one in Aust one in the US. It wasn't even close when we looked at the health premiums we'd have to pay. I wont' even go into how litigious your system is. I can think of 14 countries off the top of my head where I'd rather get sick than the US.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> The fact remains Socialism has never worked long term in the history of the planet, and that includes socialized medicine...



Neither has pure capitalism. Cuba tried that under Batista. Market forces were given free range (as were he and his cronies)...


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Care4all said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


With dozens taking out and almost nobody paying in… There's no fixing any form of socialize medicine


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains Socialism has never worked long term in the history of the planet, and that includes socialized medicine...
> ...


And he was replaced by worse yet… Socialism/communism


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



Where is socialized medicine not working?


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


Everywhere it's been tried


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains Socialism has never worked long term in the history of the planet, and that includes socialized medicine...
> ...



The standard of living under Capitalist Cuba was on par with the US.  Pure Capitalism, doesn't involve government giving monopoly powers and corruption.  That is inherently socialism.   The failures of the Batista government are socialist failures.   Regardless the standard of living under country wide socialism, which replaced capitalism in Cuba, doomed them to a 3rd world standard of living, where most women used to work as prostitutes in order to have an income.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Your Knee hurts.
> ...



You are crazy.   You have a better chance of being treated and healed in the US, than anywhere else in the world.   There's a reason most of the world comes to the US for care.  People from Canada come to the US for care.  People from the UK come to the US for care.   People from Australia come to the US for care.

Ironically, my parents just a few months ago, showed me pictures of a husband and wife who came to the US for care, for their child, because they were told Australia simply doesn't provide treatment for his illness.   They flew all they way to the US, and spent tons of money they borrowed, to get care for their child.

How do I know this?  MY parents church runs a ministry for hospitals, where they volunteer to meet with, hang out with, provide food for, and other services for people who fly to the US to get care, because often they have no one here to talk to, or have much money to live on.

If you fall down and break your arm, and need a splint... sure any health care system can do this.   But if you need real life or death treatment, you have a better chance of survival here in the US, than anywhere else in the world.



 
Now don't get me wrong, Australia has very good care compared to the entire world... and it even has pretty good care compared to the US.   Of course it's still very expensive compared to Europe, which is why it's that good.

But when you say there are dozens of places you would rather be than in the US health care system... crazy talk.   You are comparing health care costs alone, without comparing how good the system actually is.   They are not the same.   They pay less, because they get less.

And the UK system specifically is in a critical nightmare state.  If you think you get the same care, there, that you do here, then you are simply ignorant.  I've been there.  It's not the same.  Not even close.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 10, 2017)

We have the best healthcare money can buy...our cure rates would be even higher, if everyone could afford the country's best care or any care at all...those who can't, end up with stage 3 or 4 cancer before even diagnosed, and have less chances of survival.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



I disagree. The Cubans were dirty poor and continued to be so thanks to US sanctions. If the US hadn't done that it would be interesting to see where they would be now. In saying that, Castro wasn't a very nice guy.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> [Q
> 
> You are crazy.   You have a better chance of being treated and healed in the US, than anywhere else in the world.   There's a reason most of the world comes to the US for care.  People from Canada come to the US for care.  People from the UK come to the US for care.   People from Australia come to the US for care.
> 
> ...



Those survival rates are negligible at are always increasing. Yes, for very rare and specific diseases the US does have some very good outcomes.  The UK care is not bad at all. I note that US citizens are always complaining about their system as we all are. However, the costs associated with your system are ridiculous. Give me ours any day...


----------



## pwjohn (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



Single payer healthcare is an assurance that even deadbeats like you will have access to healthcare. When needed.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> The standard of living under Capitalist Cuba was on par with the US.  Pure Capitalism, doesn't involve government giving monopoly powers and corruption.  That is inherently socialism.   The failures of the Batista government are socialist failures.   Regardless the standard of living under country wide socialism, which replaced capitalism in Cuba, doomed them to a 3rd world standard of living, where most women used to work as prostitutes in order to have an income.



Total BS. For Batista and his cronies may be. 
The rest of your post is supposition.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 10, 2017)

Rustic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Tried and works in UK, NZ, Australia, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland....


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


He was an evil piece of shit... and socialism/communism was/is a joke


----------



## Rustic (Feb 10, 2017)

pwjohn said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


I pay for my own shit I don't expect anyone else to least of all the federal government…


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Based on how many times you posted in only 16 months, you obviously don't have a job.  Are you one of those parasites?


----------



## Rustic (Feb 11, 2017)

kiwiman127 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Nope, self employed 20+ years...


----------



## Norman (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Wrong, the socialist programs have worked perfectly to generate non-ending stream of votes at the expense of everything else.

And that's the purpose, working as intended!


----------



## Jantje_Smit (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term



Come on, the socialist entitlement program for too big too fail banks has been a great success for decades now

The real problem is that socialism for the common peasants won't do anything for wall street and their paid puppets in congress so why bother with it


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way It can work in the US... there are too many parasites in society
> ...



These are the real parasites

A drug to treat muscular dystrophy will hit the U.S. market with a price tag of $89,000 a year despite being available for decades in Europe at a fraction of that cost.

Marathon Pharmaceuticals LLC’s pricing of the drug, which has been available in Europe, is the latest example of a business model that has drawn ire from doctors, patients and legislators in recent years: cheaply acquiring older drugs and then drastically raising their prices. ...

The price set by Marathon, based in Northbrook, Ill., is 50 to 70 times what most U.S. patients now pay to buy deflazacort from an online pharmacy in the United Kingdom, according to advocates for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.​
Marathon Pharmaceuticals to Charge $89,000 for Muscular Dystrophy Drug After 70-Fold Increase


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> And yet is does work in countries that have a mixture of both....hhhmmm...



No...it doesn't ....all of those countries...their healthcare systems are collapsing...Britain, France...all of the healthcare paradises....are on the verge of collapse as they spend more and more and get less and less....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Toro said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...




Then you must be  Trump supporter...since he has stated he wants to change that..right?


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, if you lower the quality of care.  That's how they do it.   You end up with crappy care.
> ...



In one poll, 86% of Canadians wanted more socialized medicine rather than more private care.

New poll shows Canadians overwhelmingly support public health care

Having been in both systems, there are positives and negatives to each. If you are lower middle class or lower, you're probably better off with socialized medicine.  If you are upper middle class or higher, you are probably better off with private medicine.  

I don't think there will ever be a single-payer, socialized medical system in America in my lifetime.  

But what most people don't know is that 43%-44% of American healthcare spending is through the government.  It is 75% in Canada.


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Then you must be  Trump supporter...since he has stated he wants to change that..right?



I fully support Trump ending this parasitic practice.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




And that is not true.....

'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'

Swedish was once a health care model for the world. But that is hardly the case anymore.

This is not primarily due to the fact Sweden has become worse - rather it is the case that other countries have improved faster. 

That Sweden no longer keeps up with those countries is largely due to its inability to reduce its patient waiting times, which are some of the worst in Europe, as the latest edition of the Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI) revealed in Brussels on Monday.

The 2014 EHCI also confirms other big problems within Swedish healthcare.

Sweden's overall ranking dropped from eleventh to twelfth place - a steady decline since 2007, when Sweden was in sixth place. Sweden saw itself surpassed by all other Nordic countries, and its gap from the top is growing.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Toro said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...




Most Canadians are healthy and don't realize that they can have better......if you don't know better, you don't know what you are missing.......until you are old....and the system fails you.....and then it is too late and no one is paying attention to you.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




You have bought the lie.....you need to actually do some looking into these systems...they are all failing......and can't be sustained....

Britain, France, Sweden, New Zealand.....their healthcare systems are collapsing...

WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs

New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs
New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.
When Robyn Pope was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008 she was told that she would have to wait two months for a mastectomy if she wanted breast reconstruction as part of her treatment in the public health system. “Two months may not seem like a long time,” says Pope, a mother of three, who lives on the Kapiti Coast of New Zealand, “but a day lived knowing that you have cancer in your body is like an eternity”.

The underlying reason for the delay was a familiar one – funding. Like other countries offering universal health care, New Zealand struggles to meet the steadily growing demand for a full range of high-quality health services offered largely for free to everyone, while remaining cost efficient. In the past eight years, New Zealand’s total health expenditure has doubled to 3.6 billion New Zealand dollars (NZ$) (US$ 10 billion). In the face of economic slow down, the government is calling for reform to rein in this expenditure.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




France......their system is going broke too....

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

Yet France’s looming recession and a steady increase in chronic diseases including diabetes threaten to change that, says Willy Hodin, who heads Groupe PHR, an umbrella organization for 2,200 French pharmacies. The health system exceeds its budget by billions of euros each year, and in the face of rising costs, taxpayer-funded benefits such as spa treatments, which the French have long justified as preventive care, now look more like expendable luxuries.

*“Reform is needed fast,” Hodin says. “The most optimistic believe this system can survive another five to six years. The less optimistic don’t think it will last more than three.”*


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Finland.....it is messed up too..........you have to stop swallowing the lies of the left....

Why is Finland’s healthcare system failing my family? | Ed Dutton

*Finland’s health service has been in a parlous state for decades and it is getting worse.*

According to an OECD report published in 2013, the Finnish health system is chronically underfunded. The Nordic nation of five million people spent only 7% of GDP on its public health system in 2012, compared with 8% in the UK. In 2012, the report found, 80% of the Finnish population had to wait more than two weeks to see a GP. Finland’s high taxes go on education and daycare.

Finland has more doctors per capita than the UK but, at the level of primary care, a far higher proportion of these are private than is the case in Britain. And the Finnish equivalent of the NHS is far from free at the point of use. 

A GP appointment costs €16.10 (£12.52), though you pay for only the first three visits in a given year. A hospital consultation costs about €38, and you pay for each night that you spend in hospital, up to a maximum of €679. And once you get to the chemist, there is no flat fee; no belief that you shouldn’t be financially penalised for the nature of the medicine you require. 

The service is not national, but municipal, meaning that poorer areas of the country tend to have a bad health service and limited access even to private GPs, who set up practices in more affluent areas.

And his personal story....

magine going to your nearest doctors’ surgery at 9am on a weekday with your sick six-year-old daughter because you cannot make an appointment over the phone. After your drive to another part of the city, you can’t simply book a time with the receptionist. There isn’t one. Instead, you must swipe your daughter’s national insurance card through a machine, which gives you a number. Then you and your feverish child simply sit and wait. Or rather, you stand, because the room is so crowded that people are sitting on the floor, on steps, or leaning against walls. The numbers come up on a screen every 10 minutes or so, in no particular order so you’ve no idea how long your wait will be as your daughter complains of feeling cold then hot and then cold again.

By 10.45, another patient’s dad exclaims he’s been there since 8.15, he’s had enough, and he’s going to go to a private GP. “You used to just be able to make an appointment with a doctor!” he says angrily.

You see, you are not even waiting to see a GP. You’re waiting to a see a nurse in order to justify to her how quickly your child needs to see a GP or whether she needs to see one at all. At 11.30, you give up and take your daughter to see a private doctor as well, forking out £50 for the privilege.


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Most Canadians are healthy and don't realize that they can have better......if you don't know better, you don't know what you are missing.......until you are old....and the system fails you.....and then it is too late and no one is paying attention to you.



Canadians look at the American system and most don't want it.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Canada...it's system is failing too.....they have healthcare, but they don't have actual medical care....

If Universal Health Care Is The Goal, Don't Copy Canada

Amongst industrialized countries -- members of the OECD -- with universal health care, Canada has the second most expensive health care system as a share of the economy after adjusting for age. This is not necessarily a problem, however, depending on the value received for such spending. As countries become richer, citizens may choose to allocate a larger portion of their income to health care. However, such expenditures are a problem when they are not matched by value.


The most visible manifestation of Canada’s failing health care system are wait times for health care services. In 2013, Canadians, on average, faced a four and a half month wait for medically necessary treatment after referral by a general practitioner. This wait time is almost twice as long as it was in 1993 when national wait times were first measured.

--------

Long wait times in Canada have also been observed for basic diagnostic imaging technologies that Americans take for granted, which are crucial for determining the severity of a patient’s condition. In 2013, the average wait time for an MRI was over two months, while Canadians needing a CT scan waited for almost a month.

These wait times are not simply “minor inconveniences.” Patients experience physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and lost economic productivity while waiting for treatment. One recent estimate (2013) found that the value of time lost due to medical wait times in Canada amounted to approximately $1,200 per patient.

There is also considerable evidence indicating that excessive wait times lead to poorer health outcomes and in some cases, death. Dr. Brian Day, former head of the Canadian Medical Association recently noted that “[d]elayed care often transforms an acute and potentially reversible illness or injury into a chronic, irreversible condition that involves permanent disability.”


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Toro said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Most Canadians are healthy and don't realize that they can have better......if you don't know better, you don't know what you are missing.......until you are old....and the system fails you.....and then it is too late and no one is paying attention to you.
> ...




Most Canadians are healthy and young....and don't realize they have a crap system until it is too late....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




So far...I have covered Finland, Sweden, NZ and in the past in other threads I have covered the UK and France...and each system is failing....need I do the others?


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



That's pretty silly.

Everyone has been through the system and everyone has had parents through the system.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Do you ever look at these countries....or do you just parrot the left wing crap about their healthcare being the best?

Iceland...even Iceland healthcare sucks.....

Iceland's Universal Healthcare (Still) On Thin Ice - The Reykjavik Grapevine

One year ago, Iceland’s lauded universal healthcare system seemed to be teetering off the edge. Doctors’ wages had stagnated after the economic crash, and following a bout of failed negotiations, they went on strike for the first time ever. While they coordinated their actions to avoid endangering patients’ lives, the doctors’ message was clear: if demands were not met, they would seek employment elsewhere.

Coupled with years of tough austerity measures, faltering morale, and an infrastructure in dire disrepair, there was not much slack to give. In an in-depth analysis, we at the Grapevine tried to figure out what, exactly, was going on, and where we were headed.


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



And yet, despite all that, Canadians look at the American system and say "No thanks.  We'll keep ours."


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Toro said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...




And that is why Canadians come to America for surgeries they can't get in Canada........the rich in Canada come to America for life saving medical procedures....the regular Canadians don't know any better.....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Toro said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...





They say "No Thanks" until they actually have to deal with Canadian healthcare in a life or death situation....

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

And the truth.......that Canadians don't see until it is too late.....

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited _five days_. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




and Norway......

Government Health Care Horror Stories from Norway

I'll admit this: if, like me, you're a self-employed person with a marginal income, the Norwegian system is, in many ways, a boon – as long as you're careful not to get anything much more serious than a cold or flu. 

Doctors' visits are cheap; hospitalization is free. But you get what you pay for. There are excellent doctors in Norway – but there are also mediocrities and outright incompetents who in the U.S. would have been stripped of their licenses long ago. The fact is that while the ubiquity of frivolous malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. has been a disgrace, the inability of Norwegians to sue doctors or hospitals even in the most egregious of circumstances is even more of a disgrace. 

Physicians who in the U.S. would be dragged into court are, under the Norwegian system, reported to a local board consisting of their own colleagues – who are also, not infrequently, their longtime friends. 

(The government health system's own website puts it this way: if you suspect malpractice, you have the right to “ask the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision in your county to evaluate” your claims.)

 As a result, doctors who should be forcibly retired, if not incarcerated, end up with a slap on the wrist. When patients are awarded financial damages, the sums – paid by the state, not the doctor – are insultingly small.
------------

Take the case of Peter Franks, whose doctor sent him home twice despite a tennis-ball-sized lump in his chest that was oozing blood and pus – and that turned out to be a cancer that was diagnosed too late to save his life. Apropos of Franks's case, a jurist who specializes in patients' rights lamented that the Norwegian health-care system responds to sky-high malpractice figures “with a shrug,” and the dying Franks himself pronounced last year that “the responsibility for malpractice has been pulverized in Norway,” saying that “if I could have sued the doctor, I would have. Other doctors would have read about the lawsuit in the newspaper. Then they would have taken greater care to avoid making such a mistake themselves. But doctors in Norway don't have to take responsibility for their mistakes. The state does it.” After a three-year legal struggle, Franks was awarded 2.7 million kroner by the Norwegian government – about half a million dollars.

Another aspect of Norway's guild-like health-care system is that although the country suffers from a severe deficit of doctors, nurses, and midwives, the medical establishment makes it next to impossible for highly qualified foreign members of these professions to get certified to practice in Norway. The daughter of a friend of mine got a nursing degree at the University of North Dakota in 2009 but, as reported last Friday by NRK, is working in Seattle because the Norwegian authorities in charge of these matters – who have refused to be interviewed on this subject by NRK – have stubbornly denied her a license. Why? My guess is that the answer has a lot to do with three things: competence, competition, and control. If there were a surplus of doctors and nurses instead of a shortage, the good ones would drive out the bad. Plainly, such a situation must be avoided at all costs – including the cost of human lives.

*Then there's the waiting lists. At the beginning of 2012, over 281,000 patients in Norway, out of a population of five million, were awaiting treatment for some medical problem or other. Bureaucratic absurdities run rampant, as exemplified by this Aftenposten story from earlier this year:*


Helga Kvinge discovered a lump in her breast in February. She couldn't get an appointment for a check-up at Oslo University Hospital before April 3. So she contacted a private hospital and was examined there.

On March 1, she got an appointment at the private center that offers to check whether women have cancer. A few days later she was informed that the lump was cancer. The tests were sent to the laboratory at Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, and the doctor who made the diagnosis works at both OUS and the private hospital.

Kvinge, and the doctor at the private hospital, were sure that since it was clear she had cancer, she would receive an offer for treatment at Oslo University Hospital since she lives in Oslo.

But on Thursday of this week she was informed by OUS that she couldn't be treated for her breast cancer until OUS itself had made the diagnosis.

Then there's the Oslo-area couple whose one-year-old daughter fell and broke her arm. They took her to a nearby hospital, where over a period of hours they signed in, were sent to a waiting room, saw a doctor, and had X-rays taken – only to be told that the little girl couldn't get a cast put on her arm there because the family's address put her in another hospital's district. They went to the other hospital, where they were put through the whole rigmarole all over again. Not a tragedy, but an example of the kind of dehumanization that infests the entire system.

And let's not forget rationing. “Death panels”  are no fantasy. In a series of articles in 2010, _Aftenposten _reported on the decision by the Norwegian government's health director to refuse certain treatments to certain “large patient groups” in order to curb costs. For example, “we can extend the lives of patients with heart failure by installing a heart pump...but this is a service we probably can't offer. It's too expensive.” The same goes for respirators in cases of emphysema or chronic bronchitis: “It could prolong the lives of patients, but it's not something we can give to such a large group.” The elderly, likewise, are screwed: “we...spend too much money to extend the last phase of life for dying, often old, people.” Who's to decide who receives treatment and who doesn't? That, the health director answered, is a “political responsibility” – the job of politicians, not physicians.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Australia....do you even look into these countries before you talk about their healthcare systems...?

Can Australian healthcare be saved?

In reality, Australians pay more in cash out of our pockets that's not reimbursed than almost any other country in the world. Public hospitals are bursting at the seams. Private health premiums keep going up. We pay for procedures, tests and doctor visits rather than care and good outcomes.

So is it all going to crash around our ears? Or can Australian healthcare be saved?

And more....

Health system fails some of Australia's most vulnerable and disadvantaged

Speaking on the reforms needed for the long term sustainability of Australia’s health system, Mr Bowles outlined the pressures facing Australia’s health system, particularly for disadvantaged communities, those in aged care, with chronic illnesses and relying on mental health systems.

“Reform is needed – we understand the compounding pressures and the strains they are putting on health budgets; whether they’re of national government level, state or territory government; mums or dads or individuals,” he said.

As part of a review of primary healthcare, mental health and dental care, Mr Bowles said they were examining the 5700 items on the Medicare Benefits Scheme, some of which have not been updated for 30 years. 

“The review is being done over a number of stages, we’ve initially targeted a two year period. It’s already recommended the removal of 23 low volume items from the MBS that are seen not to be clinically effective,” he said.


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



The rate of Canadians leaving Canada for medical procedures is about half that of Americans leaving the US for medical procedures. In the US, it's called "medical tourism" and people go abroad because the US system is so expensive.


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Canadians know America 1000x better than Americans know Canada. 

Maybe if Americans had Canadian medicine, 86% of Americans would want more of it just like Canadians do.


----------



## pwjohn (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



That's nonsense. So do you send a check to the faa everytime you book a flight to cover the cost of their service? To help make sure you arrive at your destination safely.
Because if not & according to you,  you're just another deadbeat abusing the system.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 11, 2017)

OK, so where is not socialized medicine working better than wherever it's socialized to one degree or another?


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


Capitalism died in 1929.  Socialism has been, bailing it out, ever since.


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

rustic...you are a traitor to The Constitution and Its Writing's, The Bill of Rights, Freedom, Democracy and The Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. Nothing more, nothing less. 200 years ago, they would have hung you.


----------



## MordechaiGoodbud (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



It works in the 36 countries that have higher rated health care quality than the U.S.

What a dumb OP.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 11, 2017)

*Socialized medicine does not work... *

*At least Universal Care would have citizen oversight panels instead of the clandestine "kill for profit" private insurance we see today...that allows for no citizen oversight..*

A private health insurance/hospital (HMO) killed a family member of mine.  They just did it by withholding simple medication that would've saved his life...as he spoke clearly that he wanted to live at the time, after signing a living will saying "take me at the right time".  His power of attorney decided his bank accounts would be more easily accessed if he wasn't around.  The HMO seemed to agree with her and the "decision" was made  in spite of his protests.  God rest his soul.  If you're old and belong to an HMO (who profits the less they have to take care of you), you are failing Darwin's test.

I THINK the argument of some is that if we have universal healthcare, "death panels" will exist.  What I can assure you of is that I'd much rather gamble with a healthcare system with ample citizen oversight, than an HMO who STANDS TO PROFIT WHEN YOU DIE handling my medical care as I age and retire.  After a number of years where they've padded up your premiums you've not yet used in a bank account they control, as you age and start needing medical help more, you are nothing but a losing bottom line.

And so "decisions" like the one made for my family member with the help of the hospital attending which was an HMO, can be made for financial gain and not the longevity of the patient.  There's no motive to kill the elderly, or the young unwell off like for-profit private insurance.  The financial model demands it in fact as a service to shareholders.

HMOs should be illegal.  They are where the insurance company IS the hospital.  Whereas in normal situations, the hospital and insurance companies are divested financially.  Doctors in regular hospitals make the hard calls and wrangle with insurers demanding the patient come first.  With an HMO, all that is done 'in house'...and so if there's a question...and the doctor wants to keep his job *ahem*, he sides with the financial bottom line instead of the patient.....which is exactly why an HMO conspired with my family member's power of attorney, who stood also to gain hugely $$ when he died, to kill my family member.

And that is exactly what happened...as he asked to be spared no less from his sickbed.  They called that request "merely a delusion" because he had impaired mental capacity (wasn't sure what day it was or who was president when they asked him upon my insistence).  So, they had their loophole and they ran with it..


----------



## Mr Natural (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Millions that live in urban areas expecting something for nothing



Sure, because with nothing better to do, they figure they may as well go to the doctor and spend an afternoon in a waiting room filled with sick people.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:
> 
> 
> > They don't demand you pay them. And they don't owe you a damn thing. How amazing leftist entitlement is.
> ...


so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
 interesting


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 11, 2017)

What the OP and his cheerleaders on the right are trying to say is that healthcare should only be available at market prices to those who can afford to pay for it out of their own pocket.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> OK, so where is not socialized medicine working better than wherever it's socialized to one degree or another?




Yeah...all of these countries I linked to before.......
Iceland...


Iceland's Universal Healthcare (Still) On Thin Ice - The Reykjavik Grapevine

One year ago, Iceland’s lauded universal healthcare system seemed to be teetering off the edge. Doctors’ wages had stagnated after the economic crash, and following a bout of failed negotiations, they went on strike for the first time ever. While they coordinated their actions to avoid endangering patients’ lives, the doctors’ message was clear: if demands were not met, they would seek employment elsewhere.

Coupled with years of tough austerity measures, faltering morale, and an infrastructure in dire disrepair, there was not much slack to give. In an in-depth analysis, we at the Grapevine tried to figure out what, exactly, was going on, and where we were headed.
=========

*WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs*
*New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs*
*New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.*

When Robyn Pope was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008 she was told that she would have to wait two months for a mastectomy if she wanted breast reconstruction as part of her treatment in the public health system. “Two months may not seem like a long time,” says Pope, a mother of three, who lives on the Kapiti Coast of New Zealand, “but a day lived knowing that you have cancer in your body is like an eternity”.

The underlying reason for the delay was a familiar one – funding. Like other countries offering universal health care, New Zealand struggles to meet the steadily growing demand for a full range of high-quality health services offered largely for free to everyone, while remaining cost efficient. In the past eight years, New Zealand’s total health expenditure has doubled to 3.6 billion New Zealand dollars (NZ$) (US$ 10 billion). In the face of economic slow down, the government is calling for reform to rein in this expenditure.

===========


Sweden


'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'



Swedish was once a health care model for the world. But that is hardly the case anymore.

This is not primarily due to the fact Sweden has become worse - rather it is the case that other countries have improved faster. 

That Sweden no longer keeps up with those countries is largely due to its inability to reduce its patient waiting times, which are some of the worst in Europe, as the latest edition of the Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI) revealed in Brussels on Monday.

The 2014 EHCI also confirms other big problems within Swedish healthcare.
===============

France....

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

Yet France’s looming recession and a steady increase in chronic diseases including diabetes threaten to change that, says Willy Hodin, who heads Groupe PHR, an umbrella organization for 2,200 French pharmacies. The health system exceeds its budget by billions of euros each year, and in the face of rising costs, taxpayer-funded benefits such as spa treatments, which the French have long justified as preventive care, now look more like expendable luxuries.
*“Reform is needed fast,” Hodin says. “The most optimistic believe this system can survive another five to six years. The less optimistic don’t think it will last more than three.”
===========*

*Finland...*

Why is Finland’s healthcare system failing my family? | Ed Dutton

*Finland’s health service has been in a parlous state for decades and it is getting worse.*
According to an OECD report published in 2013, the Finnish health system is chronically underfunded. The Nordic nation of five million people spent only 7% of GDP on its public health system in 2012, compared with 8% in the UK. In 2012, the report found, 80% of the Finnish population had to wait more than two weeks to see a GP. Finland’s high taxes go on education and daycare.
Finland has more doctors per capita than the UK but, at the level of primary care, a far higher proportion of these are private than is the case in Britain. And the Finnish equivalent of the NHS is far from free at the point of use. 
A GP appointment costs €16.10 (£12.52), though you pay for only the first three visits in a given year. A hospital consultation costs about €38, and you pay for each night that you spend in hospital, up to a maximum of €679. And once you get to the chemist, there is no flat fee; no belief that you shouldn’t be financially penalised for the nature of the medicine you require. 
The service is not national, but municipal, meaning that poorer areas of the country tend to have a bad health service and limited access even to private GPs, who set up practices in more affluent areas.

---------

Canada....

If Universal Health Care Is The Goal, Don't Copy Canada

Amongst industrialized countries -- members of the OECD -- with universal health care, Canada has the second most expensive health care system as a share of the economy after adjusting for age. This is not necessarily a problem, however, depending on the value received for such spending. As countries become richer, citizens may choose to allocate a larger portion of their income to health care. However, such expenditures are a problem when they are not matched by value.
The most visible manifestation of Canada’s failing health care system are wait times for health care services. In 2013, Canadians, on average, faced a four and a half month wait for medically necessary treatment after referral by a general practitioner. This wait time is almost twice as long as it was in 1993 when national wait times were first measured.
--------

Long wait times in Canada have also been observed for basic diagnostic imaging technologies that Americans take for granted, which are crucial for determining the severity of a patient’s condition. In 2013, the average wait time for an MRI was over two months, while Canadians needing a CT scan waited for almost a month.

These wait times are not simply “minor inconveniences.” Patients experience physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and lost economic productivity while waiting for treatment. One recent estimate (2013) found that the value of time lost due to medical wait times in Canada amounted to approximately $1,200 per patient.

There is also considerable evidence indicating that excessive wait times lead to poorer health outcomes and in some cases, death. Dr. Brian Day, former head of the Canadian Medical Association recently noted that “[d]elayed care often transforms an acute and potentially reversible illness or injury into a chronic, irreversible condition that involves permanent disability.”

And more on Canada...


The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

And the truth.......that Canadians don't see until it is too late.....

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited _five days_. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.
Norway.....
Government Health Care Horror Stories from Norway

I'll admit this: if, like me, you're a self-employed person with a marginal income, the Norwegian system is, in many ways, a boon – as long as you're careful not to get anything much more serious than a cold or flu. 

Doctors' visits are cheap; hospitalization is free. But you get what you pay for. There are excellent doctors in Norway – but there are also mediocrities and outright incompetents who in the U.S. would have been stripped of their licenses long ago. The fact is that while the ubiquity of frivolous malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. has been a disgrace, the inability of Norwegians to sue doctors or hospitals even in the most egregious of circumstances is even more of a disgrace. 

Physicians who in the U.S. would be dragged into court are, under the Norwegian system, reported to a local board consisting of their own colleagues – who are also, not infrequently, their longtime friends. 

(The government health system's own website puts it this way: if you suspect malpractice, you have the right to “ask the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision in your county to evaluate” your claims.)

As a result, doctors who should be forcibly retired, if not incarcerated, end up with a slap on the wrist. When patients are awarded financial damages, the sums – paid by the state, not the doctor – are insultingly small.
------------

Take the case of Peter Franks, whose doctor sent him home twice despite a tennis-ball-sized lump in his chest that was oozing blood and pus – and that turned out to be a cancer that was diagnosed too late to save his life. Apropos of Franks's case, a jurist who specializes in patients' rights lamented that the Norwegian health-care system responds to sky-high malpractice figures “with a shrug,” and the dying Franks himself pronounced last year that “the responsibility for malpractice has been pulverized in Norway,” saying that “if I could have sued the doctor, I would have. Other doctors would have read about the lawsuit in the newspaper. Then they would have taken greater care to avoid making such a mistake themselves. But doctors in Norway don't have to take responsibility for their mistakes. The state does it.” After a three-year legal struggle, Franks was awarded 2.7 million kroner by the Norwegian government – about half a million dollars.

Another aspect of Norway's guild-like health-care system is that although the country suffers from a severe deficit of doctors, nurses, and midwives, the medical establishment makes it next to impossible for highly qualified foreign members of these professions to get certified to practice in Norway. The daughter of a friend of mine got a nursing degree at the University of North Dakota in 2009 but, as reported last Friday by NRK, is working in Seattle because the Norwegian authorities in charge of these matters – who have refused to be interviewed on this subject by NRK – have stubbornly denied her a license. Why? My guess is that the answer has a lot to do with three things: competence, competition, and control. If there were a surplus of doctors and nurses instead of a shortage, the good ones would drive out the bad. Plainly, such a situation must be avoided at all costs – including the cost of human lives.

*Then there's the waiting lists. At the beginning of 2012, over 281,000 patients in Norway, out of a population of five million, were awaiting treatment for some medical problem or other. Bureaucratic absurdities run rampant, as exemplified by thisAftenposten story from earlier this year:*


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



See how simple it all is?


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so where is not socialized medicine working better than wherever it's socialized to one degree or another?
> ...



Maybe the problem is the prices charged?


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

Your a capitalist. Already proven to be predatory by nature....commoditizing everything...even life itself for profit and now you go against all of what you believe to give the poor a better life?......fuuuuuuuuuck yooooooou. What a crock of shit. Give me socialised health care now. Fuck your profits. I could not care less about your profits.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so where is not socialized medicine working better than wherever it's socialized to one degree or another?
> ...



I asked where is healthcare working better where there is NO socialized medicine?


----------



## Rustic (Feb 11, 2017)

Socialist entitlement programs and socialism are living off borrowed time, only a fool would think there's anything good about socialism…


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Windship said:


> Your a capitalist. Already proven to be predatory by nature....commoditizing everything...even life itself for profit and now you go against all of what you believe to give the poor a better life?......fuuuuuuuuuck yooooooou. What a crock of shit. Give me socialised health care now. Fuck your profits. I could not care less about your profits.




Then you will die waiting in an ER room moron........good luck...


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> > Your a capitalist. Already proven to be predatory by nature....commoditizing everything...even life itself for profit and now you go against all of what you believe to give the poor a better life?......fuuuuuuuuuck yooooooou. What a crock of shit. Give me socialised health care now. Fuck your profits. I could not care less about your profits.
> ...



Lol,thats another colossal crock of shit too.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Windship said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Windship said:
> ...




Yeah......keep lying to yourself...socialized medicine only works for the young and healthy, the ones who don't need it...for the actual sick and old......don't count on it....and all of those systems are failing.....they can't keep up with the demand...and if they actually have to start paying for their own country's military defense.....then they are going to collapse far faster....


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

rustic you communist corporate traitor, corporate welfare thats dwarfs any social programs you are ok with though. How do you feel about 21 trillion dollars given to the banks since 2008? Or the over 100 corporations profiting in Iraq and Afghanistan?...and thats just 2 countries. As long as its the poor and minorities dieing....thats ok... You are just so fucked up. Why are you in this country when you say The U.S. is just a shit eating Democracy? Go to china or viet nam and you wont have to change a thing.


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

2aguy said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



No, those systems are not failing you lying piece of shit. You better go tell that propaganda to some young kid blue collar worker that you have also convinced that unions are bad for them.


----------



## Eloy (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


You are mistaken.
Where I live we have socialized medical care. I had the misfortune a few years ago of having a heart attack. I telephoned for an ambulance which arrived at my home in 4 minutes. I was taken to a hospital and arrived in 20 minutes. 
Ten minutes later I was in theater having an operation to insert three stents and within an hour of my phone call I was recovering in a ward.
Cost: not one cent

Last month I had a tooth filling repaired the day after I made the appointment.
Cost: not one cent

It is good not to have the extra worry of bills when we fall ill.




.


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

and you capitalists pricks will deny before three times the cock crows. Maxum erit stridor dentium.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 11, 2017)

Windship said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Windship said:
> ...




It isn't me saying it asswipe.....it is the actual countries themselves and the people who are using those systems......but keep denying it....


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

You people are like the Titanic, headed for the iceberg, full speed. Lol, and even THAT was an insurance job.


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

It isn't me saying it asswipe.....it is the actual countries themselves and the people who are using those systems......but keep denying it....[/QUOTE]

Ok, cocksucker, you want to quote...wheres your fucking links?


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

now go ahead and send a heritage foundation link...lol...or citizens united...rotf


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

I want to elaborate further but the stupidity exhibited here gives me pause....get this: fuck......your......profit. Ok? Go tell those lies to some poor, blue collar republican in a right to work state with no union.


----------



## Windship (Feb 11, 2017)

rustic, Ive got some figures on employee owned companies from around the world dude....wanna see? No, you dont.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 11, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> What the OP and his cheerleaders on the right are trying to say is that healthcare should only be available at market prices to those who can afford to pay for it out of their own pocket.


And don't forget....when you pay a for-profit insurance company, they have accountants who have crunched the numbers on you as you age.  Have fun trusting your "good care" to those folks after all those years paying in...  If you like to fail Darwin's test that is.  

Oh, and a plus is, there's no....ZERO public oversight in private healthcare.  The only check on those outfits right now is lawsuits against huge insurance or pharma companies.  And we know how those go, don't we?  It's not like their 24/7 team of superlawyers are going to win against Jane or John Doe's little "I'll take it on contingency" backwater lawyer...


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 11, 2017)

Health care denied to the needy is not the American way.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 11, 2017)

Eloy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


That's fine if you want that, I have no desire to live that way I pay for my own shit and don't expect for anyone else to pay for it.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 11, 2017)

I rather die than live on the dole...


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 11, 2017)

Anyone who believes that the level of health care in America is among the best has to wonder why the delivery of that care is not among the best. When people suffer because they exist for the benefit of a system, the system is wrong.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 11, 2017)

What does the term 'brotherhood' mean in our American myth?


----------



## Eloy (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


All citizens pay for health care through taxation.
This way, medical attention depends on individual need not the wealth of individuals.




.


----------



## FJO (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



It works for me, here in Canada, or more specifically, in Manitoba.

I had no problem to find a family doctor when we moved here. I never had any trouble getting an appointment with him. I never had to wait at a lab, for a blood test, x-ray or for an MRI. I had no problem going to a specialist, when referred to one by my family doctor. I pay for my prescription, which is quite a bit less in Canada than - as I hear - would be in the States. If my income would be less I would qualify for them, having reached  deductible.

I am 78 years old,with the accompanying aches and pains, yet I never suffered from lack of medical attention.

Mind you, I never go to see a doctor with a sniffle, a hangnail or paper cut. 

Responsibly used, socialized medicine is not the ultimate evil described by the rabid right. Basically it is much like American Medicare with qualifying age at birth, rather than 65.

According to most Americans Medicare is OK. So, what's the problem?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 11, 2017)

Eloy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



Which country.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > People should take care of their own shit, and not depend on the federal government because it gives the federal government power and the federal government is all about control.
> ...



How did your wife feel about waiting 9 months when in the US in could have been done in a few days?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 11, 2017)

FJO said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



Medicare is going broke.   Moreover, many doctors are refusing Medicare.
Moreover, hospitals cost shift from Medicare to Private patients.

Yes, I'm sure people like medicare, when they are not paying the bill.

The problem is, the system is failing.   They are running out of other people's money to spend.

Now, it's great that your personal experience with Canadian health care is good.  I'm all for the best for everyone.

Nevertheless, looking at it overall... not so great.  Even left-wing news outlets are complaining about how bad Canadian health care is.

Canadian Wait Times: While Politicians Dither, Patients Die

You may not know this, but in 2009, a Canadian doctor came to the US, and argued before our Congress, not to adopt a system like the Canadian one, because he was sending patients to the US for care.  If our system got as bad as theirs, where would he send his patients?

So, again, all glad your experience was good.  Most Canadians are not haven't that good experience.


----------



## Eloy (Feb 11, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Throughout the European Union socialized medical care is common.




.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > People should take care of their own shit, and not depend on the federal government because it gives the federal government power and the federal government is all about control.
> ...



Yeah, I've heard this too.  Canadians have come to a resigned acceptance of what to an American, is insane.

Waiting 9 months?  For an ankle problem?   Are you crazy?    I actually know a Canadian that lives in the US, and was shocked.... SHOCKED... that he could see a specialist in the same week. 

I was watching a video, where they talked to some lady who waited 3 years for knee surgery, and couldn't walk.

This is 'good' health care in your world?    Apparently the only difference between good and bad care, is whether you pay for it... not whether it actually works well.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



What are the tax rates in those countries?

I have an exchange student from Sweden.  She told me that over 60% of her mother's pay as a flight instructor for Saab is taken in taxes.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> He was an evil piece of shit... and socialism/communism was/is a joke


So was Batista and yet the US had no problems supporting him


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 11, 2017)

OK, so no one here can tell us where healthcare that is not socialized at all works better than socialized medicine.

I say that's case closed.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 11, 2017)

Care4all said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



I don't understand this logic.

According to you, we already pay for deadbeats through the Emergency room.

Right?   That's your argument, correct?

Well..... if we have government funded health care...... we'll still be paying for deadbeats through Emergency care.

How is one, better than the other, when both end up with us paying for it?

If we already have a socialized system... which is what you claimed... how is socializing it more a benefit?

Because it's not entirely true, is it?   If we socialize it, millions more will go to the ER, because they knew they won't get a bill.  I went to the ER years ago.  I got a bill.  I paid the bill.  It was expensive, but I got great quality care, so I didn't mind paying it.

If you socialize care, heck no, I'm not paying a dime more.  YOU will pay my bills.   And Medicare is already going broke as it is now.   Ready to pay 20% more in taxes?   Hope you plan to downsize your home, car, and life style.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 11, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
> interesting



Who says they should work for free? Not I.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 11, 2017)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> How did your wife feel about waiting 9 months when in the US in could have been done in a few days?



A pain in the butt, but at the end of the day she could have had it done in a matter of days. As I said, the health care industry is weird down here. Have the stuff isn't covered...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


BS, people living in  countries with socialized medicine live just as long or longer than people do here!


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 11, 2017)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...




I think you'll find that includes the sales tax and all the taxes we pay for indirectly. Aussie tax is not too bad. Does get a bit steep for the high earners IMO. I think it is about 47% over $180,000 that includes a 2% medicare surcharge. The highest personal rate in NZ is 33 % for incomes over $70,000


----------



## Care4all (Feb 11, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Everyone, being on something like Medicare, where you can see your choice of Doctors and go to your choice of medical facilities including specialty services like Cancer institutes and the gvt pays 80% of the bill and you pay 20%, cuts out about 30% of the cost of health care for everyone.... with private Insurance being replaced by Medicare Insurance.....  if we all paid a payroll tax and NOT our health care insurance premium each month, it would go a lot farther with an insurance plan like Medicare for a lot less money...even with the payroll tax applying to employers matching it, it would be less than they are spending now to supply it as a benefit.

Cutting out the middle man, does not affect any money going towards R & D and medical advancement....it simply cuts out the money making paper pushers imo.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
> ...


 I agree. Federalize the medical industry and control wages like those in military hospitals. The savings would be astronomical since middle men and useless CEOS wouldn't exist. That would mean more money  for research and development.


----------



## Mr Natural (Feb 11, 2017)

I broke my ankle hiking in Nova Scotia a while ago.

Went to a hospital and got fixed up in under two hours.  On the way out, they reluctantly gave me a bill for $125 because I was not a citizen.

I wonder what it would have cost here in the states.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 11, 2017)

What I will say in the defense of the US system is that the do a shit load of R&D compared to a lot of other countries...


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 11, 2017)

Care4all said:


> We have the best healthcare money can buy...our cure rates would be even higher, if everyone could afford the country's best care or any care at all...those who can't, end up with stage 3 or 4 cancer before even diagnosed, and have less chances of survival.



This is another one of those bonkers claims.  I don't know where you get this idea from.

Do you think... that if a person shows up at a hospital with cancer, and then dies, that the hospital says "Ok wait... he only had $15,000 a year income... his death doesn't count"?



 

What's my point?     Survival rate for cancers, or any other illness.... include.... EVERYONE.   Meaning, EVERYONE.    Which includes EVERYONE.  Rich, Poor, Black, White, Male, Female.... EVERYONE.

They do not exclude people from the cancer survival statistics, or any other survival statistics.   Never been to a hospital yet where they walked around "Time to count the dead.  Wait that guys black.  Oh that ones a woman.  Hey that guy was poor.   Wow no one died today at all!  Amazing!"

So when you look at survival statistics, those statistics include ****<EVERYONE>****

Meaning.... statistically speaking, you have a better chance of surviving a life threatening illness in the US, more than any other place on the planet.     When you say "if we had a better system, our survival rates would be better", that's hard to buy given they are already best in the world. 

I've even read where some hospitals include illegal immigrants in survival statistics.   So we're talking best system in the world, for even people who are not citizens.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 11, 2017)

Mr Clean said:


> I broke my ankle hiking in Nova Scotia a while ago.
> 
> Went to a hospital and got fixed up in under two hours.  On the way out, they reluctantly gave me a bill for $125 because I was not a citizen.
> 
> I wonder what it would have cost here in the states.



You are not paying the taxes of Canada.   If you lived in Canada you would be paying tens of thousands to pay for those hospitals.

You are comparing upfront cost, to a massive life long tax bill?  Not comparable.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 11, 2017)

Care4all said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



First off, most of the countries with decent health care, also have private insurance.

The idea that we can have one system the replaces insurance, is a pipe dream.   That's not how it happens around the world.

Second, Medicare right now doesn't pay the cost of care.   Meaning, that if it costs the hospital $1,000 to treat you, Medicare often pays just $800.

So how are hospitals staying open?   They charge private patients, like YOU, $1,200 to cover the cost of the Medicare patient.

If Medicare was expanded to everyone, what would happen?   One of two things:  Hospitals and doctors would start refusing to accept medicare patients.   Or they would close.

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

Ironically this doctor said specifically that Medicare pays 20% less... I just estimated.  

See, if you expand medicare to everyone, there won't be any private patients that hospitals can cost shift to.   So either the hospital will close, or they'll have to cut services, and ration treatment.

Or..... we can jack up taxes, which of course will cost you more than any insurance premium ever did.  I would estimate about a 12% tax increase on all citizens.  That would be $2,400 a year on those making $20K, which is more than I have ever paid for insurance.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Feb 11, 2017)

Nonsense.....

It works fine if you have zero concerns about costs , expenses ,  or financial realities.......


----------



## Rustic (Feb 11, 2017)

FJO said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


Like millions people just like me have no right to healthcare… But I have the right to earn my healthcare.


----------



## FJO (Feb 11, 2017)

Rustic said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Your Constitution gives you the right to pursue happiness. What can make you more happy than good health?

In Canada we have a right to health care, and we have a right to seek and earn BETTER health care if we are not happy with the one we have.

That is like that in all Western countries, if I am not mistaken.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > so doctors, nurses, the janitors, food prep people, all of those that develop, build, sell and maintain the equipment should all work for free? hospitals should never upgrade in order to keep up with technology?
> ...


*"A 2014 Moody's survey of 448 U.S. hospitals, for example, found that the average median operatingmargin fell to 2.2 percent while expenses increased at an annual rate of 4.6 percent"*

I dont think a 2% profit margin is really excessive when you consider the amount that they have to spend out of that purchasing the latest and greatest piece fo equipment that might just save your life.


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

Mr Clean said:


> I broke my ankle hiking in Nova Scotia a while ago.
> 
> Went to a hospital and got fixed up in under two hours.  On the way out, they reluctantly gave me a bill for $125 because I was not a citizen.
> 
> I wonder what it would have cost here in the states.



Ad a zero and change the 1 to a 6.


----------



## Toro (Feb 11, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> What I will say in the defense of the US system is that the do a shit load of R&D compared to a lot of other countries...



I'd rather be in the US system than any other tbh. 

But that's because I make a good living. 

If I was poor, I'd rather be in Canada.


----------



## my2¢ (Feb 11, 2017)

I hope to see socialized medicine made to work.  1st for our veterans and next for those under the age of 18 who shouldn't have to suffer because of the situation they were born into.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 11, 2017)

FJO said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > FJO said:
> ...


I have zero right to healthcare… But I have every right to earn my healthcare


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 11, 2017)

my2¢ said:


> I hope to see socialized medicine made to work.  1st for our veterans and next for those under the age of 18 who shouldn't have to suffer because of the situation they were born into.



I hope to see the day when the chocolate cake only diet is made to work.   1st for our children, and next for teenagers.

Socialism never works.  Never.  Not one time in all of human history has it worked.  Every time, when you socialized the system, the system implodes.  It's the only economic system with a 100% failure rate.

You need to stop trying to dream up a Utopian vision, and start seeing the world for how it really is, and really works.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 12, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



First off, we have the highest life expectancy in the world excluding traumatic injury.

Second, life expectancy isn't all that relative to health care.  There are monks that live in monasteries, that never do anything, never go anywhere, eat healthy every single day, are miles away from civilization, and never go to hospital, and live long happy lives.

Point being, zero health care, and they live really long lives.

Another example, breast cancer in Japan.   Japanese have very very low cancer incident rates.  Extremely low.  Almost 1/2 the incident rate of the US.   If you look at so-called 'medical preventable deaths', due to breast cancer in Japan, it's extremely low, compared to the US which is much higher.

However there's a reason, it's because fewer people get breast cancer, by almost half.    What does the hospital do, that prevents women from ever getting cancer?  Nothing.  So this fact is completely relevant to the health care system.

But look a survival rates.   Your chances of surviving breast cancer in Japan... 50%.   In the US... 90%     Which place has the better health care?  We do.  By far.  Massively better than Japans.

Life expectancy is irrelevant to health care.  It does not reflect the quality of care, at all.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 12, 2017)

FJO said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > FJO said:
> ...



The problem with that, is this....   Socialized health care makes private health care even more expensive, while at the same time, makes you less able to pay for better care.

First, it makes it more expensive.   I trust you understand fundamentals of a free market, meaning that providers build their services to meet the market they are trying to get.  Right?

Just like a car manufacturer that is aiming for the super high end buyer, doesn't make a clone of a Chevrolet Spark, right?   You make a Lexus, or BMW, or Audi A4.

But if your target is the low income consumers, then you make the Chevy Spark, and the Toyota Yaris, and others.   You build a product or service, designed for the target consumers.

But what happens if Government provides a subsidized car, for the lowest income people?   Then all those other cars disappear.  Because who is going to buy a car designed for low income, when you can get the Gov-car for cheap, or free?   As a result, all the low-income type cars are eliminated, and if the gov-car has a shortage, or becomes really crappy, there is no cheap private market alternative.

Similarly, in New York when they put in place rent controls and subsidized housing, all the low income apartments disappeared.   Instead everyone started supplying luxury apartments, and low-income apartments started disappearing from the market.  As a result you had housing shortages.

The exact same thing happens in health care.  If the government provides cheap health care to low income people, then private health care providers ditch the market.  They start providing only expensive care, to high income people.

Because that's their market now.  All the low income people, go to the public gov-care centers because it's cheap or free.    As a result they want to role out the red carpet, and have expensive high end everything.    Same day service, any time you want, and it's all expensive.

At the exact same time, on the other side of the equation, the people now have less money to buy this more expensive service of private health care, because their income is taxed away to pay for the public gov-care.

So it's easy to say "well if they don't like the government care, they can pay for private care", but gov-care makes private care more expensive, and at the same time they have less money to pay for private care.

In effect, gov-care dooms people to be trapped in terrible care, and there often isn't the ability to pay for quality care, because low-income care isn't available anymore, and your money was taxed away to pay for crappy gov-care.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 12, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



According to the list published by WHO,the USA is 31st on the list for average longevity for males and females.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 12, 2017)

Is it really not apparent to people that current systems are mostly a blend of '-isms', and not 'pure' anything? Do people really think 'capitalism' is anything more than one economic approach among others? Do they think that the 'capitalism' of the industrial age was benevolent and kind? Do they not see that exploitation led to the rise of opposing ideas, and that a human approach would have obviated violence?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2017)

The op is clueless of the world that he live in! Single payer works in every single developed country on earth besides the United states and works very well. Everyone deserves healthcare and it is good for society...

The op just loves to see people suffer and lose everything they own because of massive debt.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2017)

It is much cheaper and better working then private sector healthcare! The shit that was driving us deep into debt and with rising cost higher then the ACA yearly...


----------



## wizwhite (Feb 12, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


----------



## wizwhite (Feb 12, 2017)

socialize......is that like going to a party and talking to people?  I am guilty of that dirty deed of interacting with people.  I totally get the parasite deal.  I once stayed at a motel in an urban area which had bed bugs.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 12, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> First off, we have the highest life expectancy in the world excluding traumatic injury.
> 
> Second, life expectancy isn't all that relative to health care. There are monks that live in monasteries, that never do anything, never go anywhere, eat healthy every single day, are miles away from civilization, and never go to hospital, and live long happy lives. .
> 
> Point being, zero health care, and they live really long lives.



I would concede that the austere lives monks lead contributes to the longevity of some. The stress of civilization combined with  industrial pollution exacts a costly toll on the health of the rest of us. But as the list I provided in #148 shows, my observation  leads me to believe that we aren't getting our money's worth.We aren't really loving any longer than  those people in countries with socialized medicine. In fact socialized medicine seems to be one contributing factor that correlates to  living longer and healthier  And when I look at the 240,000  preventable deaths that occur in the USA each year due to medical error,  my belief turns into validation.  My point? US citizens are getting ripped off.



Andylusion said:


> Another example, breast cancer in Japan. Japanese have very very low cancer incident rates. Extremely low. Almost 1/2 the incident rate of the US. If you look at so-called 'medical preventable deaths', due to breast cancer in Japan, it's extremely low, compared to the US which is much higher.
> 
> However there's a reason, it's because fewer people get breast cancer, by almost half. What does the hospital do, that prevents women from ever getting cancer? Nothing. So this fact is completely relevant to the health care system.
> 
> ...



Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.
And not all listed in that group live as the Japanese do. France, Germany, Greece, Spain and Italy, all beacons of socialized medicine, leave us in the dust.


----------



## wizwhite (Feb 12, 2017)

*Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.
*
I remember in my misguided youth thinking how great it would be to be 95 in a wheel chair oblivious to the world around me because I beat the longevity rates.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 12, 2017)

Matthew said:


> The op is clueless of the world that he live in! Single payer works in every single developed country on earth besides the United states and works very well. Everyone deserves healthcare and it is good for society...
> 
> The op just loves to see people suffer and lose everything they own because of massive debt.


Who pays for the shit? Robin Hood?
Single payer would destroy millions of lives…


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 12, 2017)

Medicaid is socialized medicine.  What would work better that wasn't 'socialized'?


----------



## my2¢ (Feb 12, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > I hope to see socialized medicine made to work.  1st for our veterans and next for those under the age of 18 who shouldn't have to suffer because of the situation they were born into.
> ...



Facts do not support your premise. Additionally if you believe the capitalistic approach to medicine is any sort of panacea you're simply blind to the issue that in such system adequate care is limited to a select portion of the population.   Medical expenses has long been the main cause for personal bankruptcy (62%) in the US, even though in most of those cases (78%) had some insurance.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 12, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



That's the entire crux of your argument?


----------



## Rustic (Feb 12, 2017)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


Its a failed concept from the start... only dumbass's would think it had chance from the beginning. 
Thats why i have always said its about control, never has been about "healthcare"


----------



## jasonnfree (Feb 12, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Social Security and Medicare are socialist entitlement programs.  Try to take those programs away from most all anti socialism republicans, and they'll go for their weapons.  Same with public funded education, which has served this country pretty well in the past, contrary to what the extreme far right has been led to believe.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 12, 2017)

wizwhite said:


> *Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.
> *
> I remember in my misguided youth thinking how great it would be to be 95 in a wheel chair oblivious to the world around me because I beat the longevity rates.


According to my cursory research, elderly Japanese are still vibrant and active compared to elderly Americans.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 12, 2017)

jasonnfree said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



 I wanted to  agree but when you used the word, "entitlement" I had to refrain from total agreement. "Entitlement "  is a word used by konservatives and has a negativity attached to it that suggests people are expecting something for nothing. That isn't true for the vast majority of people who worked and contributed to those social programs. However,when 2nd or third spouses dip into SS, or elderly immigrants and others who haven't contributed a dime to the benefits get on the payroll. For those, it IS an entitlement. One that needs to stop.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 12, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



The problem with that data, is that it includes things that have nothing to do with health care.

For example, if I shoot myself up with Heroin, and die... is that because our hospital care sucks?  No.  Obviously not.

If I drive my car, 100 mph and crash into a truck and die... is that because our hospitals suck?  No.  Obviously not.

If I join a gang, and get shot by a rival gang and die... is that because our hospitals suck?  No.  Obviously not.

Longevity numbers simply look at statistics of when you are born, verses when you die.  Not whether the health care system has anything to do with it.

Life expectancy does not take into account, anything except when you die.

So for example, auto fatalities.  Japan has only 4.7 auto fatalities per 100,000 people.  That's compared to the US, which has 10.6 Auto fatalities per 100,000 people.    That's more than double.

Those numbers effect life expectancy.

Take Homicide.  Japan has 0.3 homicides per 100,000 people.   The US has 3.9 homicides per 100,000 people.   That's 13 times as many.

Take drug overdose deaths.  Japan has 0.43 deaths per 100,000 people.  The US has 6.96 deaths per 100,000.

Now that isn't to say that every possible statistic favors Japan.  They routinely have a higher suicide rate.  Yet even with that, their suicides tend to be older, rather than younger.  Most of the people who die in the US are younger, resulting in a larger drop in life expectancy, than a 70 year old who sets himself on fire in Japan.

But regardless, my point is this...  it has nothing to do with health care.   Japan's health care is far worse than ours, by any meaningful measure.   But if you ignore relevant statistics, in favor of "which country has a higher life expectancy" then you end up thinking crappy care is better.

If we modeled our entire health care system on Japan's system, do you really think all the criminals would put down their guns?  Of course not.    Do you think auto accidents would magically stop?  Of course not.   Do you think all the Heroin addicts would wake up the next day "Oh I shouldn't do this!" and stop?  Of course not.

That's my point.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 12, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> wizwhite said:
> 
> 
> > *Japan tops the list of longevity rates by country. But there are 29 more ahead of US on that list.
> ...



My father is 76, and he can run circles around me.  He still lifts weights.

What does this have to do with the quality of health care?  Do you think the elderly in Japan are only active because some doctor runs to their house every morning and forces them to be active?  Come on.   Grow up.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 12, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > wizwhite said:
> ...


what does your anecdote have to do with reality! Am I to accept it just because of your purported "honesty?' Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free  access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link  that you have been avoiding!


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 12, 2017)

my2¢ said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > my2¢ said:
> ...



First off, you are wrong about that.   The theory that medical expenses are the cause of bankruptcy is a flat out lie.  Just flat out, it's a lie.

I've looked at the evidence for this, and it's ridiculous.  For one thing, if you owe just $500 in medical debt, they call it a "medical bankruptcy".   Do you see a problem there?   The cost of filing bankruptcy would be more than how much they owed in "medical debt".    No one files bankruptcy on just $500.

Second, they don't take a look at any of your other debts.  You could owe a million dollars in other debt, and if you owed just $500 to a hospital, they would call that a "medical bankruptcy".

If you were even remotely discerning, or rational, you would ask yourself the question "if they have insurance (as you pointed out), then how did it bankrupt them?".  But you didn't.  You mindlessly  "derp they had insurance and still went bankrupt!  Clearly health care bad!".

This is why 78% can have insurance, and still have a medical bankruptcy, because the morons that complied the data said even if you owed only a tiny amount in medical debt, no matter how much other debt you have, then it's a 'medical bankruptcy'.

Ridiculous.

But it gets better than that.....   they went a step further, and included people who had ZERO medical debt.    Go read the report.   Read how they came up with these BS numbers.    Even if you had absolutely zero medical debt at all, if you went bankruptcy because you couldn't work....   Yes.... they claimed that was a Medical Bankruptcy.    Your insurance covered 100% of the cost, you owed and paid nothing, and if you still filed bankruptcy, then it's a "medical bankruptcy"!    Zero medical debt at all.   Medical bankruptcy.

Hey, do you think in socialized countries, no one ever misses a single day of work?   Of course they do.   Do you think some may end up in bankruptcy because of it?   Of course they do.

But they don't call those medical bankruptcies do they... only here in the US where left-ideology is the driving force behind the reports, not facts or reason.

But lastly, I would say that there is ample evidence that Capitalism is a far better approach.

Looking at the US system, is not an example of a capitalist system, so it doesn't support the claim that a capitalist system doesn't work.

The example of how successful a capitalist health care system is, would be medical tourism.   The medical tourism market is growing at a rate of 25% per year.   And by it's nature this is an entirely capitalist system.

This includes people with low incomes, under $50,000 a year.  50% of medical tourists has no insurance at all.  Most spent between $5,000 and $15,000, per medical tourism event.   Only around 30% were doing it for cosmetic reasons, of course even cosmetic surgery includes reconstruction after an illness event.

Medical tourism is often done through a medical tourism company, which of course is a profit driven capitalist venture.

Further, nearly all medical tourism is to private, non-government, non-regulated privately owned and operating capitalist based, and consumer paid for, hospitals and health care providers.

If you want to know which system works better, and provides the best care, all you need to do is see how people vote with their feet.   When look at how they vote at polls, it's based on empty promises of what socialism will do.  But when they vote with their dollars, you see what really works.

People don't travel around the world, to go to a state funded hospital.  They go to the private hospitals.   They don't go to the state funded hospitals of India.  They go to the private pay-for-service hospitals of India.

The capitalist system works.  Always has. Always will.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 12, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?

Isn't the argument from all the left-wingers since Bernie said it, to have Medicare for all, and now your are telling me that even with Medicare and Medicaid for that matter, that they are not using any health care because they are worried about financial ruin with Medicare and Medicaid?

Can you people ever keep a consistent argument that doesn't flip flop every time you are presented with new evidence?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Feb 12, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


That's strange.  France is listed as number one in health care and having been to and talked to people in France, they indicated that they like their health care system.....and it's a socialized health care system.  At least, it was working fine until the massive influx of deadbeats from the Middle East and North Africa.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 12, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures. The patient is liable for the rest.Further, some hospitals  and doctors started refusing to accept MEDICARE because they   could not overcharge the patient on that platform.  Further, if I remember correctly, time limits on  hospital admittances. Medicare will only pay  for about 20 days. I will have to double check that but  off the top of my head I remember that happening to my mother. My point is that MEDICARE, is not so all encompassing and wonderful as you may think. But  I would think that in a totally socialized medical environment,  the attention to a patients health isn't rushed by financial worries or profit margins.


----------



## jasonnfree (Feb 13, 2017)

LuckyDuck said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



My ex worked in France and said the same about their health care.   Also, she said the doctors make quite  a bit less money than doctors here.  And yeah, what good are safety nets if we're going to import tens of thousands of the world's needy here to overload what safety nets we have.  Not mean spirited, just common sense.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 16, 2017)

jasonnfree said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



First of all, past performance isn't proof of current or future performance.   Whether or not socialized education has done 'well' in the past, doesn't mean diddly jack.  Fact is, today parents weeps for joy, and throw parties, if their child is selected to get free private schooling.

We have people coming out of public education, that can't do basic math, or read a book with long words.  I know..... I've met these people.   I'm not the smartest guy in a 30 foot area where I live, and some of today's students make me look like a Ph.D in an Ivory tower somewhere.

Second, depending on how you define anti-socialism republicans, I would agree.

For one, there are a number of Republicans that are not at their core anti-socialists.   

But more importantly, many of these programs have been lied about repeatedly, and so often, from even their very origins, that people don't realize what they really are.

I can't even begin to count the number of older people who believed that when they paid into social security, that it was being privately invested, into an account with their name on it, which shows the assets they have invested into.

And Social Security was carefully designed to give that impression.  When you get your social security notification letter, it shows this is how much you have paid in.  This is the expected pay out.   Giving you the impression that, there is some bank somewhere, with your name on an account, that has all your investments in it.

In reality, it is just as you said, a total and complete socialistic system, where money is simply put in the governments hands, and given out to the current retirees, and there is no money anywhere.  It's all spent.   And the entire system, can, and will, collapse in on itself the moment the working people refuse to pay the bill.

Same is true of Medicare.   People honestly believe that medicare is an insurance system, with all people paying into an investment scheme, that pays out in health care.   Medicare too, is carefully crafted to appear like any other insurance system, to the point that in 2009 when they were pushing medicare reform, people actually screamed "keep government out of my medicare".

In reality, like you said, the entire system from start to finish, in dependent on money taken from the working people, to pay for the medicare people.    From taxes out of our income, to sales taxes in states, to higher prices for all of our health care.... all to keep Medicare afloat.

The difference between you and me, is that just because "they would reach for their guns", would be the reaction, doesn't change the fact, socialism doesn't work.  Both Medicare and Social Security are slowly going broke.    Both are going to require much higher taxes.    Both are going to require lower and lower payouts.

Even right now, the average SS check, is only $1,300 a month.   That's the AVERAGE.  Meaning 50% of the public gets less than $1,300 a month.    And yet that system is still going broke.

See, what you talked about, is exactly what happened in Greece.  Literally, to the letter.  Greece's pension fund problems have been talked about, warned about, screamed about for literally decades.   And every single time people stood up and warned that the system had to be reformed, the Greek people stood up and demanded their rights to a Pensions, and Health Care, and Mass Transit.    And the politicians gave them what they wanted.

Now they have nothing.  The rails system is in disrepair, the pensions are cut to just a hundred dollars a month, and health care across the country is closed.

Why?  Because socialism never works.  It always fails.   And if people in this country do not accept the fact that Medicare and Social Security must be reformed, then we will sink this country just like Greece.    Greece was our wake up call.  It was our last warning before dooms day.    In the most near verbatim way possible, we're having the exact discussion Greece had 15 years ago.  If we as a country decide to go the same path, which is what you are advocating here, then we'll have the same result.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 16, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:
> ...



"Not for profit" doesn't mean that health care workers should work for free.  It means hospitals should be owned by their communities and not run as commercial businesses.


----------



## Clementine (Feb 16, 2017)

Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...





The left doesn't understand the concept of insurance.   They think because insurance companies should pay for everything because they make a lot of money.    Insurance will pay huge hospital bills, some in the millions.   No one invested that much by paying their premiums so it's one hell of a payback.

Libs didn't get that insurance was originally intended to pay the huge unexpected bills from an accident or major illness.   They think they should pay for every aspirin tablet. 

They tied health insurance to employers and wouldn't allow competition across state lines.    It meant little choice for individuals.    It meant higher costs because of what companies had to cover.    Big Pharms took advantage of those will insurance.   When insurance is paying, the bills are higher than they are for a person with no insurance or one with government sponsored insurance.    Hospital and doctors are only paid a portion of the bill with Tricare, Medicare or Medicaid and they are expected to eat the rest.   They pass the cost on to those with private insurance.   Many doctors have been caught padding the bills with Medicare, which they likely did to get more of what was actually due.    The real profit is in drugs, medical supplies and equipment.   Big Pharms win no matter what.   Obamacare favored Big Pharms.

Socialized medicine means waiting lists.    Just because you are deemed to be entitled to insurance and healthcare doesn't me will actually get care.     They are forced to cap expenses.   That means that each month, they put people on a waiting list for next month after the cap is reached.    The list grows longer each month. 

Leaders of socialist countries come here to the U.S. for care.    That tells you all you need to know.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 17, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



I'm going to jump in here....   

Whether they work for commercial business, or for their communities, is simply a matter of opinion, not fact.

The fact remains that non-profit, and for-profit hospitals operate exactly the same.  100%, no debate about it, exactly the same.

All that "for the community" altruistic touchy feel-good non-sense, has absolutely no bearing on reality.  None whatsoever.

In fact all non-profit organizations operate exactly like for-profit organizations.  

Why do you think hospitals spend literally MILLIONS every year to put on huge charity events?  To get donations.  Just like advertising.     

And they still have to be run like any other commercial business.  They still have to maker up the products and services they offer, in order to get a decent profit.    Just like any other business.   EconTalk podcast, interviewed a CEO of a non-profit hospital.    He said exactly this. 

I don't understand you people.   You seem to think that somehow this magical "for the community" idealism, makes the realities of life disappear.   That if it's "for the community" then you don't need to charge enough to cover the overhead cost, and make a profit.   Or maybe you think you don't need a profit at all?

Let me ask you something.... if the hospital doesn't make a profit, how do you pay to replace the Air Conditioning unit on the roof, when it blows up?    Or how do you hire new employees when the number of patients starts to rise?    Or how does the hospital buy a bran new $3 Million dollar CT scanner, if the hospital has no profits to pay for it with?

Let me tell you the difference between a "for-profit" hospital, and a "non-profit" hospital.

When the population in a city grows, and the hospital realizes a need for a new building, how do they get the money to build that new building, and thus benefit the sick patients that need care?

A non-profit, will have no investors to build the building.   Thus they have to advertise, and spend money putting on charity events, and advertise, and hope that at some point some rich guy will want a tax deduction.

This is why non-profit hospitals normally end up adding a new building, about 5 years after they needed it.

On the other hand, a for-profit hospital, we will give up a percentage of the profits from offering the service from this new building, to investors, in exchange he investors supply the money to build the building right now, because we need it right now.

Keep in mind BOTH hospitals make a profit off of the new building.   And it's generally the same amount of profit.   The difference is, the for-profit hospital will give a portion of that to the investors which funded the building, allowing them to help sick patient immediately, rather than 5 years later, after funding a bunch of charity events, and finally getting some rich guy to put his name on the building.

Now which hospital did a better job of serving the community?  The one that offers care to patients right now... or the one that had to wait 5 years, to get the charity tax deductions for the rich?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 17, 2017)

Clementine said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Somebody has to be on the waiting lists. What? You think if everybody wanted their opertion NOW, that even with insurance there would be enough doctors to carry out said operations? Not on you nellie. It has nothing to do with waiting lists. It has to do with elites who can afford the best health care. Kinda funny when the right is always whinging about elites - hollywood elites, musician elites - or whatever. The true elites are Trumpis and his cronies. You think they ever 'want' for health cover...please get on your knees and blow him already...

What socialist leaders? what is your definition? somebody from Cuba or Somalia? no, they don't come to the US. They're not allowed in you dufus...


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 17, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


owned by the communities? so, do you have to belong to a certain community to use their hospital or as in my case where I live in a community that would be able to build a state of the art facility, do we build it and then have to listen to the ghetto dwellers claiming that they are not getting equal care because they can only build a mud hut with a chicken swinging witch doctor as its only employee. How does that work
 I know you and the rest are going to claim that wont happen, but look at the schools, built in the communities from the property taxes collected, all we hear in Maryland is how the white people in the counties have such better schools than the black kids in the inner city baltimore. 
 If you want the best available for the most people, you need to have a for profit business, non profit is not going to work.


----------



## NoNukes (Feb 17, 2017)

Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Yeah, like they expect a job so that they can support themselves, which they cannot get. The ones who want to work sell drugs.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 17, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> If you want the best available for the most people, you need to have a for profit business, non profit is not going to work.



Oh yeah it does. Very well in fact. I've bolded the interesting parts. And yes, this really is a HEALTH INSURANCE company. God forbid anybody try starting this in the US....blasphemy! 

_Southern Cross first opened for business in 1961, introducing health insurance to New Zealanders and laying the foundations for one of New Zealand’s most enduring, best known and trusted brands. Southern Cross was established because its founders strongly believed New Zealanders should have on-going access to private healthcare options.

Southern Cross is a group of businesses that share an interest in your health. Our range of products and services, combined with *our not-for-profit focus*, size and experience, means Southern Cross plays a unique and important role in the New Zealand health sector.

 Southern Cross Hospitals are the l*argest network of private surgical hospitals in the country, last year providing treatment to 75,000 patients* at its 18 wholly owned or joint venture medical facilities._

_Group Structure
The Southern Cross Healthcare Group is made up of various legal entities, united by a common brand, *a not-for-profit philosophy *and the goal of achieving better value healthcare for New Zealanders.

The legal name of the Southern Cross Health Society is Southern Cross Medical Care Society (*a not-for-profit Friendly Society* constituted under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982). The other Southern Cross entities are the Southern Cross Health Trust (a charitable trust registered as a charitable entity under the Charities Act 2005) and its subsidiaries._


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 17, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > If you want the best available for the most people, you need to have a for profit business, non profit is not going to work.
> ...


this is not New Zealand, we have a totally different economic system here.
 But, Im sure there is nothing keeping you from heading to New Zealand to obtain your superior medical care.
 I will never understand liberals, everything should be free, nobody should make a profit, and at the same time everyone should be able to raise a family of four with money left over when their only income is from sweeping the hair off the barber shop floor, or slinging pre-made burgers at some fast food place.


----------



## owebo (Feb 17, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


OK....if all hospitals are run this way, then where does the innovation come from?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 17, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> this is not New Zealand, we have a totally different economic system here.
> But, Im sure there is nothing keeping you from heading to New Zealand to obtain your superior medical care.
> I will never understand liberals, everything should be free, nobody should make a profit, and at the same time everyone should be able to raise a family of four with money left over when their only income is from sweeping the hair off the barber shop floor, or slinging pre-made burgers at some fast food place.



I am a NZer. And yes, our care is as good as yours. Cheaper too.

No, liberals don't want anything for free. Nobody does except leeches on society. And they are a very, very, very small group of people. Somehow, it has entered the US lexicon that they are liberals. They are not. It is just a divide and conquer stance made by neocon whackjobs to make themselves feel better and superior. Go and ask any liberal on this board. Any one of them. There are plenty of them. NYCaribeneer, iceberg slim, JQpublic. Not one of them wants anything for free. It is just a conservative talking point to make themselves feel better. More empowered. More important. But it's BS.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 17, 2017)

owebo said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


other countries that have for profit systems.


----------



## owebo (Feb 17, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


True....and without profit, our hospitals won't be able to pay for their innovation.....

Seems quite arcane....almost Stone Age.....then to make up for the lack of innovation, liberals create things like their death panel to,deal with the problem....


----------



## Wiskers Von Pussyboots (Feb 17, 2017)

NoNukes said:


> Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



What is this guy talking about?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 17, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You don't seem to understand how economics works.

If you run an ice cream stand, do you instantly have enough ice cream for everyone single person in the entire city that wants ice cream?  Of course not.

Yet, today virtually anyone in the country, can get access to as much ice cream as they could possibly want.   How did this happen?

Well, it's simply economics of supply and demand.  It's really that simple.

See, as more and more people come to your ice cream stand, you end up with more money.  As you have more money, you invest in adding more ice cream, more cash registers, more employees, and soon a larger store, and then multiple stores, and on and on and on.

Now if you want to see how this plays out in health care, just consider the difference in wait times between getting a CT scan for your pet, verses getting a CT scan for yourself in Canada.

In fact there is a great book about this, called accurately enough "Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life".    It's the true story of a Veterinarian who got cancer, and was told she had to wait weeks and months, and possibly a year, before getting treatment.

Unlike average citizens of Canada, she had access to ultrasound machine which was used for horses, and used it on herself, and discovered the tumor.    The book goes on to say:

"The dogs I treat for thyroid carcinoma come in for their appointment in the morning, and have chest x-rays, blood work, and an ultrasound of their neck all done on the same day. Depending on the results, we may do a needle biopsy of their neck mass that day as well, and will get the report back from the pathologist later that afternoon." surgery can be scheduled the next morning, the dogs go home the following day, and preliminary results of the cancer are reviewed within 24 hours.​Where as, when this Veterinarian went to find out if the lump on her neck was cancer, it was a month and half wait.... during which the tumor grew in size.  In her own words:

"the Canadian health care system can take a serious health concern and drag things out for long enough that it becomes a life-threatening disease."​
This is why I always look at survival rates, and why the US always has the best survival rates in the world, because we don't make someone wait months just to find out if they have cancer, let alone do something about it.

But the real question is... why?  Why is it that a dog in Canada receives many times better care and services than people, in Canada?

Well back to your ice cream stand.  Image if you received a set amount of money.  So that no matter how many patients you helped, you got the same amount of money.  For a moment let's ignore your personal incentives, namely that since you don't get paid to work harder, that you are not likely to work hard.

Even if you wanted to provide the best products and services to everyone... you don't have any more money to do that.   The amount of money you get doesn't change.   So how do you afford to order more ice cream?  How do you afford to hire more staff?  How do you buy more cash registers?   How do you afford to build, or buy, a bigger store?  How do you afford to open a new store?

Of course, you can't.    At the Veterinarian's office, as more customers come, they can higher more people, because those customers pay money, and thus they have money to hire more staff.  They have the money to pay for more scanners and machines.

But the state run hospitals in Canada do not get more money because more patients showed up.   So the hospital doesn't have more money to hire more staff.  They don't have more money to buy more scanners and machines.   They don't have more money for more hospital beds.   When they run out of beds... they just don't have anymore beds.

I read where a Canadian with a burst appendix, was rushed to three different Canadian hospitals, only to be told they were full and refused to take him, even though it was a life threatening condition.   He ended up being sent south, and after a 3 hour ride, ended up in the US.

Lucky to be alive, thanks to US care.

So back to your question, this is why in a real capital based system, you end up with better, faster, and higher quality care, being delivered to the most people.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 17, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > If you want the best available for the most people, you need to have a for profit business, non profit is not going to work.
> ...



Anyone can say "our not-for-profit focus", and "a not-for-profit Friendly Society".

You know what that is?  Advertising.   Public relations.   And it worked, because you are here right now repeating it to us, like that means something.

What exactly do you think those marketing buzz words mean in day to day operations?   The CEO doesn't earn millions?     Have you seen the private jet and limo he was riding in?  I have.   You think he earns a middle class income riding around in those things?

Or do you think that the company doesn't earn a massive profit margin?   Because I have the 2016 annual report from Southern Cross NZ, and it says they earned a 15% profit margin, with revenue of $871 Million dollars, and an "operating surplus" of $122 Million.

That's the only real difference by the way... a for profit company would call it a "profit" of $122.  A non-profit company call is an "operating surplus".

By the way, do you know what the profit margin is for the for-profit insurance company Prudential?  5%.   Compared to your non-profit companies profit margin of 15%.

Do you think those buzz words mean that Southern Cross NZ doesn't have assets and money in the bank?  Because again, according to the 2016 annual report, they have over half billion in assets and raw cash in the bank.

So again, I ask you, in real practical every day reality... what exactly do you think all that marketing BS you posted, really means?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 17, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Anyone can say "our not-for-profit focus", and "a not-for-profit Friendly Society".
> 
> You know what that is?  Advertising.   Public relations.   And it worked, because you are here right now repeating it to us, like that means something.
> 
> ...



Of course they have assets. The company owns their hospitals. And who owns the company? The policy holders. That's who. When you sign up for Southern Cross you become a member and shareholder. I'm not saying the people who work there don't earn good money. They do. They earn very good money. However, their focus is on health, not making money. Health insurance companies in the US only give a fuck about money. That is it. Their bottom line. A lot of doctors only care about that too...as for the 'profit' do you know who gets it? I do. Who do think gets that profit without looking it up on Google or their website or annual report?


----------



## Doc1 (Feb 17, 2017)

It works, but only in a very rudimentary fashion. It fits in with the Left's M.O. They think being "fair" is making sure everyone get's the same shitty care....unless of course you are in Congress, then they exempt themselves. Repubs too.


----------



## SavannahMann (Feb 17, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



Um. You do know that the first example of socialized healthcare was in the 1880's in Germany right?


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 17, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


The French, with the best healthcare in the world, have a cost at half of what we do.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 17, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can say "our not-for-profit focus", and "a not-for-profit Friendly Society".
> ...



No no, not hospitals.  The assets listed were specifically bonds, stocks, and hard currencies, as well as loans (loans the company made that need repaid).   Not hospitals.  This is an insurance company.  They may have subsidiaries that have hospital ownership, but these are investments, just like any for-profit company would have, like GM, or Walmart.

Again, your claim that insurance companies in the US only care about making money, and yet the profit margins of your non-profit company are literally double that of several for-profit companies.

That non-profit company is make more money off you, than my insurance company is making off me.   That's fact, not opinion.

As for who gets the profits.... I'm fascinated.... Do you really think the members get the money?  Really?

Do tell, which members, or if any member, received a check from Southern Cross, that wasn't a refund of over payment.  I'd love to see your evidence.   

I actually know what they did with the profits, because I have the annual report right here.  Don't need to google anything.    Would you like to know?

They bought bonds.  They bought stock.   They paid for expansion of the company, (new branch, new employees, upgrades to the insurance company HQ building).  And they paid for an increase in director pay.  They paid for advertising. 

In short, the profits went to all the exact same things that any for-profit company pays for.  Literally, all the same things.  Exactly the same.  No difference whatsoever.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 17, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...





 

France doesn't even have the best care in Europe, let alone compared to the US.

Besides that, the French system is in dangerous state.  

Domestic banks lose ground in France's AFT debt agency rankings

Subscribe to read

GRAPHIC-Two budgets, two speeds: Greece outstrips France

Let me some all this up...   France right now hasn't had any real sustained growth in years now.  In 2008, they had a GDP of 2.9 Trillion.  In 2011, they had a GDP of $2.86 Trillion.  In 2014 they had a GDP of $2.83 Trillion.    In 2015, they had a GDP of $2.4 Trillion.

The decline of France is clear, and evident to everyone, unless you are an American Socialist.

And one of the biggest factors is the ever increasing taxes.  

Are taxes behind rise in exodus of rich French?

France: Exodus of 10,000 millionaires amid rising Muslim tensions

Since 2008, a record number of people have left the country, and many are employers, businesses, and high income people.

The results are unsurprising... an economy slowly imploding. 

As a result, France is being forced into a situation where they have to cut spending.  Where do you think that will happen?

France's hospital doctors stage strike to highlight crisis

Massive doctor strike over low pay, and government reforms.

This is your idea of the best health care in the world?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 17, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



No, that's my point.   I never said Medicare is so wonderful.  Everything you said, is exactly my point.

Here you have a socialized system, and even after all the limitations you just mentioned.... it's still going broke.   It's funded by taxes payers, it's funded by general revenue, it's funded by medicare premiums, it only covers a % of most procedures, it has limits on admittance, it will only pay for 20 days or whatever....

Everything you mentioned....   and yet..... IT IS STILL GOING BROKE.

This is socialism.  This is how it works.  This is what happens.  No matter what system you put in place... eventually you run out of other people's money.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 17, 2017)

SavannahMann said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 17, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



And did they hand out profits to shareholders? All the money goes back into reinvesting into the company. There are no shares paid out. None. And THAT is the difference. Are you saying that all the health insurance companies in the US aren't in the profit game? Don't have shareholders they have to answer to? have to pay out dividends.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 18, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Some of the biggest names in health insurance, are non-profit.

Kaiser
Blue Cross
Medical Mutual
Premera Blue Cross
State Farm Insurance
Kaleida Health
EmblemHealth

Just for kicks, I punched in my information into several of these non-profit insurance companies, and sure enough they were more expensive than my for-profit policy.

No, I am not saying that insurance companies in the US are not in the profit game.    They are.  What I am telling you is, all insurance companies are in the profit game, including the insurance company you listed.

All companies period.... are in the profit game.  All of them.  They may play games, and use slick advertising, and make grand statements, and get non-profit 'status', but all of them... every single last one of them... is in it for profit.

The only ones that are not in it for profit, are the companies that no longer exist.   The Obama administration tried this, if you didn't know.  They created as part of Obama-care, non-profit Co-Ops.   These truly 'not for profit' co-op insurance companies were the only companies that truly did not have a profit motivation at all.  And guess what happened....

Another ObamaCare co-op folds, leaving only 6 remaining

After Obama Care past, 23 co-op insurance companies opened across the country, that had absolutely no profit motive whatsoever.   Today, only 6 remain.  17 of them closed, a complete failure.  Keep in mind, that tax payer funded "loans", none of which will be paid back.... funded these government created co-ops, at a cost of over $100 Million per.   

I don't know why this is difficult for you to grasp.   I'm not arguing that US insurance companies are not profit minded.  I'm arguing that ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES THE WORLD OVER.......  are Profit minded.   All of them.

That insurance company you pointed to, with all it's non-profit marketing jargon.....  All those bold claims of being non-profit minded....   I'm telling you, that they are profit motivated.  What do you think that 15% profit margin is all about?  PROFIT.

And lastly about the dividends and crap.  You people get hung up on that all the time.  I don't get it.   First off, the amount of money paid in dividends is typically very small relative to the amount of profit the company makes.

Second, you fail to grasp that, the investors are often the ones that allow the company to serve more people.

Where do you think that hospital came from?    You think it just magically appeared?   You think a bunch of people around the corner, all said "hey let's build a hospital Thursday!", and boom there it is?

Investors create the hospitals.  Nearly all of them.   If it wasn't for investors, you wouldn't have a hospital to even go to.    So when the investors who gave hundreds of billions to hospital care around the world, get back 5% of the profits.....  grow up.  Stop whining.   You wouldn't' have diddly jack if not for investors.    You likely wouldn't have a job right now if not for investors.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 18, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Where did you get the notion that Social Security is going broke? Did you bother to go to thatSSA website and seek the truth. Apparently you did not or you would have seen this: click the spoier to learn why! 



Spoiler: SS is not going broke



As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of* these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.*

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935, scheduled benefits have always been paid on a timely basis through a series of modifications in the law that will continue. Social Security provides a basic level of monthly income to workers and their families after the workers have reached old age, become disabled, or died. The program now provides benefits to over 50 million people and is financed with the payroll taxes from over 150 million workers and their employers. Further modifications of the program are a certainty as the Congress continues to evolve and shape this program, reflecting the desires of each new generation.

This article describes the financial status of the Social Security program, including an analysis of the concepts of solvency and sustainability and the relationship of Social Security to the overall federal unified budget. The future is uncertain in many respects, and based on new information, projections of the financial status of the Social Security program vary somewhat over time. What is virtually certain is that the benefits that almost all Americans become entitled to and most depend on will be continued into the future with modifications deemed appropriate by their elected representatives in the Congress.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 18, 2017)

owebo said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


Only the Right is motivated strictly by money.


----------



## SavannahMann (Feb 18, 2017)

Rustic said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole. 

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 18, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



You shifted the narrative a bit. We were talking about Japanese healthcare compared to our Medicare . You were lecturing me about flip flopping  about medicare  in the face of your purported "new evidence."



			
				I said:
			
		

> : Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free  access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link  that you have been avoiding.





			
				YOU said:
			
		

> :"So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?"



I responded by showing how MEDICARE is not totally socialized and that either additional GAP insurance had to be obtained to make up the difference. or the patient would have to  Use personal assets. In either case that impact on fixed incomes of poorer people could become a serious hardship. And for younger working people, not yet old enough for medicare but with employee benefits, co-pays could disrupt their budgets for years. In Japan, apparently your age wouldn't matter and with "free" healthcare, I would expect that preventative medicine would be utilized far more frequently among younger Japanese. That would translate into a population that lives longer on average.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 18, 2017)

SavannahMann said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


fuck the nanny state it's no way to live


----------



## SavannahMann (Feb 18, 2017)

Rustic said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



So you have no evidence to support your contention? 

Would you like to know how Obamacare could have worked? Let's use Blue Cross as an example. Blue Cross has doctors in every state that are in one network or another. Yet if I have Blue Cross in Georgia then doctors in Alabama are out of network, even if they are in a Blue Cross network in Alabama. 

The answer is national networks. All Doctors in the Blue Cross network are in network. When I was young the businesses had stickers in the window showing what credit cards they accepted. Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Diners Club were the big ones. 

Imagine how easy it would be if you went to a Doctor and saw similar stickers showing what insurances they are in network for. 

This would have made medical treatment easier and cheaper. Would that have been nanny state bullshit? 

You are like Sam. You don't like green eggs and ham. You won't even consider it. Nations with it have better medical care, longer life expectancy, and less infant mortality. But they totally suck. Because you said so.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 18, 2017)

SavannahMann said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


Well I just pay out-of-pocket for what I need, and I don't expect anyone else to pay for my shit.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 18, 2017)

Rustic said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Good luck when you spend a week in intensive care. You must be very rich.


----------



## NoNukes (Feb 18, 2017)

Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Wiskers Von Pussyboots said:
> ...


Try to find an intelligent person to explain it to you.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 18, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


Spend less than you make in life… And you'll be fine - easiest thing in the world to do.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 18, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



First off, look back through the last dozen posts, where do you see Social Security even mentioned?   When did I ever say "social security is going broke"?

Are we talking about Medicare or Social Security?   Because up until this last post of yours, I said Medicare over and over.

Second, you posted information that directly contradicts your own claim.

You posted "SS is not going broke" and then the very next sentence... "until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted"

What do you think "reserves become exhausted" means?

I know public schools suck....  but you are telling me that you can't logically understand the concept that "reserves become exhausted" means it's running out of money, and running out of money, means it's "going broke"?

How can you come on this forum, and posted a statement, and then post as support of that very statement, information that directly contradicts the statement made?

And worse.... so other idiot 'thumbed up' that post?

This.... this right here.... this is why American will destroy itself.   People this stupid, are determining the direction of the country.  It's no wonder everything is getting worse year after year.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 18, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



But here's the other option.  Spend 6 months on a waiting list, and die before getting the care you need.

I can recover from bankruptcy.  I can't recover from death.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 18, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> [
> 
> Some of the biggest names in health insurance, are non-profit.
> 
> ...



You are seeing my point and being deliberately misleading. My dad can play basketball, doesn't mean he should be in the NBA. Couple of things - no the govt built our hospitals. You do know I am a NZer, right? And when I lived there I was SC policy holder? Of course they are for profit in the sense they need to expand etc, but they don't use the AWFUL model that the US uses, which is why all the US posters on this board - in the 10 years I've been here - constantly bitch and moan about their system. The non US posters never moan about their's. Gee, why is that.

In the case of SC, the INVESTORs are the policy holders. I have never had a problem with investors. Ever. Only when it comes to a health, and to a lesser degree private educational institutes.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 18, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Maybe because generally speaking its the right that end up paying taxes so that those claiming that dont care about money can scream and cry for the taxpayers on the right to give them more of that money they dont seem to care about.
 Its not that only the right is motivated by money, its just that the left is equally motivated in not providing for themselves. Maybe if the left was a bit more responsible and actually took care of themselves for a change, the Right might not have to be so stingy when it comes to the constant new freebie programs that they in the end have to pay for.


----------



## SavannahMann (Feb 18, 2017)

Rustic said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Ah the libertarian approach. So you will take care of you, and everyone else will have to take care of themselves. Sadly, the collective approach has been used for centuries. The libertarian philosophy has some good points, but you seem determined to embrace the worst aspects.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 18, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



just love it when one of you lying fucking lefty welfare state assholes wants to tell us how to do things. You see you have to understand something here, a lot of us are not impressed with your little liberal 'healthcare system' as something to strive for and emulate, in fact I think it is rather something to avoid, so how about you shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass?


New Zealand’s healthcare crisis - World Socialist Web Site
_*A number of recent reports illustrate the growing crisis resulting from chronic underfunding of New Zealand’s public health system.*

*The National Party government repeatedly claims that it has made no cuts to health spending since the 2008 financial crisis. The reality is that public hospitals and other medical services throughout the country have been subject to severe austerity measures. Along with cuts to welfare and education, the underfunding of the health system is designed to transfer the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working class, particularly the most vulnerable and in need of care.*_
*
*

_WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs_
*New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.
*
Challenges and opportunities
*The cost of providing health services through the current model is unsustainable in the long term.*


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 19, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...




FICA is the Social security and Medicare taxes combined. And, indeed they are handled by two different Trust funds. But according to the information I posted  under the spoiler tag, the use of the phrase"going broke" to describe the future of either program is not an accurate assessment. Again, in your haste you overlooked the word "reserves." That has meaning:  the term is describing excess funds. That means in 2037 the SS fund will temporarily break even when the reserves are exhausted. IN other words the fund will be paying out as much as it is taking in. That doesn't mean it will be bankrupt since, as stated,  enough funds will be available from payroll taxes to make 76% of its obligations.  It would be incumbent upon Congress to either reduce the benefit  by 13% or increase payroll taxes to make up the difference. If , OTOH, the GOP tries to privatize either SS or Medicare, there will be a civil uprising so severe they may never recover from it. Middle men would be perceived as thieves robbing beneficiaries to bolster profits.

The Medicare fund is no different, it isn't going broke either:

Claims by some policymakers that the Medicare program is nearing “bankruptcy” are highly misleading.  Although Medicare faces financing challenges, the program is not on the verge of bankruptcy or ceasing to operate.  Such charges represent misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Medicare’s finances.

*Medicare’s financing challenges would be much greater without the health reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), which substantially improved the program’s financial outlook.  Repealing the ACA, a course of action promoted by some who simultaneously claim that the program is approaching “bankruptcy,” would worsen Medicare’s financial situation*.

The 2016 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2028.* Even in 2028, when the HI trust fund is projected for exhaustion, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 87 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1] The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 79 percent in 2040 and then rise gradually to 86 percent in 2090.  This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both.  But the Medicare hospital insurance program will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2028, *as the “bankruptcy” term may suggest.

*The 2028 date does not apply to Medicare coverage for physician and outpatient costs or to the Medicare prescription drug benefit; these parts of Medicare do not face insolvency and cannot run short of funds.*  These parts of Medicare are financed through the program’s Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund, which consists of two separate accounts — one for Medicare Part B, which pays for physician and other outpatient health services, and one for Part D, which pays for outpatient prescription drugs.  Premiums for Part B and Part D are set each year at levels that cover about 25 percent of costs; general revenues pay the remaining 75 percent of costs.[2]  The trustees’ report does not project that these parts of Medicare will become insolvent at any point — because they can’t.  The SMI trust fund always has sufficient financing to cover Part B and Part D costs, because the beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are specifically set at levels to assure this is the case. * SMI cannot go “bankrupt.”*


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 19, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> just love it when one of you lying fucking lefty welfare state assholes wants to tell us how to do things. You see you have to understand something here, a lot of us are not impressed with your little liberal 'healthcare system' as something to strive for and emulate, in fact I think it is rather something to avoid, so how about you shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass?
> 
> 
> New Zealand’s healthcare crisis - World Socialist Web Site
> ...




Shit links. The first is from the World socialist website. The last one, you have cherrypicked one sentence from what is a generally optimistic piece....we can all do that. Try harder.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 19, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > just love it when one of you lying fucking lefty welfare state assholes wants to tell us how to do things. You see you have to understand something here, a lot of us are not impressed with your little liberal 'healthcare system' as something to strive for and emulate, in fact I think it is rather something to avoid, so how about you shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass?
> ...



I picked the socialists since no body is better to critique socialized medicine than the socilaists. I picked the second one to show you have critics within your own country. I picked the third to highlight the obvious, your system didn't work, cuts had to be made, and even now it is projected to not work in the fiscal sense which means it doesn't work period.

You have a shit mind, shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 19, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...


don't complain about taxes; be Patriotic.


----------



## WaitingFor2020 (Feb 19, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



So what do you suggest?  You flamers just post complaints and like to bitch.  But you NEVER come up with answers.  Just whining.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 19, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


do they have a drug war they can end?


----------



## WaitingFor2020 (Feb 19, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



You ask ANYBODY on Medicare if they want to give it up.  Go ahead.  I know many people on Medicare or who have elderly parents on Medicare: Republicans, Dems, Independents and they love it.  To the last person.  

But you just keep a bitchin' and offer no solutions.  You're a monkey for the GOP.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 19, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


Here is something from Wikipedia:



> In the UK, where government employees or government-employed sub-contractors deliver most health care, political interference is quite hard to discern. Most supply-side decisions are in practice under the control of medical practitioners and of boards comprising the medical profession.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine#Political_controversies_in_the_United_States


----------



## Rustic (Feb 19, 2017)

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


People should expect to pay for their shit, robin hood mentality is of the morality corrupt...


----------



## Rustic (Feb 19, 2017)

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I would have no problem giving up what i have paid in(SS,medicare/cade) if i could not have to pay in anymore... the system will be bankrupt long before i am old enough to qualify.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 19, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I picked the socialists since no body is better to critique socialized medicine than the socilaists. I picked the second one to show you have critics within your own country. I picked the third to highlight the obvious, your system didn't work, cuts had to be made, and even now it is projected to not work in the fiscal sense which means it doesn't work period.
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 19, 2017)

Rustic said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


who is paying for our War on Drugs?


----------



## jillian (Feb 19, 2017)

Rustic said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



every civilized country in the world except for us makes certain that their population has health care.

We can't help it if this country is infested with roaches like you.But maybe someday you'll figure out that our system is only good for insurance companies.

rightwingnuts are so duped.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 19, 2017)

jillian said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > WaitingFor2020 said:
> ...


It's deadbeats like yourself that want something for nothing


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 19, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...




You rank yours better by your retarded claim that you bitch less? Smug AND stupid


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 19, 2017)

jillian said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > WaitingFor2020 said:
> ...



bullshit you dumb liberal twat, there are shortages that fail to meet demand everywhere because of socialism, and we already have a failed socialized system that spends more per capita than almost everyone.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 19, 2017)

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



deadbeats get nothing, it is simple and effective


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 19, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> [
> You rank yours better by your retarded claim that you bitch less? Smug AND stupid



I'll tell you something for free. If it was a shit system I'd be bitching. I'm not. You right-wing loons are. Why?


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 20, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Pointing out the fact that we have a socialized, and it is a socialized system.... doesn't mean "it's so wonderful", that is the claim I was fighting.   Medicare is failing, and it will go broke unless it is fixed, no matter how many people think it's wonderful.

Further, just because you have to pay some money, doesn't mean it's not socialized.   Medicare is 100% a socialized system.  Owned, or controlled by the government, is a "socialized" system.   Medicare dictates to doctors how much they can charge.   That's a socialized system, whether you pay part of the bill or not.

A Capitalist system is a system where the government has absolutely no control over prices, services, or anything.   

*Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding.
*
This statement is entirely false, as far as I know.  
*"MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures"
*
The implication is that Japan covers 100%?    No.   Wrong.

Citizens of Japan are expected to pay 30% of the cost.   Not 20% like Medicaid.   So the cost burden is HIGHER in Japan on the public, than it is in the US under Medicaid.

Moreover, that higher price, doesn't mean they have less taxes, but actually far more taxes.  

The Federal government pays 25% of health care costs, which is why people making $50K a year can expect to pay 30% in taxes.

The local governments pay 12% of the health care costs, which comes from the local people in higher local taxes.

The Employer pays 20% of the cost, which comes from the people in lower wages.

You pay 28% of the cost from the public in insurance contributions.

And the remaining 15%, is out of pocket expenses.   This includes you paying fees for being in the hospital, fees for seeing a doctor, fees for getting drugs, fees for just about all aspects of using the health care system.

Sounds like Medicare?  It is.   Don't tell me the reason the elder live longer is because of some myth that they don't pay anything for care.  They do.  They all do.  Everyone has to pay for health care.  They are paying more there, than our elderly are here.

Not true.  Sorry.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 20, 2017)

Rustic said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Neither Social Security or Medicare is going bankrupt. Here is a link to an earlier exchange that explains why not:

Socialized medicine does not work...


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 20, 2017)

SavannahMann said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...



Different states have different laws governing how health care works.  In some states, the cost is lower, and thus cheaper.  In others, the cost is higher, and thus is more expensive to the consumers.

Having a national system will eliminate in-network out-of-network systems.  That's true.   But that's not necessarily good.

I could be, if the government lowered regulations, but that isn't likely.  What is more likely, is that it will drive up regulations.  This would not lower cost for anyone, but raises costs for those who previously had lower costing insurance.

Moreover, if people can go to any doctor and have their treatment covered, then as more people go to more expensive doctors, rather than lower costing doctors, the results would be that this would drive up costs on the insurance company, which would then pass those higher costs on to the premium payers.

This is exactly why in many government systems, they assign you a doctor.  In a free-market capitalist system, the highest quality, and thus highest demand doctors, would command higher prices.   This would cause people to diversify which doctor they go to.   Newer doctors with less experience would charge a lower price, thus allowing more people to afford a doctor visit.

But under a socialized system, where everyone charges the same, everyone would go only to the best doctor.   Thus one doctor would be swamped with 3 years waiting lists, and other doctors would have a few patients a month.

So the government starts mandating people to use different doctors.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 20, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



If you run out of excess reserves, that is "going broke". 

Many people have gone through bankruptcy, while still having an income.  No one ever said "well I still make money, so I'm not really.... broke broke.... I'm just out of reserves".

You are splitting hairs to avoid the fact you are just simply wrong.  Just flat out... you are wrong.

What is even worse than that, is the fact that we would end up in a crisis long before the 'trust funds' ran out of 'reserves'.   Why?  Because all those trust funds have, is IOUs.    They don't have stock, or land, or assets.  They have IOUs.   And from whom?   The Federal government.

Are you stupid?  Have you seen the current budget and debt of the Federal Government?  We are borrowing $600 Billion, right now, and that's with the Federal government GETTING money from the trust funds.   When they stop getting money, and the Trust funds need money back, where do you think that money is going to come from?   We're going to start borrowing trillions again?

And here's the kicker... what happens when people stop lending money to the Federal government?    The entire system implodes.

When you say that these funds will cover 87% of costs... that's on the basis that the economy is stable, at current revenue conditions.   Did you miss what happened 2007?   Tax revenue fell from $2.51 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion.

If you claim that we can fund 87% of social security from tax revenue on the basis of 2007 taxes... what happens in 2010, when revenue fell 20%?    You are not paying out 87% of benefits anymore, are you?  Nope.     By the way, 87% of the average SS check of $1,300 a month, is $1,100.   You think that won't hurt some people?   That alone will harm the economy more.

You people....   Greece didn't teach the left-wing nothing.  You guys are more ignorant than you ever were before the crash.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 20, 2017)

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Because there is no solution.   There is no 'fix' for socialism.   It fails every single time it's tried, throughout all the nations of the world, and throughout all history.

There is no 'fix' for this.  Never was.  Never will be.   

You act like if we want something to work, then magically it will, simply because we demand that it work.  This is like Atlas Shrugged.  Read the book. 

Just because you demand eating cake and ice cream every day for every meal, make you fit and health, doesn't mean that's going to happen.   And screaming that we don't a 'fix' for your cake and ice cream diet, doesn't change the fact your diet doesn't work, and while it will be great fun for a while, in the end it will kill people.

Socialism doesn't work.  You want to see how Medicare and Social Security will end up?  Look at Greece.

You want a better system?  Capitalism.  Works every single time it's tried, without exception.  Deregulate health care, and cut taxes, let people buy their own health care.

But you don't want that.  You want your system, the socialist system to work, and you demand we find a fix for it.  There is no fix for it.  It's a bad system that never works.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 20, 2017)

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/709letter_DI_Senate_2016.pdf

So after responding to the mindless crap here, I happen to notice this letter to the Senate.   The trustees are required by law, to inform congress, when reserves are going to fall below 20% of expenses.   That is happening right now for Disability Insurance, and the rest later.



 
Only a mindless left winger can see a graph showing 0% as a future outcome, and conclude.... "it's not going broke!".

Stop with the unending ignorance.  The facts win, over your opinion.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 20, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


 You are just rambling. You have't  backed up a thing you have said with verifiable sources, Anything you say is suspect because you tend to overlook key words in sentences and go off on a tangent the author never intended. Without reading your sources, i can't accept anything you say as fact.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 20, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



As if I care.   Did I ever indicate that your opinion of what you think is fact or not matters?

If you think I'm lying, fine.  Whatever.  I got other things to do.  I'll talk to other people on this thread.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 20, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/709letter_DI_Senate_2016.pdf
> 
> So after responding to the mindless crap here, I happen to notice this letter to the Senate.   The trustees are required by law, to inform congress, when reserves are going to fall below 20% of expenses.   That is happening right now for Disability Insurance, and the rest later.
> 
> ...


 Are you sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid? That is the question. Your graph validates everything  I quoted the SSA  positing on their website. Do you think hey would post a graph that contradicts their own report???? DUHHH! The  zero represents the year the "reserves are depleted" but  the system won't be "broke" because millions of workers will still be paying into it. And when all the baby boomers die out in the next 20 years or so, the reserves will start to rise again.
IN the interim, though, Congress will have to act by either  raising the FICA taxes or reducing individual benefits in conjunction with raising the minimum retirement  age.
 Theer is another more diabolical option. The government  might find some way to liquidate  everyone over 60...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 20, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



I think people are fact checking both of us. Let them decide who is more credible based on what we have written. Having researched some of your outlandish premises, I am confident that  objective  readers will find my  responses  valid. YOURS? not so much!


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 20, 2017)

It is inhuman to deny available health care to the needy.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 20, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



oh I see, YOU determine the standard and if YOU are happy then we are set. I reject the idea that you are something special there snowflake, and let me be clear in my conversation with you, I am not bitching as much about your HC system as I could not really care less what you do down there, I am bitching about you specifically. You are a self-righteous asshole declaring your thoughts and health care system superior.

Another thing to get straight here dumbfuk, it is the left, with people like you, that is constantly bitching here in the states. A lot of them don't work, and guess who is spending their days protesting?


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 20, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



the trustees report is not a verifiable source? it says right on the plot who produced the numbers, so go verify it. What is your problem, laziness or mental incapacity?


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 20, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> It is inhuman to deny available health care to the needy.



Liberalism is a religion, slogans and platitudes instead of thinking. I know man, thinking is hard work, it probably even hurts when you try.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 20, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/709letter_DI_Senate_2016.pdf
> ...



he defined broke as you normally would in a government program, it spends more than allotted for originally and is funded with taxpayer income. Now you want to change the definition to suit your argument, typical liberal lie.

Raising taxes, yet again, is failure. The program originally had about a 2% payroll tax and we now stand at 13%, that is called failure. Your solutions are always the same, more taxes for what failed in the first place.

Funny how the left has no problem defining failure for a piece of military hardware or a war the same way as andylusion. We could endlessly fund any weapon system until it worked, but then you guys would be holding protests.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 20, 2017)

Apparently, the Church of Rome, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Baptist Churches and, especially, the Prsebyterian Church (not to mention myriad other similar churches) will all be surprised by the news that , not Christian, but Liberal is their true title.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 20, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Apparently, the Church of Rome, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Baptist Churches and, especially, the Prsebyterian Church (not to mention myriad other similar churches) will all be surprised by the news that , not Christian, but Liberal is their true title.



being an atheist I find your comment amusing, but I know of no modern Christian sect that advocates forced charity at government gunpoint.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 20, 2017)

Non sequitur.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 20, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Non sequitur.



nah, you are equating government social programs with Christian dogma, that's the real non sequitur


----------



## Rustic (Feb 20, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > WaitingFor2020 said:
> ...


Wrong, more people are taking more out, and less people are putting less in.... fact


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 20, 2017)

Because Christianity is not practiced, society must act.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 20, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Because Christianity is not practiced, society must act.



well then, it is so declared, society must conform to your religious whacko sensibility

so tell me, where did the god of Abraham command a government run health care?  I don't understand, why didn't he simply create it himself?


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 20, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Because Christianity is not practiced, society must act.



This is directed at those who understand what Christianity is. Nothing religious is stated.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 20, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Because Christianity is not practiced, society must act.
> ...



Yes, that is why I responded


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 20, 2017)

Rustic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


i gladly give up our drug war; i won't complain, i'll try to be, Patriotic.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 20, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


did you know, the platform of some on the left is, to end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; to end our income tax.  

the right wing is, all talk and no action, regarding being fiscally responsible.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 20, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


deadbeats try to avoid being "drafted" into our alleged, war on drugs, for free.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 20, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Would that market, under our form of capitalism, be any worse off; by solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

At a hypothetical fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; 

the private health-care market sector should be as well off as any other market under our form of capitalism.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 20, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Plot??? Do you mean the chart 


Rustic said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


 Duhhh! gee , late bloomer, did you just realize that??? Go figure...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 20, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...





NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


The narrative you think I changed is not my narrative. It comes from the SSA website. Secondly, the link and accompanying chart is referencing the depletion of the Trust Fund Reserves and cautions that  the key point in that depletion for legislative action is when the "RESERVES" fall below 20%. That leaves some wiggle room and  gives Congress time to choose one of two options: raise payroll taxes or reduce benefits by commensurate amounts.

)*The 2015 FICA rate was 15.3%* of which employees pay 7.65% while the employers pay 7.65%.  Further here is a chart that refutes your spurious claim that the FICA tax is higher now than it has ever been. If you don't understand this chart get  a fifth grader to help you!: 



Spoiler:  Historical FICA CHART


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 20, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Because there is no solution.   There is no 'fix' for socialism.   It fails every single time it's tried, throughout all the nations of the world, and throughout all history.
> 
> There is no 'fix' for this.  Never was.  Never will be.
> 
> ...



What a load of rubbish. Capitalism on its own does not work. Never has, never will. You need a mixture of both. As long as you have an underclass - and EVERY society has one - you need a mixture of both. Period. Nordic countries, NZ, some parts of Australia, the UK have socialised medicine. You never hear the amount of complaints you hear from US posters or the US in general about their health care.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 20, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> oh I see, YOU determine the standard and if YOU are happy then we are set. I reject the idea that you are something special there snowflake, and let me be clear in my conversation with you, I am not bitching as much about your HC system as I could not really care less what you do down there, I am bitching about you specifically. You are a self-righteous asshole declaring your thoughts and health care system superior.
> 
> Another thing to get straight here dumbfuk, it is the left, with people like you, that is constantly bitching here in the states. A lot of them don't work, and guess who is spending their days protesting?



Unlike you Petal? Bitching? Have you been on here the past eight years? All you neo con loons have been doing is bitching and moaning.

Fuck off about not working you arrogant twat. White unemployed trailer trash are the ones who voted for the Orange Buffoon. 

I'm not saying our healthcare is superior, I'm saying socialised medicine is not as bad as you little Petals say it is. I'm defending it because you nimrods don't have a clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 20, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


I dont complain about taxes, I complain about the way they are wasted trying to keep those alive that serve no purpose to society.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Most of your tax money goes to support the military and the working poor - you know, the people who are paid less than a living wage, while corporations take in record profits.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 20, 2017)

Two things would make nationalized medical care work:

1.  Free narcotics on demand.  Anyone who wants some can have all they want but are required to immediately (that means "right now", liberal scholars) all they take.  

2.  Mandatory tattoo of an expiration date on the sole of the leftmost foot of every newborn.  At any medical facility first part of the exam would involve removing the left shoe and sock and checking the date.  Once past - gtf OUT.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Feb 20, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


Why are you starting  a thread about socialized medicine. We do not have socialized  medicine. Not even close. We have some a segment of the insurance system that is socialized insurance-Medicare and Medicaid. The private sector,  for profit insurance industry and medical provider industry is alive and well.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 20, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


the working poor argument is idiotic, not all jobs qualify for a "living wage"  I have no personal obligation to subsidize a non skilled, non educated individual just because they cant make ends meet on their job at Burger King. 
 Maybe you feel compelled to do so, and thats fine, you are certainly free to give every spare dollar you make to someone that needs it. You do not have a constitutional right to demand the rest of us pay into your pet projects. 
 by the way, you might want to check your numbers, you will find that welfare spending (social services) is quite a bit more than military spending. Paying the moochers is now over 70% of the revenue brought in.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 20, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



And just who are YOU to judge the worthiness of any human?


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



And yet in my country, Burger King pays a living wage, as to McDonald's, Walmart and all of the other corporations who are leaching off the American middle class at home.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 20, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


If Im paying for them, Im buying the right to judge. 
 just like any employer has the right to judge the people he pays, just like any one has the right to judge anyone that they pay.
 Dont want me to judge? dont force me to pay them.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 20, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


you should most likely just stay in your own country. Here, Burger King is not considered a high tech job.
 as a matter of fact, if you dont live in the U.S, what right do you have to complain about anything that goes on here? Honestly, it is not possible that it affects you in any way regardless of how much Burger King pays here.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > oh I see, YOU determine the standard and if YOU are happy then we are set. I reject the idea that you are something special there snowflake, and let me be clear in my conversation with you, I am not bitching as much about your HC system as I could not really care less what you do down there, I am bitching about you specifically. You are a self-righteous asshole declaring your thoughts and health care system superior.
> ...





Maryland Patriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



I didn't say that Burger King was a high tech job.  You said that these people aren't entitled to a living wage.  Anyone who works a 40 hour week should earn enough money to keep a roof over their head and food in their belly.  You seem to resent subsidizing these wages, and you blame the people who aren't paid enough to live on, instead of the corporations who keep them dependent on government handouts.

You're blaming the wrong people.  Blame those who benefit the most from this system - the employers and their shareholders.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 20, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


An employer doesn't get to judge  and determine if an employee is worthy of life. To suggest they can is as egregious as anything I have heard, especially when that judgement is biased and based on assumptions. And your tax dollars aren't yours once you send that check in. It belongs to all of us, and is at the disposal of those officials  charged with distributing it as they see fit. That being said, we al judge people in one way or another; but, when your judgement turns potentially pathological to the point that you see other human beings as being unworthy of life, especially those you judge by appearance alone, you may need to see a psychiatrist.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 21, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/709letter_DI_Senate_2016.pdf
> ...



Only in mindless leftard world does "Trust fund with ZERO reserves" mean it's not broke.

You are too stupid to continue debating with.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 21, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



But an employer does get to judge if he's worthy of pay.  

I don't care what you think is pathological or not.   If 51% say that you don't get our money, then you don't.     Welcome to democracy idiot.  That's it works.

And by the way... if you try and push this too far....  You end up with people keeping their money, no matter what you say.   Again, look at Greece.  As taxes went up and up, people paid less and less.   Same is true here in America.  It's called the shadow economy, where people simply refuse to pay tax, and there is nothing you can do about it.   The shadow economy is worth an estimated $2 Trillion dollars.   That's mechanics that do cash only backyard business.  That's pipe fitters, and HVAC, that do work off the books.   

The more you demand that our tax money is yours to have, the more of us simply refuse to pay it.

Yeah, we'll see how much you demand we pay for your programs in the years to come.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 21, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


If you are too stupid to understand that I am simply agreeing with the SSA's  website, indeed you are too dense to continue  debating. Stop taking things personally. If the SSA says it is not going broke and explained clearly why not, that ought to be  enough for  anyone to understand. that "going broke" phrase has led  younger Americans to believe there won't be anything left  when they reach retirement age. That is false.

As an aside, the process is far more complex than you might realize. As Baby boomers reach retirement age many are staying on the job and getting social security at the same time. But as long as they work they still have to pay income taxes ...HOWever,  the LFPR reflects, among other things, that millions  of BBs are retiring. And withTrump placing a freeze on Federal jobs, he is contributing to the  projected shortfall of the Trust Funds by reducing the federal workforce where higher pay translates into more taxable income and more  FICA tax volume. But it doesn't stop there. The private  sector workforce growth is  going to be curtailed too if Trump's immigration plan works-out. I don't know if anyone has stopped to think about how much income tax ad FICA revenue will be lost when  the  undocumented workers go.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 21, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



No, your explanation is dumb.   By your logic nearly no one in the entire country which has filed bankruptcy is broke.

In fact, I have co-worker right now, that filed bankruptcy.   But he still has a job.  So he still has income.  So by your idiotic, and brainlessly stupid perspective.....   he's not broke!  He's never gone broke!  Yes he has zero money in the bank, and all his assets are sold off now.... but no no, because he's got an income still... he's not broke! 

No... he's broke.  Having money coming in still, doesn't mean he's not broke.  He's got no money in the bank or anywhere.   Yes he still has just enough to keep fuel in the car so he can get to work, but he's lost everything.  He's broke.

You.... are an idiot. You have proven to everyone here, you are disqualified to talk about this subject.

Thanks for playing. Have nice day.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 21, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


The discussion was about one of you RW homicidal maniacs entertaining the thought of liquidating people you deem unworthy of life for economic reasons.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 21, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



You want to pay for me, so I can quit my job, and live off your income?  By all means, send me your checks, and practice what you preach.

It's pretty easy for you to demand others pay for the lives of everyone else.  Funny how when it's your money, you don't do so well.

We have problem being FORCED to fund others.  I have no problem with charity, and conservatives routinely give more to charity than you left-wingers ever do.

But forcing me to keep you alive, simply because you refuse to work?  Yes, I agree with him on that.   I'm a firm believer that if you don't work, you shouldn't eat.

By the way, all those Nordic countries you left-wingers all praise constantly, they don't do it your way either.  They do it our way.    I was looking up I think Denmark, and they don't have welfare at all... none.   They have limited unemployment compensation.  First you can't even collect until you work a full year.  Then you only can collect if you are laid off, not if you quit, or are even relocated, and refuse to move.   Then you can only collect for exactly one year, and if you don't work by then, you starve.

That's the kind of system I support.  Not you.  Not your welfare, leech of society living off the hard work of others for life, system that you propose and constantly push.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 21, 2017)

When health care is not being provided otherwise, a system that does deliver it is necessary. If that system is called 'socialized' by some people, so be it. Again, if all the Americans who claimed to be Christian were Christian, such a thing as government administered health care would be uncalled for. Health care is not being taken care of otherwise, so collective effort is necessitated.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 21, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> When health care is not being provided otherwise, a system that does deliver it is necessary. If that system is called 'socialized' by some people, so be it. Again, if all the Americans who claimed to be Christian were Christian, such a thing as government administered health care would be uncalled for. Health care is not being taken care of otherwise, so collective effort is necessitated.



The more collective it gets the worse off everyone ends up.   Now if your ok with that, fine, lets socialize, and be ready for higher death rates, like we see in Europe and around the world.

You can come up with all your excuses as to why we need government run health care, but none of those reasons change the fact that your system doesn't work.

The only system that simply has not provided health are, would be the VA system.   Let's have people on a 3 year waiting list, until they die off.   That's exactly what happened, just like in Canada, and the UK, and elsewhere.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 21, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


How many times do I have to tell your dumbass  that it is not MY LOGIC that you are wrestling with. BTW, you should know that bankruptcy is not the proper term for government shortfalls.  You analogy is stupid

For other interested parties with common sense, not YOU Andylusion,  be aware that when the reserves of the OAIS is depleted by 2034( I don't think Congress will allow that to happen) the income for those Trust Funds will be  enough for 3/4 of obligations through year 2090. That is 56 years. Since inception the Trust Funds have collected bout 19 Trillion dollars and have paid out about  16 Trillion. That three trillion balance will sustain full benefit payouts until around 2034-37.

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935, scheduled benefits have always been paid on a timely basis through a series of modifications in the law that will continue. Social Security provides a basic level of monthly income to workers and their families after the workers have reached old age, become disabled, or died. The program now provides benefits to over 50 million people and is financed with the payroll taxes from over 150 million workers and their employers. *Further modifications of the program are a certainty as the Congress continues to evolve and shape this program, reflecting the desires of each new generation.*

This article describes the financial status of the Social Security program, including an analysis of the concepts of solvency and sustainability and the relationship of Social Security to the overall federal unified budget. The future is uncertain in many respects, and based on new information, projections of the financial status of the Social Security program vary somewhat over time. *What is virtually certain is that the benefits that almost all Americans become entitled to and most depend on will be continued into the future with modifications deemed appropriate by their elected representatives in the Congress.
*
Here is the ink that some, like Andy,  will read into and pick out portions alluding to insolvency. But the article gives an in depth look at how approaching insolvency issues were handled in the past and how they will likely be handled now and in the future to keep those checks coming. The Funds are not going to go broke, although to some, it appears that way right now, But that is nothing new, we have been there before and I am confident that Congress will rise to the occasion once again to keep the Funds solvent enough to keep paying full benefits well int the future. Again, a the risk of it being misread,  and turned against me I submit the link with no hesitation  or mental evasion.
Glean the knowledge  herein and petition your congressperson to act to take measures to bolster the Trust RESERVES with all due haste as congress has done twice before.

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 21, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Go on, refuse to pay your tax obligation, I dare you! Besides going to prison, where you will be taken care of  onMY DIME, how ironic. there are other ramifications.
If all Rw nuts stop paying their taxes, the left won't pay any either. Then guess what? Infrastructure starts to deteriorate; soldiers, teachers cops and firemen stop getting paid and walk off the job and we become sitting ducks for enemies who would pour through the unmanned  ports of entry inTRUMP's wall!


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 21, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> You want to pay for me, so I can quit my job, and live off your income? By all means, send me your checks, and practice what you preach.



You have me confused with someone else. I have always worked for a living.  And I  don't condone any able bodied person  that abuses the system by free-loading. And while I realize that  some people do game the system, even  some middle classed people get section 8 housing and use food stamps sometimes, tjhe vast majority  of  those o with few options take welfare assistance fully cognizant of the stigma that hangs over their heads when it is revealed to more fortunate  people. Perhaps  my Christian upbringing  is what makes my worldview different from yours. SO when you encounter a poor person that might be on welfare, don't think of your dollars being used for his/her well being, think of mine. Your dollars  are being spent on drones and Trump's Towers where his family is ensconced . It is MY tax dollars and people like me that sustain the welfare of the poor and downtrodden.



Andylusion said:


> It's pretty easy for you to demand others pay for the lives of everyone else. Funny how when it's your money, you don't do so well.



IIT IS MY MONEY, Do you thinkI don't pay taxes?  Read the above suggestion and act accordingly when your emotions get out of control over welfare recipients.



Andylusion said:


> We have problem being FORCED to fund others. I have no problem with charity, and conservatives routinely give more to charity than you left-wingers ever do.



Again, millions of your tax dollars are being spent on  the security of Trump's family in his own hotels. He is making a killing, yet, you begrudge a welfare mom her paltry pittance, shame on you!



Andylusion said:


> But forcing me to keep you alive, simply because you refuse to work? Yes, I agree with him on that. I'm a firm believer that if you don't work, you shouldn't eat.



Me???? Hardly. I'm a t ax payer. Your tax dollars are  going into Trump's pockets, mine are going to feed the poor and hungry!



Andylusion said:


> By the way, all those Nordic countries you left-wingers all praise constantly, they don't do it your way either. They do it our way. I was looking up I think Denmark, and they don't have welfare at all... none. They have limited unemployment compensation. First you can't even collect until you work a full year. Then you only can collect if you are laid off, not if you quit, or are even relocated, and refuse to move. Then you can only collect for exactly one year, and if you don't work by then, you starve.



Socialist countries rarely have to resort to welfare... didn't you know that?



Andylusion said:


> That's the kind of system I support. Not you. Not your welfare, leech of society living off the hard work of others for life, system that you propose and constantly push.



My society consists of all kinds of people , capitalist leeches as well as a few welfare leeches.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 21, 2017)

The French system works fine.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


those jobs are meant for high school kids, high school kids do not need a living wage. If you want a living wage then get training in a specific field or an education that will qualify you for a career job. You start paying the cashier at the fast food place a living wage and it wont be long before that fast food place is out of business.
 I know you think the owner of that fast food franchise is getting rich, but the reality is that he is not, in some cases, the owner might not even make much more than a living wage. People like you that think every job can pay enough to raise a family on has no clue what it costs to run a business.
 How about a grocery store? should everyone there make a living wage? where will that money come from? grocery stores only operate on about a 2% profit margin, so where is the money to double or triple everyones wages coming from? oh thats right, raise the price of the food they sell. but wait, if they do that, then that new living wage wont be enough to buy the food at the higher prices.
 How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 21, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


In socialized medicine, there are no deadbeats, except for people who don't pay their taxes, like Donald Trump.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...


how about the ones that pay no taxes because they are already sucking off the taxpayer for their welfare.
 Kinda makes them a double deadbeat if you ask me.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> those jobs are meant for high school kids, high school kids do not need a living wage. If you want a living wage then get training in a specific field or an education that will qualify you for a career job. You start paying the cashier at the fast food place a living wage and it wont be long before that fast food place is out of business.
> I know you think the owner of that fast food franchise is getting rich, but the reality is that he is not, in some cases, the owner might not even make much more than a living wage. People like you that think every job can pay enough to raise a family on has no clue what it costs to run a business.
> How about a grocery store? should everyone there make a living wage? where will that money come from? grocery stores only operate on about a 2% profit margin, so where is the money to double or triple everyones wages coming from? oh thats right, raise the price of the food they sell. but wait, if they do that, then that new living wage wont be enough to buy the food at the higher prices.
> How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.



Jobs in fast food outlets are not meant for high school kids.  If they were, they'd be closed during school hours.  I'm not suggesting that one should be able to raise a family on a minimum wage job, but it should pay enough to pay rent and buy food for the worker.  Currently even those things have to be subsidized for the workers.

Fast food franchisees aren't getting rich but the executives at MacDonald's and Burger King sure are.  Those are some of the most profitable corporations in America.  Seems like the corporate headquarters take all of the profits, leaving the people who actually make and sell the burgers with little to show for their work.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > those jobs are meant for high school kids, high school kids do not need a living wage. If you want a living wage then get training in a specific field or an education that will qualify you for a career job. You start paying the cashier at the fast food place a living wage and it wont be long before that fast food place is out of business.
> ...


4% of gross sales is what the McDonalds corporation takes from its Franchises. 4%. really is not that much. 
 oh, and they would be closed during the school hours, not really, there are also college kids, kids with half days, kids that dont have classes every day (those are the smarter kids)


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 21, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



There's also no incentive to "abuse" the system.  Medical care is a given.  If you're sick you go to the doctor.  You're not going to get a bill for it or have to complete paperwork to do so.  You just call the office and make an appointment, or walk into emergency.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 21, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


I'm so jealous.  I was 100% behind it when I voted for Obama.  That's what I thought I was going to get.  Then we get this shambles of a mess instead.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Oh, shaddup.  I'm sick of hearing about you stingy assholes and your welfare whining.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


and then wait 6 months for your appointment.
 I like the way it is or was before the ACA screwed everything up. I would call and get a same day appointment, most I ever waited for a specialist was 5 days,


OldLady said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


might not be so jealous if you actually looked at how it was funded. You think fuel is expensive here? look at some places like NZ where a gallon of fuel is close to $7.00 due to taxes to cover the cost of the "free" health care.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


well to be honest, we are somewhat sick of you thieving bastards constantly trying to take more of what is rightfully ours to pay for your free lifestyle. 
 I guess it all depends on how much self respect you have, if you have none, then you have no problem stealing other peoples labor.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I was willing to have a bigger hunk of my paycheck eaten.  At least it would have been worth something if we had universal healthcare.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


I would be willing to have a greater amount taken from my check if it went toward a wall and the cost of finding and deporting all of the illegals.
 Hopefully that will come soon.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


Amble over to the nearest rosebush, sit and ROTATE.  I've never taken anything from the government.  People like you hurt the conservative argument more than you help it with your stupid overgeneralizations.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


I'm sure that will happen (a greater amount taken from our checks).  Yes, I heard on the news this a.m. that Trump is ordering the hiring of 15,000 more border guards and people to process the illegals.  It's out of my hands; what will be will be.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


never taken from the government? Somehow I doubt it, but lets for a moment pretend that you have not.
 You still think it ok to take needed dollars from one person against their will in order to give it to someone that refuses to provide for themselves.
 That, is theft. 
 considering that social programs are basically 70% of the U.S governments expense, I would have to say that if I were to get 70% of my taxes back, it would pay for a new car. 
 So, your social programs have cost people a great deal. Its not fair. If I earn it, I should be able to spend it as I please. The only things that should be covered by taxpayers are those things that are specifically listed in the constitution as a duty of the government to provide. Nothing more. all social programs should be charity based.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



I worked with franchise agreements, including McDonalds.  Yes, they pay 4% of sales for a franchise fee, but the stores are also owned by head office and rented to the franchisee.  The store owner pays a huge upfront fee and buys a turnkey operation, paying rent for the store, in addition to franchise fees, and rent is not static.  

Rent is paid as a flat amount or as a percentage of sales.  The advertizing and promotion fee is not less than 4% of sales.  That's in addition to the 4% basis franchise fee.  There are also monthly fees for software licenses and support, which can add around   $1,000 per month to the fees payable.

So yes, really, head office skills off every dollar imagineable.  And if the owner falls behind on these payments, well, the corporation owns the store.  They'll simply evict him and put someone else in there who can upfront the close to $1 million in startup capital.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


some stores are corporate owned, some shareholder owned and some are owned by the actual proprietor of the store, or Privately. 
 There are options to having a McDonalds. Those that are owned privately can not be taken by the corporation, the corporation can take down the signs and force changes to any other patented facet of the organization, I dont know but maybe the color scheme or the arches, whatever, but the owner would lose the right to sell as McDonalds however he would have the right to turn his store into anything he wanted once the signs were all down.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



McDonald's owners have complained for years that corporate lives in a parallel universe and have no understanding of the realities of today's fast food business.   With their multi-million dollar salaries they have been effectively poisoning generations of Americans unchallenged.  Now with stories of disgusting pink goo being used in their foods, and who can forget the stuff that came out in "Supersize Me", well, it's a really bad time for corporate to screw over the franchisees and claim huge profits.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


could be, generally speaking I rarely eat at any fast food place. Not so much because of the pink goo,, although, that is another good reason, but more for health. I just dont think that type of diet is healthy for me.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> could be, generally speaking I rarely eat at any fast food place. Not so much because of the pink goo,, although, that is another good reason, but more for health. I just dont think that type of diet is healthy for me.



I never eat at McDonalds.  When they first opened, I went a few times, and got violently ill for three days after.  I stopped eating there - ever.  I have some sort of inherited sensitivity to chemicals in food and have eaten organic or close to it, all of my life.  McDonald's is the only fast food I've ever eaten that I have consistently had this reaction to.

For burger's, #1 are Hero Burgers, and #2 is Harvey's, #3 White Spot.  All are Canadian chains.  Harvey's is a national Canadian chain, Hero Burgers I've never seen outside of Toronto and Hamilton, and White Spot is in British Columbia.  Wendy's is the only American Burger chain, I'll eat.  Burger King is only marginally better than McDonalds in that it doesn't make me ill for three days after eating it, but it doesn't taste good.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 21, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



How can Trump hire 15,000 border guards without asking Congress for an appropriation?  He still hasn't filed an appropriation request for his wall yet.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 21, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.



So they should be thrown on the scrap heap of society?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 21, 2017)

*




*
*Do 'pro-life' Republicans want 6-year-old Timmy Morrison to die along with Obamacare?*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 21, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.
> ...


that would be a "mighty white" thing to do ....the Christian thing


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 21, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Yes of course liberal, it continues to 'evolve' by having to repeatedly raise taxes to save it, that's your sick version of 'progress'. I am in one of the first generations that will get less than I put into it in absolute dollar terms and each generation after me gets the shaft worse and worse. For those of us who can think that is a failure, but alas you cannot comprehend such subtleties.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 21, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



then pay it, I however am not so willing to keep getting ripped off


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 21, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



how can you people be this stupid?


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 21, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > oh I see, YOU determine the standard and if YOU are happy then we are set. I reject the idea that you are something special there snowflake, and let me be clear in my conversation with you, I am not bitching as much about your HC system as I could not really care less what you do down there, I am bitching about you specifically. You are a self-righteous asshole declaring your thoughts and health care system superior.
> ...




We pay more for socialized medicine than you do on a per capita basis, so we are actually more socialized than you and it is a fiscal failure. We have twice as many people on disability, and therefore also Medicaid and Medicare, than you have population. We have more underperforming minorities as a percentage than you as well. I have been in a single payer single provider system in the military, and it sucks.

It is terrible, it never has enough money and all the left does is bitch that we need more of it. It is quite clear who the non working and non tax paying people vote for here in the US, care to correct that lie?

 My bitch is with lefty pricks like you declaring it a success and demanding more of this failure.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 21, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



nobody said anything about liquidating people you liar


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


evidently you all actually know his name, how come the liberals are going to let him die instead of sending him the money for care?
 Any idea how ignorant it is to use a child as a disposable pawn in your fight for the "right" to steal more of the working peoples paycheck?
 instead of using this as a political ploy, you really should see to it that the little tyke gets the care he needs, write that check today.
Unless of course this is bull shit, as I suspect it is since nobody has ever been denied health care because they couldnt pay.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.
> ...


maybe they should get a job or an education like the rest of us that are stuck paying for the freeloaders.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


at least you finally admit that the military and the police along with a well manned wall on the southern border is more important to the country than the freeloader that refuses to lift a finger to provide for themselves.
 Progress is being made, before you know it, you will be voting American, (conservative)


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 21, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.
> ...



they threw themselves there, so what?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 21, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


they really did, however again, nobody goes without care if they need it. Maybe someone can give me a link to a hospital that wheeled patients out the back door that were not ready to leave simply because they did not have insurance. ( excluding michelle obamas way of doing it, becuase,, well, she is a liberal and that would be detrimental to the conservatives are bad argument Articles: Michelle Obama's Patient-Dumping Scheme )


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 22, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Yes, I agree.  The right-wing is already paying the most in taxes, while the left often pays as little as possible.

Many refuse to pay their taxes every year.  As I said, the shadow economy is already $2 Trillion.  And yes, I will be taken care of on your tax dime.   Just as you have done for many others, and the numbers will grow, and your income will shrink until everyone is left impoverished.    Again, Greece tried that plan.... see how well it worked?   Look at Venezuela, same thing.

And for the record, if it gets to that point, I'll just move.  I've already thought about it.  Why should I be forced to pay for your programs?  I can easily live somewhere else.  Currently, things are not so bad.  But if you guys keep pushing your way, yeah, I'll leave with the rich, and leave you to your misery.

Again you can come up with all your reasons why people should pay ever increasing amounts of taxes.  The fact remains we won't.   All that blaw bawl blaw about fire and police and infrastructure and education.... all doesn't matter.  People will not pay ever growing amounts of taxes.   Again, look at Greece.  See, it doesn't matter how amazing your education system is, if taxes makes working not worth it.   That's why they get their amazing education, and then leave the country.   It doesn't matter how amazing your free health care is, if you can't afford to pay for a decent house in Venezuela.   You pack up and leave the country.

Doesn't matter how amazing all your social services in France are, if you lose everything you have worked so hard to earn.  So over a half million people have left France, and most are the wealthy and business and job creators.... and unemployment is over 10% even to this day.

The debt in France is increasing.  The economy stumbling.   If they don't change their policies, which they are in fact trying to do, Greece will have company in the rank of failed nations.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 22, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > You want to pay for me, so I can quit my job, and live off your income? By all means, send me your checks, and practice what you preach.
> ...



There is no such thing as a capitalist leach.  The very concept is impossible.

You can't get my money, in a capitalist system, unless you do something that I am willing to pay for.

A socialist, or welfare leach, is inherent to the system.  By its nature, you are sending men with guns (as you already threatened me in a prior post) to come and throw me in prison, unless I give money to other people who have not earned it.

That is the definition of a social leach in my book.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 22, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


Good point.  We'll see if Congress funds them.  He's taken the first step.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 22, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Deadbeats don't pay their bills.  There are no bills in socialized medicine.  The money comes from all taxpayers.  Hence my statement.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 22, 2017)

OldLady said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Someone has to pay for something they do not want and will never use, see thats the problem with any form of socialized medicine.... in reality one size never fits all.


----------



## OldLady (Feb 22, 2017)

Rustic said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


You've never been to the doctor?  I'm always amazed by people who have never been sick a day in their lives.  Incredible genes.  Good for you!


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 22, 2017)

Rustic said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...



You mean like I have to pay for wars I don't agree with, or the fire department, that I've never called in my entire life.  Stuff like that?


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 22, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



There are lot of capitalistic leaches.  The idea that those who employ others are somehow morally superior to those they employ is laughable.  Leaches pollute the water or the land without concern because they're making money.  They underpay they employees or pay the least they can get by with.  They give "promotions" to management positions so they can avoid paying overtime.  They do everything possible to minimize what their workers are paid or receive, to their own benefit.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 22, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Good point.  We'll see if Congress funds them.  He's taken the first step.



He hasn't really done anything, if you look at it closely.  He signed a meaningless Executive Order to hire the border guards.  The President can't just sign an EO to hire border guards, he has to go through Congress for an appropriation first.  He has to do the paperwork to PROVE to Congress that the country needs 15,000 people to round up illegals, and then where they are going to work, i.e. do they have the facilities for these people - stations, support staff, vehicles, equipment, and other resources they will need, and how much will those cost, etc., etc., etc.  Trump thinks he's been elected dictator and every word he utters is a command.  That just isn't how it works. 

When I go to work at a new law firm, the first thing I have to learn is the process by which I access trust funds.  What paperwork did I need to complete, who signs it and who processes it.  Trump no longer works for a family owned corporation, and his every wish is no longer a command.  He has to do the paperwork, and file it according to the established standard of accountability required by law and the rules of governance.  Even Trump can't spend the taxpayers' money without obtaining the authorization and consent of Congress, and Paul Ryan has his Congressional Budget Committee hard at work on the new budget.  Ryan has said they're waiting for the list of appropriations from the White House.  Ryan's had his numbers ready for quite some time.

It's hard to get appropriations from the White House, because so many departments aren't staffed yet.  Trump is the slowest President in history to staff his Administration.  It's not because the Senate isn't confirming his picks, it's that he's sent over so few names for confirmation.

Already you have posters on this board telling us that Trump has done more in one month than Obama did in 8 years, but Trump has done exactly nothing - except a failed immigration order.  There are only broad announcements of things that are "done", but stopping funding for NGO's in Third World Countries for abortion is something every Republican President does the moment they're sworn in and is meaningless to the lives of everyday Americans.

Pulling out of TPP required no effort, work or money, just an announcement and probably some kind of Notice.  Despite 6 years of Republicans repealing Obamacare, they still don't have a replacement, so Obamacare hasn't gone anywhere yet.  

Go down that list of his supposed accomplishments so far, and there's none of them that have happened.  They're all "We're going to . . . You'll see".  He has presented no Bills for Congress, filed no appropriations, and filled few executive positions.  After being publically rejected by the two men he sought to head the NSA, he picked a career soldier still serving in the military who *couldn't *turn him down.

By this point in his Administration, Obama had passed his stimulus package through the House and Senate, had three times as many of his administration executive staff confirmed, and passed the Lily Leadbetter Fair Pay Act. 

This is the difference between a President who cares about the country and getting things done, and a President who goes around the country telling people about everything he's getting done and what a mess he inherited.  Trump didn't inherit an economy shedding half a million jobs every month, 2 "boots on the ground wars" in the Middle East, a housing crisis and a bankrupt auto industry.

Other than fake terrorist attacks in Bowling Green, Atlanta and Sweden, what crisis, other than the immigration crisis precipitated by his idiot EO, has Trump dealt with?

And isn't it time that Congress put a limit on his excessive lifestyle spending, or at least bills him for it?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 22, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Well, yes, I have  heard of a capitalist *leach*, the Flint River is full of it.   But the capitalist *leeches *who put the leach in Flint river water have distanced themselves from it and capitalist leeches just like them are now proceeding to dismantle the EPA. Obviously you are not familiar with the  word 'LEECH" and how it can be applied to Capitalists.
You can't even spell it right!

A visual might help you just like they did  in the first grade...:


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 22, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


what does my going to a doctor have to do with anyone else going to a doctor? If I go, I pay with money I earned by working. If the loafer goes, he pays with money I earned by working. ( pretty sure you fail to see a problem here)
 Now being a male, I am fairly certain that I will not end up in a position to need an abortion, or to have my uterus checked or have my titties squished in some barbaric manner to look for cancer. So, why should I pay for these things? and before you go there, Im too ugly to have sex, Im bisexual, If I get sex, I buy it, so Im not even going to be creating the need for someone else to have an abortion. Besides, I had the grapes severed from the vine after my daughter was born healthy, I only wanted on kid, so I figured that was a good way to avoid "accidents", and I paid for the procedure myself, I didnt even use insurance for that one. If its fairly cheap, I usually pay out of pocket, sometimes its easier than going through the process of convincing the insurance company that something is required and not an elective.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 22, 2017)

OldLady said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



what a piece on convoluted horseshit

Yes there are bills in socialized medicine, EVERYTHING has a cost, so how the hell do you come up with that? Those bills are paid by the minority of people in this country who pay most of the taxes while the deadbeats on Medicaid pay nothing.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 23, 2017)

Rustic said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


Millions of us don't want no fruckin' wall but we are going to have to pay for it 'cause humpty trumpty wants one with his name on it!BTW I don't like spending *10 million dollars a month *on security for Trump and his family when they travel, especially when his boys go on long personal business trips overseas...By contrast, Obama spent 11 million on travel for an entire year. Are you OK with that???


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 23, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I actually know several people who have never been, and refuse to go to doctors.  It's not all that rare.  The last one I met was in her 70s.  Still hadn't been to a doctor yet.

It's not that 'incredible".    You do realize that 99% of human history, there were no real hospitals.  Just shamans and herb drinks, and of course priests.

When people say "how can you possible live without a doctor?" I find that as baffling as kids today asking how can anyone live without a smart phone.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 23, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Such a lame red herring argument.

First off, the fire department, is not a duty of the Federal government, nor does the Federal government pay for that.

That is a local issue paid by local tax.   If you in your city, decide you don't want to have a fire department, knock yourself out.  If you decide you do, knock yourself out.  That's a local issue decided at the local level.  I have no problem with you doing whatever you want at the local level.

The constitution specifically says that all rights not listed in the constitution, are reserved to the states.    So by all means.   If you want to have a massive socialized system, go for it.  But don't ask us in Ohio, to pay for your stupidity in California, that is bankrupting your state.   That's not in the constitution.  You pay your own bills.  Not force the rest of us, to pay for your incompetence.

Second, you left-wingers always point to hundreds of things small things, like the Fire department, and police, and a road somewhere, and act like our problem is with that, or even the military.

We could easily.... EASILY... fund the military, all the roads and bridges, all the fire departments, all the police, all the courts, and the worthless post office... and have so much money left over, that we could cut taxes by more than 50%, and still have money to put in a rainy day fund.

The US government collects almost 5 Times as much money as would be required to fund everything that is in the constitution as a duty of the Federal government.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 23, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Depends.    If he cuts government spending by 1 Billion.   He can take a dozen trips, and I don't care.

The US Federal budget is $4 Trillion, and we have a $450 billion dollar deficit.   If he cuts spending by just 1%, that's a savings of $40 Billion dollars to the tax payers.   He could go on vacation for the rest of his life, and we'd still be better off with him, than some tax spend budget blowing left-winger.

That said, I don't know if all this vacation cost stuff is true anyway.    From what I understand, the entire cost is all security related.   Now granted, I'm not a member of the secret service, but as best I understand everyone that is in charge of guarding the president is full time, salary, Federal Government employees.

They don't exactly "contract out" security work for the president of the united states.   I highly doubt they are hiring contractor bob, to guard the president.  Just saying.

Point being, all those security agents, are all on salary.   You under what I mean?  They are not paid more, when he goes on a vacation, and they are not paid less when he stays at the White House.   

The key for me was when they said they were 'estimating' the cost of his trip.  Well we know the government must give budget reports that include the hard cost of line items like security.   If there was a line item for 'travel security' we'd see it and you wouldn't need to 'estimate' the cost.

   They were likely looking at how much security agents are paid for the year, and pro-rating it for a trip, and then multiplying that by how many agents there were in his security detail.   

I'm guessing there is no real additional cost at all, other than the cost of transportation... which literally means fuel.   They are not hiring temp staff to fly Air Force one either.   Could it be $10 Million in fuel?   I doubt it.   Not likely.

I don't think there is anything to this 'vacation' cost numbers at all.  For Obama or Trump.  Just another political football to kick around stirring up the ignorant.  I could be wrong.  I could be completely wrong, but I doubt it.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Feb 23, 2017)

Rustic said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


Idiocy.
I havent had cancer yet. If I do in the future then the NHS is there for me.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 23, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Well, I do care. I don't want my tax dollars spent financing Trump's personal business trips to his posh night club resort in Mar-A -Lago. He stays in his own  accommodations but bills  his expenses to  the US taxpayers. That is FREE money from our tax dollars going right into the tax evading bastard's own pockets. And multiply that by how ever many Secret Service men that are with him. We are getting rolled by a pro and there is not a damn thing we can do about it except to  get his ass out of office as soon as possible,



			
				Andylusion said:
			
		

> The US Federal budget is $4 Trillion, and we have a $450 billion dollar deficit.   If he cuts spending by just 1%, that's a savings of $40 Billion dollars to the tax payers.   He could go on vacation for the rest of his life, and we'd still be better off with him, than some tax spend budget blowing left-winger.



Heh heh heh, let me see if I'm clear on this: Trump plans to build a wall that could cast as much as 30 -40 billion dollars, travel expense and accommodations for dozens of Secret Service agents guarding Trump's large family is projected to be 11 million a month.  Among  other things he hasn't considered is If Trump gets rid of all the tax paying illegals the free tax money they contributed to the IRS and FICA  funds will hasten the projected shortfalls years earlier than anticipated. Illegals pay about 13 billion  annually into the trust funds and get about1 billion in benefits. Add 12 billion to that list of lost revenue under Trump.



			
				Andylusion said:
			
		

> That said, I don't know if all this vacation cost stuff is true anyway.    From what I understand, the entire cost is all security related.   Now granted, I'm not a member of the secret service, but as best I understand everyone that is in charge of guarding the president is full time, salary, Federal Government employees.
> 
> They don't exactly "contract out" security work for the president of the united states.   I highly doubt they are hiring contractor bob, to guard the president.  Just saying.
> 
> Point being, all those security agents, are all on salary.   You under what I mean?  They are not paid more, when he goes on a vacation, and they are not paid less when he stays at the White House.



You are so clueless.  The salaries of the Secret Service teams isn't the issue. Some have to travel ahead to secure the  runway and terminal at the location  Air force 1 is to land. and also to secure the places where trump is  expected to eat , sleep and do business. All of the agents must be accommodated with   food, sleeping quarters and offices...
Trump's family has the same security  requirements  wherever they go even on personal business trips.



			
				Andylusion said:
			
		

> The key for me was when they said they were 'estimating' the cost of his trip.  Well we know the government must give budget reports that include the hard cost of line items like security.   If there was a line item for 'travel security' we'd see it and you wouldn't need to 'estimate' the cost.
> 
> They were likely looking at how much security agents are paid for the year, and pro-rating it for a trip, and then multiplying that by how many agents there were in his security detail.







			
				Andylusion said:
			
		

> I'm guessing there is no real additional cost at all, other than the cost of transportation... which literally means fuel.   They are not hiring temp staff to fly Air Force one either.   Could it be $10 Million in fuel?   I doubt it.   Not likely.
> 
> I don't think there is anything to this 'vacation' cost numbers at all.  For Obama or Trump.  Just another political football to kick around stirring up the ignorant.  I could be wrong.  I could be completely wrong, but I doubt it.



Yep, the ignorant sure have been stirred up...you are proof positive of that!


----------



## Rustic (Feb 23, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Elections have consequences...
I have no right to healthcare, but i do have right to earn healthcare.


----------



## Rustic (Feb 23, 2017)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


No one should be forced to pay for what "might" happen... that is no way to live.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Feb 23, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


The rest of us should not be forced to pay for it when it does happen because you were to irresponsible to plan for it. Don't conservatives constantly bleat about personal responsibility? Do you wait until you have an auto accident to gat auto insurance?


----------



## Rustic (Feb 23, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Mandated insurance is extortion, fortunately the IRS Is no longer enforcing the mandate...


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Feb 23, 2017)

*The Five Worst Things about Obamacare*
8:23 AM, FEB 23, 2017 | By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
In passing Obamacare, its supporters promised the moon. Obamacare was allegedly going to cost $938 billion over ten years, result in 23 million people getting insurance through its exchanges as of 2017, reduce the typical family's premiums by $2,500 a year, and make sure that if you liked your health plan and doctor, you could keep your health plan and doctor.

Seven years later, Obamacare is projected to cost $1.938 trillion over ten years (exactly $1 trillion more), only 9 million people haveinsurance through its exchanges as of 2017 (just 40 percent of the original CBO projection), the typical family's premiums have exploded, and millions of people who liked their plans lost their plans, as Obamacare effectively banned them. Many of them lost their doctors as well......

But its for the people Comrades !!!!!     Lol


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 23, 2017)

Rustic said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


  I guess you are not a congress person, huh??? They have it all but don't really earn any of it. Its time to  make congress remember they are no better than the average joe. lucrative salaries , pensions and healthcare for doing nothing for most of the year while undermining your constituents access to government benefits is wrong.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 23, 2017)

Rustic said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


And what do you call it when the bills taxpayers get when thousands of uninsured people go to the emergency room after being involved in an accident or when they get seriously ill? Isn't that extortion too?  I hate to say it but if you want to  make me pay for your damn doctor bills , I am tempted to just say fuck you, no insurance no service... SOL! But that would impact the poor more than those who can afford insurance but just don't want to spend money on it. The PPACA was the best answer for universal healthcare. It would be even better without the damn middle men raising the premiums to offset "losses" to pay for people who actually use their insurance to get healthy again. For that reason alone, I endorse socialized medicine and the expanded use of Medical practitioners and Nurses to augment doctor shortages to meet the demand increase. If a ARMY PFC or SP4 MEDIC  is good enough to treat people in a combat environment, people wth those qualifications  can treat citizens. That scenario is especially significant in the age of technology where a team of 10 or more MEDICs can be guided by one or two doctors via audiovisual means to perform outpatient procedures and some superficial surgeries. We just need to eliminate  the leeches in the system  known as health care insurers!


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 23, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


typical idiot response, made without thinking.
 The bullshit that the left comes up with like free healthcare, welfare, phones etc.. are expenses that will always be there, they will always grow. but then you compare it to the wall that is a one time deal, build it and the expense is basically over, while at the same time saving more than it cost to build in the first place.
 As far as security? Considering that Trump is worth way more than the lawn jockey was, I am more than willing to pay for his security, besides, all presidents have the same security.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 23, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


again with the idiot comment without thinking.
 so we get stuck with a 1500 or 2000 dollar bill because some POS used the emergency room and didnt pay. Thats a whole lot cheaper than paying 1000 or more a month for that POS to have insurance that he might not be using at all.
 Its much cheaper to let them go without. But if they want it, there is certainly nothing stopping them from purchasing it.
 Not everything has to be free in life.


----------



## PK1 (Feb 23, 2017)

*Socialized medicine does not work...*

If so, how do you explain the "*happiest countrie*s" in the world having socialized medicine?

http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Feb 23, 2017)

PK1 said:


> *Socialized medicine does not work...*
> 
> If so, how do you explain the "*happiest countrie*s" in the world having socialized medicine?
> 
> http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf


there appears to be more countries that are not as happy as the U.S that also have socialized medicine, or was that fact not supposed to be pointed out.
 13 isnt bad when you consider how miserable the lefties are in this country. 
 At any rate, can you explain why so many with socialized medicine are not as happy as the U.S?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Feb 23, 2017)

Its obvious that the market isnt working in the US.
Why ?
Profit comes before patients.
Why do your medicines cost more than ours ?
Go figure.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 23, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...




If you think  my response was idiotic the average person must think yours is the mother of idiotic responses.  The "wall" depending on the design and construction will require maintenance and repair. And  I have seen nothing to suggest that such a wall will be saving moe than it costs. With two Oceans and a Canadian border still insecure, the wall will serve as little more than a tourist attraction with Trump's brand on it. I know you will scoff at the notion that most illegal immigrants in this country don't come across the Mexico/US border, most come here legally and subsequently overstay their visas. Why risk gettting shot at by jumping a fence when a  passport or visa willl allow you to get into the country on a bus or  plane. See how stupid you RW ffreaks are. You will fall for anything Trump proposes because you are WEAK++++

Also, DId you knowt he Prime minister of Canada has already invited refugees to head his way if the US doesn't want them? I doubt it If Trump doesn't tweet it to you you wouldn't know!

TRUMP's real worth:
Trump is not worth any more than anyone else. The chemical composition of his fat ass body might contain more fat cells than most, but the cost of those chemicals could be had for  less than $5.00.


----------



## PK1 (Feb 23, 2017)

Maryland Patriot said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > *Socialized medicine does not work...*
> ...


So you admit the OP's title is bogus; there's no correlation between socialized medicine and a country's happiness ... *or* ...
socialized medicine works well in developed & civilized countries.
USA is definitely an economic power, and if it became more equitable (civilized), maybe it would be a happier place to live. 
Perhaps?


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 23, 2017)

PK1 said:


> *Socialized medicine does not work...*
> 
> If so, how do you explain the "*happiest countrie*s" in the world having socialized medicine?
> 
> http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf



how do you explain grown adults thinking that they can present this crap as if it means something?

happiness is not an empirical variable, _*there are no error bars,*_ and the US is _*2.6%*_ away from socialist paradise Sweden, which is more than that away from Denmark. The US is not one place, nor one homogeneous people, it is a vast nation that varies greatly, it is supremely niave to think you can sum it all up with one number for a subjective emotion. Have you always been this stupid? or did it happen when you started believing the liberal religion?

Isreal is 'happier'! right, just fucking spot on


----------



## PK1 (Feb 23, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > *Socialized medicine does not work...*
> ...


What _"liberal religion" _? Have you always been this stupid with your anger issues?

I presented ONE study that associates ONE positive variable to countries that happen to have socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine can work; it obviously depends on the details of its implementation along with other variables.
Get a grip ...


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 23, 2017)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



EXCLUSIVE 200,000 desperate Britons go ABROAD for medical care as NHS waiting lists spiral

Is this true or false?   

Medigo.com, which provides medical travel advice, said enquiries from Britons had more than trebled in the last six months, which could mean that at least 190,000 are planning to travel abroad.​
Tell me, if the NHS is so great...   how is it that a company Medigo has 190,000 people clamoring to pay for health care?.... so many, that they can make money as a for-profit company?

NHS is free right?   Government provided health care, correct?    People are willing to pay money, when they have FREE health care from the NHS?    Apparently they are not saying "NHS is there for me".

See this is the difference between people like you, and right-wingers like me.   The left-wingers are always convinced of how great the system is, until they have to use it.   It's the people that show up, only to find they are on a 3 year long waiting list, that suddenly the left-wing socialist mythology is shattered.

Only a total rethink can save the NHS from collapse and satisfy such huge demand

HEALTHCARE systems around the world are in crisis. It’s not just the NHS and it’s not just in Britain.​
Crisis?   Doesn't sound like "NHS is there for me".

Girl to have US operation after NHS spinal surgery halted - BBC News

A teenager is to fly to the US for life-changing spinal surgery after an NHS trust stopped offering it.​
Wow, the NHS isn't there for her, is it?

Our entire country is in denial about the NHS, including Philip Hammond

Our entire country is in denial about the NHS, including Philip Hammond
As a society we’re in denial about this necessary trade-off between the rising demand for healthcare and the rates of tax we’re prepared to bear​
The only good news here, is it isn't even just the UK that is in denial.  It's the entire world on socialized health care, including Medicare here in the US.

The evidence is overwhelming, unanswerable, undeniable, and endless.   Socialized health care, just as anything else socialized, always fails.   The UK is heading down the same road as Greece.

My advice to you... better have some money saved up in case you need to fly to one of those evil capitalist hospitals in Singapore or India.... you know... just in case NHS isn't quite as 'there for you' as you think it is right now.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Feb 24, 2017)

"Other Variables" = Endless funnel of Expanding Tax Dollars


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 24, 2017)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Its obvious that the market isnt working in the US.
> Why ?
> Profit comes before patients.
> Why do your medicines cost more than ours ?
> Go figure.



That's not the reason Tommy.    Yes the market isn't working, because we don't have a market.

You can't blame the problems in a system on Capitalism, when it isn't a Capitalist system.

We have a very very socialized system in the US.

What is the number one complaint from all the left-wingers?   Cost.  They don't complain about the quality of care.  You don't see people saying treatment in the US is so bad, that they are flying to Pakistan to get treatment.

When they do surveys of medical tourists from the UK, what is the number one reason?  Wait times.  You wait for years to get treatment, which in the case of cancer or other illnesses can be lethal.

But when they do survey's of medical tourists from the US, what is the number one reason?   Cost.  I can get the same treatment for a few thousand, instead of $10 thousand, elsewhere.

So cost is the number one problem.   Well why is cost so high?   There are dozens of contributing factors, but the largest and most damaging is...... Government.   Namely Medicare and Medicaid.

Both Medicare and Medicaid, routinely pay less than the cost of care.    Since 50% or more of patients are gov-patients, that means the hospital would go bankrupt.   In order to not go bankrupt, they have to charge a much larger price to non-gov-patients, in order to cover the loss from gov-patients.






See?   As medicare and medicaid payments fall lower than the cost of care, the payments of private payers is increased to cover those losses.

The primary, number one, top of the list factor that makes health care so expensive in the US....  is government.

I could list you a dozen other causes to, like regulations, controls, price caps, everything... all government.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Feb 24, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Its obvious that the market isnt working in the US.
> ...


There are reasons for the current problems in the UK. Not least the government has a vested interest in introducing a privatised american style system in the UK.
I will find some links for you when I get a minute.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 24, 2017)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Of course they have vested interest.  All things political, don't happen without vested interest.   The whole reason our government is pushing for socialized care, is because they have vested interest.

Anytime any government does anything... whether you like it and agree with it, or if you hate it and oppose it.... both are only done for vested interest.


----------



## PK1 (Feb 24, 2017)

LogikAndReazon said:


> "Other Variables" = Endless funnel of Expanding Tax Dollars


Or, you can whine ...
_"Other Variables" = Endless funnel of Expanding Tax Dollars _
when referring to the Military budget, Infrastructure projects, building a wall against Mexico, or Canada (because cons are afraid of their socialized medicine LOL).
You can apply your useless pessimism to almost anything you don't like without much thought.
No logik needed!


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Feb 24, 2017)

The military budget averages around 4% of gdp.
Whats medicare & medicaid ?????  Lol

"Single Payer" .... No matter the Cost !!!!!!!!


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 24, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> The French system works fine.


Only the right wing is "unPatriotic" enough, to claim "Yankee forms of ingenuity" won't save the day.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 25, 2017)

PK1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



your liberal religion, the one that makes you think you can post the crap you did as if it means anything

it is not a study, it is a piece of religious propaganda... 'happiness index'? get a fucking brain

the lack of error bars alone tells a thinking person that the article is trash, your liberal church would never teach such a thing however


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 25, 2017)

LogikAndReazon said:


> The military budget averages around 4% of gdp.
> Whats medicare & medicaid ?????  Lol
> 
> "Single Payer" .... No matter the Cost !!!!!!!!



yeah medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP plus ACA are about 25% of the federal budget and there are actually idiots right here in this forum who will say we don't have socialized medical care


----------



## PK1 (Feb 25, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


Apparently, you are ignorant about psychological metrics, in addition to not understanding the difference between scientific methods & dogmatic religions.
Get an education ... to supplement your financial greed. There's more to happiness than tons of money.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 25, 2017)

PK1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Idiot, your piece of propaganda used a 0-10 scale to measure 'subjective happiness'  then made some assumptions about how to weight other metrics like GDP. Anybody who knows anything about science can see immediately that this is arbitrary crap, and making any conclusion about a 4% difference between USA and others is pure agenda driven horseshit

I am afraid you are the one showing a level of sophistication far below normal


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 25, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Its obvious that the market isnt working in the US.
> ...


 Perhaps you should rethink the notion that socialized medicine is failing everywhere. There plenty of evidence that contradicts you:

The U.S. health care system has been subject to heated debate over the past decade, but one thing that has remained consistent is the level of performance, which has been ranked as the worst among industrialized nations for the fifth time, according to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund survey 2014. The U.K. ranked best with Switzerland following a close second.

The Commonwealth Fund report compares the U.S. with 10 other nations: France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.K. were all judged to be superior based on various factors. These include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country. Results of the study rely on data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization and interviews from physicians and patients.

Although the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world, the nation ranks lowest in terms of “efficiency, equity and outcomes,” according to the report. One of the most piercing revelations is that the high rate of expenditure for insurance is not commensurate to the satisfaction of patients or quality of service. High out-of-pocket costs and gaps in coverage “undermine efforts in the U.S. to improve care coordination,” the report summarized.

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 25, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


The vested interest  is  a genuine concern for the heath of average people in a heavily capitalists indoctrinated country like the USA. Philanthropy isn't going to do it and the profit margins of health insurers won't do it. The Social models that prevail in most  industrialized nations have proven to be more favorable to the health and general welfare of the respective masses.
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 26, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Once again, this is baffling.       Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives:   What does health care have to do with healthy lives?   If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault?  If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

Equity:   So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care?     I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care.   Does that mean it's good care?

Efficiency:   Based on what?   French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do.    Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes.  They don't.   Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

Access:   Yeah, access to what?  A waiting list?  UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment.    They have more access to a list.   Great.  Again, what are the health care outcomes?   Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive?   The US.  By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes.   They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care.....   What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness?  What about that measurement?

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 26, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.



If you posted that information without a link, I probably dismissed it as pure fabrication.




Andylusion said:


> Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.



The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.




Andylusion said:


> Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?



Just post the links to your sources. Link less posts  have no value here.




Andylusion said:


> By the way, look at the measures for your survey.
> 
> Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?



If you had read the study you would have your answer.



Andylusion said:


> Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?


Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.




Andylusion said:


> Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.


I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't  match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK  ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.


Heart attack patients in hospital THREE TIMES more likely to die than those who have one at home | Daily Mail Online

 BTW, the US was dead last in outcomes according to the study!



Andylusion said:


> Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.


Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.




Andylusion said:


> Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....


You need to read the entire study. It does address outcomes and the US fared poorly. Once again, the survey of Physicians and patients was only a part of an in depth data analysis. Ands just to make  you more uncomfortable, here is an earlier study that does not include a survey. This one is based on research and data analysis only!:


Spoiler:  US has high rate of preventable dearths



The Commonwealth Fund  Mission:



The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.





*About the Study*

The authors use mortality and population data from the World Health Organization’s mortality database (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). They looked at rates of amenable mortality for people under age 65, as well as for those between ages 65 and 74, from conditions like treatable cancer, diabetes, infections, and heart disease.







*Key Findings*


Between 1999 and 2007, rates of potentially preventable deaths among men under age 75 fell by 18.5 percent in the U.S. During the same time period, the rate declined by 37 percent in the U.K., by 28 percent in France, and by 24 percent in Germany (2006).
For women, the rates fell by 17.5 percent in the U.S., 32 percent in the U.K., and 23 percent in both France and Germany.
In 2007, amenable mortality was highest in the U.S., with rates almost twice those seen in France, which had the lowest level of the four countries studied.
The pace of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other countries for the two age groups examined—individuals under age 65 and those ages 65 to 74. However, the lag was most pronounced among American men and women younger than 65. These individuals are more likely to be uninsured than are Medicare-eligible Americans age 65 and older. They are also more likely to be uninsured than their European counterparts, who have access to universal coverage.

*The Bottom Line*

Rates of potentially preventable death were highest in the United States, compared with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the rate of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other three countries.

In Amenable Mortality—Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care—Progress in the U.S. Lags That of Three European Countries



And don't start with that "we have more automobile accidents" BS. The study is controlled for people having specific ailments that killed them . The US had the highest rates for preventable deaths in the study!




Andylusion said:


> but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?


Click the spoiler to find out!





Andylusion said:


> And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.



Not according to the experts over at the Commonwealth Foundation and they have the data to back it up in all the known methodologies including surveys of physicans and their patients, research and data analyses of key  heath databases of W.H.O  ad other major health agencies.. The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 26, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.
> ...



the last commonwealth study ranked Britain number 1 in just about everything but second last in healthy lives without even blinking at the contradiction

here, this lady below does a fine job at ripping your vaunted study, I'll let her most of the talking. Pretty funny that one would conclude that _Sweden and Norway really suck at quality but have great health care systems.  _The US ranks fifth in quality, ahead of Norway and Sweden  according to your study, so what the hell are you bitching about quality for? Canada sucks just as bad as the US overall (LOL) but they have your holy grail single payer. France has shitty access, but they are very healthy (high outcomes). You chose a really poor study to back your claims as in fact it shoots down the liberal platform, all of the variables that set the US down in ranking have to do with cost and equity, not the quality of the care itself, and when one does have crappy access and quality as in France you can be healthier for it.







Digging deeper into the Commonwealth Fund health rankings
_*".....Except, one thing in that picture looks very peculiar. The UK, the poster child of frugal and immaculate perfection, scored almost as bad as we did in the only domain that can be regarded as an outcome: health. The bon vivant French people, with the worst access to care and horrific patient-centeredness, seem to enjoy the healthiest lives of all (and Jefferson is finally vindicated). Looking further, it seems that Sweden, where care is of abysmal quality, but most equitable and efficient, came in second in healthy lives and third overall. Can something even be simultaneously of low quality and very efficient? Can a country have dangerous, ineffective care, like Norway, and still be ranked comfortably in the middle of the pack? For inquiring minds of the confused variety, the study provides more granular data points to peruse, so let’s dive in*_

*.....Let’s dig in a little deeper.  The quality domain is divided into four subdomains: effective care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centeredness. Without debating this particular definition of quality, let’s look at how effectiveness is measured on two axes, preventive care and chronic care, each one assessed based on a series of data points. So for example, the first three prevention measures are:*


*the ease of printing out lists of patients due for preventive care*

*patients who received preventive care reminders*

*patients routinely sent computerized reminders for preventive and routine care*

*I would call this triple dipping, because the only measure that actually counts here is whether patients received reminders or not, and how they responded, which was not measured at all. Whether it is easy to “print out” lists, or whether people are bombarded with computer calls that nobody picks up the phone for, is irrelevant.

The U.S. was ranked 3rd for patients receiving reminders and 7th for the other two useless measures. The UK ranked 1st for the useless measures and 5th for the mildly pertinent measure. For the remaining preventive measures, dealing with lifestyle advice provided by physicians to their patients, the U.S. ranked 1st and 2nd overall. To assess effectiveness, I would have expected perhaps a ratio of reminders sent, to reminders acted upon by patients, or at least reminders received, instead of an average score for those two, plus some strange measure about printing lists to paper."

 
The chronic care portion of the effectiveness subdomain illustrates yet another logical flaw in the study. Similar to the preventive care measures, here too the U.S. scores decently on actual chronic care activities, and poorly on ease of producing lists. But the bigger issue is the one measure evaluating cost barriers to adherence, and as expected the U.S. scored poorly on affordability, which is what this measure is all about. It may be fine to blast the U.S. system for being expensive, but to say that we are paying too much for a bad system, while assessing badness based on the system being expensive, is circular logic that should have no place in serious scientific conversation.


*


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 26, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Great response but  somewhat limited  in regards to real substance.  You began your attack on the seeming contradiction between the UK's number one ranking in just about every column on the chart  ( the one you found in the link I posted)  except  for "healthy lives." Obviously, you don't respect the CF authors as professionals so you didn't  bother to read the accompanying explanation. I'll take the liberty of putting it here  where the goats ( and sheep) can get it: (note: after opening spoiler, click  again to close it for easier reading of the next  issue in this post.)



Spoiler: Healthy Lives, Explained



HEALTHY LIVES

The goal of a well-functioning health care system is to ensure that people lead long, healthy, and productive lives. To measure this dimension, Exhibit 8 includes three outcome indicators, including mortality amenable to health care—that is, deaths that could have been prevented with timely and effective care; infant mortality; and healthy life expectancy.

On the three healthy lives indicators, France ranks highest overall—scoring among the top three coun- tries on each indicator—and Sweden ranks second. The U.S. ranks last on mortality amenable to health care, last on infant mortality, and second-to-last on healthy life expectancy at age 60. *Notably, countries’ perfor- mance on these three outcomes indicators did not necessarily align with their ranks on the other dimensions of health system performance. France ranks near the bottom overall, whereas the U.K., which ranks first or second on every other dimension, ranks near the bottom of healthy lives. Unfortunately, scarce cross-nation- ally comparable data on health outcomes limit this dimension to only three indicators. However, the indica- tors that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. *

The finding that the U.S. lags in health outcomes despite spending so much more than other coun- tries on health care echoes the findings in the Institute of Medicine’s 2013 report on the health of the U.S. population, which found the U.S. has worse health and premature death rates in all age groups and at all income levels.18 The wealth of data amassed by the IOM underscores a clear need to focus on improving population health along with the performance of the health care delivery system. Page 25 of link!








The "contradiction "was duly noted in the report and explained, but; your focus on it doesn't absolve the  pathetic ranking of the US as dead last. Perhaps your focus on THAT glaring disparity would be more beneficial to all of us if you would join in  finding the means to reform our expensive also-ran healthcare system. Perhaps the first step would be to address the false news circulating the lie that USA based health care is the best in the world.



Spoiler: QUALITY EXPLAINED:



It is difficult to disentangle the effects of health insurance coverage from the quality of care experi- ences reported by U.S. patients. Comprehensiveness of insurance and stability of coverage are likely to play a role in patients’ access to care and interactions with physicians. We found that insured Americans and higher- income Americans were more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report problems such as not getting recommended tests, treatments, or prescription drugs. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the lack of comprehensive health insurance coverage and the high out-of-pocket costs for care in the U.S., even among the insured and those with above-average incomes. Fragmented coverage and insurance instability undermine efforts in the U.S. to improve care coordination, including the sharing of information among providers. Patients in other countries, in addition, are more likely to have a regular physician and long-time continuity with the same physician.

The Affordable Care Act is designed to ameliorate some of these problems. The establishment of health insurance marketplaces, income-related premium subsidies, minimum essential benefit packages, and new insurance market regulations in 2014 will help extend coverage to an estimated 26 million previously uninsured Americans and contribute greatly to the stability and security of coverage of those who already



The "lady" you used in your response seems intelligent but is she a physician? I think not due to her apparent lack of attention to detail and.or reading comprehension. I do concede she, and you, did add some spice to the commentary and your counter argument was a delight to read.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 26, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.
> ...



I posted links to each and every single one of my claims, including reports from the UK government itself.

If you dismissed documented fact, that makes you incompetent to discuss this topic.  Moving on.

*The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.*

I have followed the Mirror Mirror on the Wall survey for years.   There are parts that are based on government data, but even then, they don't look at the data in detail.

For example.  They look at infant mortality rates.  What they never account for is that the US and the UK, as well as many other countries, do not count infant mortality the same.   In the US, if it is born at all, it is counted.   In the UK, if it is too premature, they don't count it.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

So even those numbers are completely dishonest.   The whole report is crap.

*If you had read the study you would have your answer.
Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.*

I did.  It doesn't.
*
I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.
*
Fine, I'll start reposting everything that is already in this thread.   For the record, heart attack data doesn't suggest much.   Think about it.... people in a hospital are already under physical stress from being ill, and likely from treatment.   Thus if you have a heart attack, it is more likely to be fatal.   Some treatments are even known for causing heart attacks, because for the lack of any better treatment, they have to take the risk.

Moreover, your link itself says that people in the hospital are generally older, and sicker, than those at home.  Thus they logically are more likely to die from a heart attack, than those at home.

Of course the biggest missing data, is any comparison to any other system.  Even if the data you cite is accurate... you have no idea if the UK system is any better, because they didn't research that.  If you don't know what the numbers are for any other system, then your entire link is completely pointless.  The UK system could have 4 times more likely.  

Good grief.  You people don't even read your own sources of information.

*Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.*

NHS hospital waiting time figures worst in seven years
Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year
NHS hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment | Daily Mail Online
NHS 'in perpetual winter of Narnia' as waiting list reaches record 3.9m

Waiting time targets missed, bed blocking at record levels, and medical leaders say system is close to breaking down

Ok, so you posted your opinion.  I posted my facts.  Which one wins?  Facts or opinion?

Keep in mind, this is the UK system which your lame Commonwealth Fund "survey" said was the best.

*US has high rate of preventable dearths*

Do you know how they come up with those numbers?   They determine how many people died from specific illnesses, and they declare those illnesses could be cured.   Thus they are preventable.

The problem is... does the hospital have any control over how many people get the illness to begin with?   No.      No they don't.   So what does the number of deaths have to do with anything?

For example.   You have two populations.   One group 1,000 women get breast cancer.  The other group only 90 women get breast cancer.

In the first group, the health care system treats and heals 90%.  So 900 women are healed and cured, and 100 die.

In the second group, they give the women a bunk bed, and wet wipe, and they all die.  0 healed, 90 die.

Now when you look at "preventable deaths"... it would only show that the first country had 100 women had preventable deaths, while in the second only 90 had preventable deaths.

Yet, the first health care system healed 900 people, and the second healed no one.   This is why you look at survival rates, not mortality rates.   Mortality is dependent primarily on the incident rate.  How many get the illness.   Survival rate exclusively looks at the ability of the system to heal the disease.



So the Japanese incidence rate of cancer is a fraction of the US.





See the difference?   If you ask any patient, do you want to be in a country with low preventable deaths, or in a country with high survival rates, they'll choose a country with high survival rates.

So do you want to be in the US with a 74% survival rate for all the cancers above?   Or Japan with a 63% survival rate, but lower "preventable deaths"  or the UK with a 52% survival rate, and lower "preventable deaths".

Anyone that looks at mortality and death rates, is not looking at the quality of the care.   They are looking more at incident rates.    If you want to know the quality of the care, you have to look at survival rates.   That is the one and only standard that looks at the ability of the health care system to identify the illness.... treat the illness... cure the illness, and have patients survive.

But that is the one factor that left-wingers can not look at it... because doing so shows how badly socialized care fails.

*The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!*

No, they don't, and I just conclusively proved it.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 26, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



You Brayed and squealed that my premise is based on a survey and that your premise is based on facts. Hmm, as if surveys  can't be factual?  If you really believe that why did you post  links to sites using surveys to determine average waiting times? This is one of your links:



Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year





			
				Your link said:
			
		

> EXCLUSIVE The average waiting time for a routine GP appointment has almost hit two weeks, a Pulse survey has revealed.




Such duplicity cannot go unrewarded. You decry the use of surveys and then link to one with only 831 respondents. I hear by heap upon you all the scorn and derision your thoughtless posts deserve. When you described your  essay as fact, did you really mean fax? Or,  perhaps, you had a change of heart  about surveys being fact finding tools without telling us.


*US has high rate of preventable deaths:*



Your response to this was hilarious. You don't know statistics so you made up your own theory about how Medical professionals with doctorate degrees came up with their "numbers." Frequencies per 1000 or 100,000 apply no matter how large the target groups are in comparison to one another. Your breast cancer chart shows the USA has 92 cases per 100,000 people and Japan has only 34 per 100,000 people.



*The Concord Study of 2008*

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)61442-8/fulltext?rss=yes

Survival rates are inappropriate statistics for the comparison of countries that differ in the extent they screen for different cancers. To understand why, it is helpful to know how the 5-year survival statistic is calculated: the number of patients diagnosed with cancer still alive 5 years after diagnosis divided by the number of all patients diagnosed with cancer. The key term to notice in the calculation is diagnosed, which appears in the numerator and denominator of the survival statistic. By definition, screening detects cancer at a microscopic state, long before it causes symptoms. Because of this property, screening inflates the survival statistic in two ways: firstly, by prolonging the period in which a patient is known to have cancer (lead-time bias), and secondly, by including people with non-progressive cancer (overdiagnosis bias).2 However, for the 20 most common solid tumours in the USA, t*he inflation in 5-year survival rates has no correlation with a decrease in mortality rates**3**—a fact unknown to most medical professionals offering screening.**4* Because of lead-time and overdiagnosis bias, differences in 5-year survival rates between health systems differing in screening uptake can rather be an artifact of the extent of screening than a valid proof of improved cancer control. *Such a proof can only come from a reduction of cancer-specific mortality rates,**5** the denominator of which includes all (not just diagnosed) people in the investigated screening and non-screening groups, resulting in the rates not being dependent on country-specific diagnostic procedures.*



But here is where the rubber meets the road. Prior to the ACA being implemented in the USA uninsured  poor people and underinsured middle classed people didn't seek medical prevention testing due to the high costs of seeing a doctor on a regular basis. So it is crucial to know which US populations those survival rates represent and which groups aren't counted. The narrative highlighted in blue above is aimed at that reality and would account for the percentages in your 5 year survival chart. Socialized medicine would afford more citizens of any age or income bracket to get screened earlier, even considering the waiting period for non emergency appointments. In 2008  poor or uninsured  US citizens had no waiting periods for screening appointments...they  just didn't go to clinics or doctors becasue they could not afford it! And now, the GOP, at the behest of selfish people like you, want to turn back the hands of time and return to that kind of medical triage based on ability to pay.


The morbid implications of your paradigm:


One of your chief objections to socialized medicine is  longer wait times to get an appointment for non urgent  visits to your doctor. We both know the reasons for wait time increases when socialized medicine is implemented don't we? Poor or uninsured Americans will get in your way. well 'scuse me but isn't that what it is all about? Equal access for all?

The problem I have with you  Repub-LIE-cons is your holier than thou attitudes whereas you believe your lives are more valuable than those less fortunate than you  are. You have no sympathy for poor people regardless of how they became that way. From what I  have read. You would just as soon as see them die in the street than to interfere in your quick access to healthcare because they want the same care you and  their Congressman gets.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 26, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



My links were to statistical facts.  Your link was to a survey of opinion.   There is a difference.

*Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year*

This is entirely true.  Our system has become more and more socialized, so of course we are not starting to see the beginnings of the same problems experienced elsewhere in the world.

*Your response to this was hilarious. You don't know statistics so you made up your own theory about how Medical professionals with doctorate degrees came up with their "numbers." Frequencies per 1000 or 100,000 apply no matter how large the target groups are in comparison to one another. Your breast cancer chart shows the USA has 92 cases per 100,000 people and Japan has only 34 per 100,000 people.*

Ok....   you didn't make a point.  You repeated to me, my own evidence in support of my claims.

So you agree with me, or you don't know how to make a point, not sure which.

Are you denying that groups that have a higher incidence rate, will naturally have a higher mortality rate?   Are you suggesting that Japan with only 34 incidence of breast cancer, compared to the US 92 incidences of breast cancer, will not naturally have a lower 'preventable death by breast cancer' than the US, regardless of the quality of care?

*However, for the 20 most common solid tumours in the USA, the inflation in 5-year survival rates has no correlation with a decrease in mortality rates3—a fact unknown to most medical professionals offering screening.
*
Now that is fascinating.   For the last 20 years, the left-wing has been screaming that if only we had socialized health care, then 'preventative medicine' would be free, such as breast cancer screenings, and that with free preventative care, then people would die less.

Now you are telling me that cancer screenings do nothing, and all those medicare and medicaid paid for cancer screenings are completely useless and a waste of tax payer money?

Really?  That's your position?  

Doesn't that position prove that socialized health care will cost more, and waste money?

Beyond that, I already said what you just posted.   5-year survival rates SHOULD NOT have any correlation with mortality rates.   Mortality rates dependent on incidences.   If the number of people who get cancer goes down, the mortality rate will drop.  If the number of people who get cancer goes up, the mortality rate will increase.

If the survival rate stays steady at 90%, as incidences go up, mortality will go up, and as incidences go down, mortality goes down.   

*One of your chief objections to socialized medicine is longer wait times to get an appointment for non urgent visits to your doctor*

No no... fail. You made up the red herring that I said non-urgent.

Wait times in socialized care system, go up for EVERYTHING.  Not just non-urgent.

There's a reason why in ERs in socialized hospitals, people have died while waiting over 13 hours.

And this claim about the poor 'getting in our way'.... well that's why middle class people, and especially the rich, fly to other countries for treatment, while the poor simply die.

That's better in your world?


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 26, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



You said I lack substance but then you addressed almost none of the points I made, none. Then you say that the women 'seems intelligent' but then attacked her credentials.

First she is co-founder of a company that support physicians, secondly I don't care. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in this case, she made detailed arguments that you tried to hand wave away by saying she is not doctor. Well, so are you a doctor, are you 'qualified' to comment?

So try again, I will shorten the list and make it simpler for you. France has lower access than the US and lower quality of care than the US, but the highest outcomes according to the study and as you said. Logically then you are forced to conclude that access to quality healthcare is not needed for good outcomes, which means universal care is irrelevant. I can't parse it any simpler for you, it is _*logically impossible*_ to conclude from this study that better healthcare means better outcomes as you are doing.  Your own quote from that study : "*However, the indicators that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. "*

So what does a rational (i.e. non-liberal person) conclude? The only logical conclusion would be that our health care system is actually better than France, but there are other factors besides health care when it comes to outcomes, so why the hell do you keep harping on health care?


 The woman's very last point is salient, you of course ignored it. "*It may be fine to blast the U.S. system for being expensive, but to say that we are paying too much for a bad system, while assessing badness based on the system being expensive, is circular logic that should have no place in serious scientific conversation"*

The whole idea you are putting forth is rather dumb, one's health and lifespan are more determined by life choices and genetics than any hospital nearby. It is not 'the goal' of a health care system to make sure you live a long life, that is my goal and not the governments.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 26, 2017)

> But here is where the rubber meets the road. Prior to the ACA being implemented in the USA uninsured  poor people and underinsured middle classed people didn't seek medical prevention testing due to the high costs of seeing a doctor on a regular basis. So it is crucial to know which US populations those survival rates represent and which groups aren't counted. The narrative highlighted in blue above is aimed at that reality and would account for the percentages in your 5 year survival chart. Socialized medicine would afford more citizens of any age or income bracket to get screened earlier, even considering the waiting period for non emergency appointments. In 2008  poor or uninsured  US citizens had no waiting periods for screening appointments...they  just didn't go to clinics or doctors becasue they could not afford it! And now, the GOP, at the behest of selfish people like you, want to turn back the hands of time and return to that kind of medical triage based on ability to pay.



It has and always will be ability to pay. there are private hospitals and private insurance in almost every one of those countries on your list because your grand delusion of egalitarianism is nothing but a liberal religious orgasm. It is a childish demand that the world meets your insecure emotional needs. Danny Williams could pay, so he got what he wanted.


'It's my health, it's my choice,' Danny Williams says

_*"This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."*

*With these words, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams defended his decision to hop the border and go under the knife for heart surgery in Florida.*

*The minimally invasive mitral valve surgery he needed is not available in Newfoundland, he told his province's NTV News channel in the first part of an interview aired last night.*_


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> My links were to statistical facts. Your link was to a survey of opinion. There is a difference.



There is no need to discuss anything else until I expose your lie for what it is,

Here is one of your links I arbitrarily clicked on:

Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year


The word "survey" appears in the first two paragraphs identifying the methodology used to determine your "facts."



			
				 Your link said:
			
		

> The average waiting time for a routine GP appointment has almost hit two weeks, *a Pulse survey has revealed.*
> 
> *The survey, answered by 831 respondents,* found that the average waiting time for an appointment was just under 13 days – an increase from 10 days last year.



Alright buster, lets see you wriggle out of this one...heh heh heh! Caught you in a lie didn't I???


----------



## WheelieAddict (Feb 27, 2017)

Social security doesn't work because most baby boomers are now taking more out than they put in. We need to cut them off.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 27, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > My links were to statistical facts. Your link was to a survey of opinion. There is a difference.
> ...



I don't get it... I thought you posted that link to prove that wait times were increasing in the US.

That one says it was about longer waiting times in the UK.

As long as the survey is based on fact, I don't have a problem with a survey.  It depends on what the survey is gathering.  Is it a survey of statistical facts?  Or is it a survey of opinion.

I don't care about your opinion.  Or the opinion of some 'expert', or even the opinion of some patient.

If you make a survey that says "How do you like US health care: rate 1 through 10"... that's a survey of opinion.     You could have had the absolute best possible care on the planet, and thought it was terrible.

But if you have a survey that says "How many days did you wait between being diagnosed with cancer, and starting treatment: Give the number of days"   That's a survey of statistical fact.

Now do you grasp the difference?   When people survey how "equal" the care is... that's opinion.   When you survey how "fair" the cost was... that's opinion.   When you survey how much 'access' to care you have, that's Opinion.

Are you starting to get the difference?  I don't care about a survey of opinion.  I care about statistical fact.  Which is exactly what I said before.

You seem to have gotten hooked on some rant about 'it's a survey'.   It's WHAT you are surveying that I have problem with.  Surveying opinion is just opinion.  Survey the land where you intend to build a home, is a survey of facts.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 27, 2017)

WheelieAddict said:


> Social security doesn't work because most baby boomers are now taking more out than they put in. We need to cut them off.



That's no longer true.  People are now getting less back, than what they put in.

That proves how bad social security is.  Even with people getting out less money than they put in, the system is still going broke.


----------



## WheelieAddict (Feb 27, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Govt. healthcare is socialist medicare needs to be eliminated immediately. Those old fucks didn't put as much in as I am paying. Cut it off now. My taxes!


----------



## WheelieAddict (Feb 27, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> > Social security doesn't work because most baby boomers are now taking more out than they put in. We need to cut them off.
> ...


Lets cut off the parasite boomers that are abusing it then. They need to get off the govt tit!


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 27, 2017)

WheelieAddict said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Oh, you have no idea how much you are paying in.  You don't have a clue.   Not only would your taxes be lower, but your health insurance premiums would be cut by at least 1/3rd.   If not more.

On top of that, you are also paying higher state taxes, and depending on the city you live in, local taxes to pay for medicare and medicaid.

You don't even have a clue how much Medicare is costing you.  That 3% tax you pay on your pay check, is only a FRACTION of the costs these programs heap on you.  Just a fraction.


----------



## WheelieAddict (Feb 27, 2017)

These old fuck boomers have been voting for less taxes while increasing their benefits. These parasite wellfare shits that want less govt. need to get off the govt. tit and stop increasing the debt for their children.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> You said I lack substance but then you addressed almost none of the points I made, none. Then you say that the women 'seems intelligent' but then attacked her credentials.
> 
> 
> First she is co-founder of a company that support physicians, secondly I don't care. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in this case, she made detailed arguments that you tried to hand wave away by saying she is not doctor. Well, so are you a doctor, are you 'qualified' to comment?



I'll take a closer look at your comments but I'm not promising you anything...heh heh heh!

As for the mysterious woman you keep referring to, do you expect me to accept what she says without references or citations?



NCC1701 said:


> So try again, I will shorten the list and make it simpler for you. France has lower access than the US and lower quality of care than the US, but the highest outcomes according to the study and as you said. Logically then you are forced to conclude that access to quality healthcare is not needed for good outcomes, which means universal care is irrelevant. I can't parse it any simpler for you, it is _*logically impossible*_ to conclude from this study that better healthcare means better outcomes as you are doing. Your own quote from that study : "*However, the indicators that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. "*
> 
> So what does a rational (i.e. non-liberal person) conclude? The only logical conclusion would be that our health care system is actually better than France, but there are other factors besides health care when it comes to outcomes, so why the hell do you keep harping on health care?



Look at your chart: In the area of quality there are 4 rated items: France is ahead of the USA in the most important one which is SAFE CARE. without that one, the rest of the quality factors don't really matter. Access? France  is still ahead of the  USA in both categories under that title. But why are you ignoring all the rest of the field. Focusing on France gives you no advantage here when all most other countries with socialized medicine are besting that of the USA in several categories. The USA has no ranking in the 1st spot under any healthcare item. AND that is WITH Obamacare which affords  more Americans access to primary healthcare. Without Obamacare the USA 's showing in each of the categories , particularly ACCESS, would be far worse.

Look Toots, I don't need you to parse anything for me. If  you disagree with the CF study, you'll go absolutely bonkers over this one from the World Health  Organization:



			
				WHO healthcare rankings; said:
			
		

> *1 France*
> 2 Italy
> 3 San Marino
> 4 Andorra
> ...






NCC1701 said:


> The woman's very last point is salient, you of course ignored it. "*It may be fine to blast the U.S. system for being expensive, but to say that we are paying too much for a bad system, while assessing badness based on the system being expensive, is circular logic that should have no place in serious scientific conversation"*
> 
> The whole idea you are putting forth is rather dumb, one's health and lifespan are more determined by life choices and genetics than any hospital nearby. It is not 'the goal' of a health care system to make sure you live a long life, that is my goal and not the governments.



The idea I am putting forth isn't the one you say I am putting forth. If you want to know what I am putting forth, here it comes:

Two major studies have shown that the American capitalist based  health care system is  not on a par with the top socialist based healthcare systems of the world.  The high cost of American healthcare has some bearing  in that millions of Americans can not afford access to  preventative or primary health care,especially without Obamacare. However,  access blocked by  high cost is but one of the factors involved in the low ranking of the USA at 37.  Since  Canada is ranked low as well at 30. The weight of High cost can essentially be ruled out as a prime factor in the ranking but it is one of several.
This isn't my opinion but I am forming one.  I am leaning towards universal healthcare for all Americans at any age.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

WheelieAddict said:


> Social security doesn't work because most baby boomers are now taking more out than they put in. We need to cut them off.


go ahead, make my day.... heh heh heh!


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

WheelieAddict said:


> These old fuck boomers have been voting for less taxes while increasing their benefits. These parasite wellfare shits that want less govt. need to get off the govt. tit and stop increasing the debt for their children.


In 20 years most will  be gone...Let em enjoy the little time they have left!


----------



## WheelieAddict (Feb 27, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> > These old fuck boomers have been voting for less taxes while increasing their benefits. These parasite wellfare shits that want less govt. need to get off the govt. tit and stop increasing the debt for their children.
> ...


I was being sarcastic, we need to keep medicare for seniors now and in the future.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


You truly ARE a Repub-LIE-CON. I do't think I have ever seen such blatant back peddling, hard swallowing and tap dancing... Stick a fork in him folks,he is DONE!!!!!


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > You said I lack substance but then you addressed almost none of the points I made, none. Then you say that the women 'seems intelligent' but then attacked her credentials.
> ...



Yes loser, I expect you to read and evaluate. She makes arguments that require no more reference material than the report you already have. She is not mysterious, her CV is one mouse click away, do I actually have to show you how to use the internet? In any event as I said, it is the substance of the argument that matters and not the person who said it, you STILL cannot grasp that logical reality.



> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > So try again, I will shorten the list and make it simpler for you. France has lower access than the US and lower quality of care than the US, but the highest outcomes according to the study and as you said. Logically then you are forced to conclude that access to quality healthcare is not needed for good outcomes, which means universal care is irrelevant. I can't parse it any simpler for you, it is _*logically impossible*_ to conclude from this study that better healthcare means better outcomes as you are doing. Your own quote from that study : "*However, the indicators that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. "*
> ...



Dishonest bitch, now you deem SAFE CARE the most all most important variable and throw out another meaningless report. I don't disagree with the report, you do. The report said the US had more effective care, period. One cannot claim that effective care is somehow disassociated with outcomes, in fact effective care is almost defined by outcomes. The contradiction, as you yourself quoted, has nothing to do with health care because outcomes are dependent on a much larger set of variables. Yet you dishonestly and stupidly keep pretending that outcomes are solely descriptive of the health care system. Your own damn report refutes you.






NCC1701 said:


> The woman's very last point is salient, you of course ignored it. "*It may be fine to blast the U.S. system for being expensive, but to say that we are paying too much for a bad system, while assessing badness based on the system being expensive, is circular logic that should have no place in serious scientific conversation"*
> 
> The whole idea you are putting forth is rather dumb, one's health and lifespan are more determined by life choices and genetics than any hospital nearby. It is not 'the goal' of a health care system to make sure you live a long life, that is my goal and not the governments.





> The idea I am putting forth isn't the one you say I am putting forth. If you want to know what I am putting forth, here it comes:
> 
> Two major studies have shown that the American capitalist based  health care system is  not on a par with the top socialist based healthcare systems of the world.  The high cost of American healthcare has some bearing  in that millions of Americans can not afford access to  preventative or primary health care,especially without Obamacare. However,  access blocked by  high cost is but one of the factors involved in the low ranking of the USA at 37.  Since  Canada is ranked low as well at 30. The weight of High cost can essentially be ruled out as a prime factor in the ranking but it is one of several.
> This isn't my opinion but I am forming one.  I am leaning towards universal healthcare for all Americans at any age.



bullshit you liar, it says we have superior quality of care and better access than the highest rated country France, but lower outcomes which are obviously dependent on other life variables besides health care, yet you keep blubbering on about access and quality. Do liberals ever stop lying? are you so damned inculcated with your religion that any sort of critical examination is now beyond your capability?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 27, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > And yet is does work in countries that have a mixture of both....hhhmmm...
> ...



You say that like you think the US is unique in that regard.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 27, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



There's a difference between "You should do this" and "We're going to force you to".  And since when have conservatives EVER suggested that other people should pick up the tab for someone else's bad choices?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Feb 27, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


It has nothing to do with what conservatives may or may not have said. It has to do with reality. Know what that is.? Not -alt reality. REALITY . When people don't have insurance, they don't get preventive care. They get sicker than they would have been, go to the ER-where care is very expensive-and get charity care . They go on disability. They stop paying taxes. They are no longer productive. Who the hell do you thing pays for all of that?


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



hey I am all for understanding reality and making practical decisions, that is why I hate progressives.

Progressive think 85 year old people at the nursing homes should get full code life saving treatment, because that is their 'right'. Progressives also think heroin addicts deserve the exact same top of the line care that productive people get and pay for with their own hard work.  In short the progressive vision is a financially dystopian and very unfair regressive model of full egalitarianism, which is a vile vision for us all.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Ah so there are death panels and it's not because of the ACA!! It's you guys!!


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Dishonest bitch, now you deem SAFE CARE the most all most important variable and throw out another meaningless report. I don't disagree with the report, you do. The report said the US had more effective care, period.



M'am, please get a hold of yourself and refrain from using profanity. I am one of the few righteous conservatives left. Perhaps once upon a time you too shared the same morality and values I do, but;  presently, you have slid into the gutter with other fallen souls seduced by the lure of Trump's brand of Populism. Take my hand and allow me to lead you back to the path of righteousness.

Your crawling days are over. get off your knees. and stop paying homage to Trump..You must learn to walk again:  I will assist you in taking those first baby steps:

The REPAWT:

Please excuse my English accent but want to be clear. Which "repawt" are you referring to? I'll assume it is the  "repawt " generated by the CF. Here is my response to your inane claim that the repawt indicated the US had more effective care, period: Read and run....run for your literary life for I am bringing truth and light to this thread  even as the darkness and the agents working within it scatter before the might of truth's light! Heh heh heh! : BEHOLDDDDD!:


ABSTRACT

The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, b*ut comparative analyses consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. *Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in prior editions of Mirror, Mirror. The United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland. Since the data in this study were collected, the U.S. has made significant strides adopting health information technology and undertaking payment and delivery system reforms spurred by the Affordable Care Act. Continued implementation of the law could further encourage more affordable access and more efficient organi- zation and delivery of health care, and allow investment in preventive and population health measures that could improve the performance of the U.S. health care system.


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 27, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



When you get to 65 are you going to say no to Medicare? Doubtful.

There is a difference between the hospitals being run by the government like the VA and the payments to the private healthcare by the government such as Canada's single payer system. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



death panels have existed since humans became humans, they are called families, once again a dumb progressive reveals that they are clueless about reality


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 27, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term
> ...



It works in other places like Israel and Canada also.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > Dishonest bitch, now you deem SAFE CARE the most all most important variable and throw out another meaningless report. I don't disagree with the report, you do. The report said the US had more effective care, period.
> ...



I would never share your values, you are dishonest or very dense. I can't make it any clearer for your slow mind. When performance of a health care system is linked to variables outside of health care, but you insist on denying it in spite of your own quote from the commonwealth report, well then you are either just a liar or an idiot, your call on that one.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


I am neither a liar or an idiot but, sorry, I can't defend YOUR lying and idiocy. The Commonwealth Fund and the World Health Organization's reports have spoken for me in this exchange.  You OTOH have relied upon scurrilous  innuendo and pettiness to deflect form the damning content of those reports. You have been so bold as to  attempt to change the  narrative in the reports to salvage some modicum of your eroded  dignity and that of the pitiful US healthcare system.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



no they have not liar, you have attempted to change the conclusions to your whim and I have shown how you did that


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


Aw, go get laid.... you need it... you are a frustrated lying vixen if I ever saw one! COme on back after you have gotten rid of your frustrations.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

GHook93 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



'works' means you are happy, and so what?


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



and you have posted more than me in this thread, endless tortured logic and lying, so get a drug habit and leave the rest of society alone


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> 'works' means you are happy, and so what?



No, it means it works you bad-tempered git


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 27, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Ah, so FIRST you demand to know if conservatives don't "bleat" about something, and then when you're told no, it's suddenly "not about what conservatives say".

I hope you don't ever actually wonder why people view you as an ignorant lying sack.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > 'works' means you are happy, and so what?
> ...



there is no universal definition of that you dumbshit, so you little jackbooted assholes deem it works if you are happy


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

*"Notably, countries’ perfor- mance on these three outcomes indicators did not necessarily align with their ranks on the other dimensions of health system performance. France ranks near the bottom overall, whereas the U.K., which ranks first or second on every other dimension, ranks near the bottom of healthy lives. Unfortunately, scarce cross-nation- ally comparable data on health outcomes limit this dimension to only three indicators. However, the indica- tors that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. "
*
That is quoted from the commonwealth study, which the liar above wants to change to meet his forgone conclusion, but what is really sad here is that the commonwealth authors basically were also trying to prove their forgone conclusion. They found the US ranked ahead of Sweden and France in quality of care, which is of course the most central issue to the entire debate we are having about healthcare. They then had to explain all that away by inventing 'healthy lives' which by their own admission is not a measure of healthcare alone, but contains a lot of 'social' factors outside of healthcare. How else are you going to bring the US down, and France up, if your own damned study shows the opposite of what you wanted?  invent some other non healthcare factors to bring about the conclusion you really want. Bunch of dishonest fucks


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> *"Notably, countries’ perfor- mance on these three outcomes indicators did not necessarily align with their ranks on the other dimensions of health system performance. France ranks near the bottom overall, whereas the U.K., which ranks first or second on every other dimension, ranks near the bottom of healthy lives. Unfortunately, scarce cross-nation- ally comparable data on health outcomes limit this dimension to only three indicators. However, the indica- tors that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. "
> *
> That is quoted from the commonwealth study, which the liar above wants to change to meet his forgone conclusion, but what is really sad here is that the commonwealth authors basically were also trying to prove their forgone conclusion. They found the US ranked ahead of Sweden and France in quality of care, which is of course the most central issue to the entire debate we are having about healthcare. They then had to explain all that away by inventing 'healthy lives' which by their own admission is not a measure of healthcare alone, but contains a lot of 'social' factors outside of healthcare. How else are you going to bring the US down, and France up, if your own damned study shows the opposite of what you wanted?  invent some other non healthcare factors to bring about the conclusion you really want. Bunch of dishonest fucks



 If you insist on making a fool of yourself, I won'tt stop you...please proceed...


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > *"Notably, countries’ perfor- mance on these three outcomes indicators did not necessarily align with their ranks on the other dimensions of health system performance. France ranks near the bottom overall, whereas the U.K., which ranks first or second on every other dimension, ranks near the bottom of healthy lives. Unfortunately, scarce cross-nation- ally comparable data on health outcomes limit this dimension to only three indicators. However, the indica- tors that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. "
> ...



oh you have the power to stop me from posting? well there you delusional twat, I am quite satisfied with my post above since people able to think can understand it and can reply if they wish. I don't care what you think, you are a lying idiot


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> there is no universal definition of that you dumbshit, so you little jackbooted assholes deem it works if you are happy



We should swap names...


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 27, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > there is no universal definition of that you dumbshit, so you little jackbooted assholes deem it works if you are happy
> ...



nah, I like mine

when one gets repeatedly raped in the wallet by American socialists, when they want to constantly take away your freedom and treat you like a slave to their state, when they constantly lie about their intentions and policies, well then one gets a little touchy, you know


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 27, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> nah, I like mine
> 
> when one gets repeatedly raped in the wallet by American socialists, when they want to constantly take away your freedom and treat you like a slave to their state, when they constantly lie about their intentions and policies, well then one gets a little touchy, you know



Trump's a socialist? Who knew...


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 28, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > You said I lack substance but then you addressed almost none of the points I made, none. Then you say that the women 'seems intelligent' but then attacked her credentials.
> ...



See when you post the World Health Organization's rankings... without thinking about it... you disqualify yourself as a thoughtful debater.

Are you telling me, that you really believe that people in Dominica, get better health care than US citizens?  You are crazy.

Moreover, you left off Cuba.   Cuba was ranked 39th.

See now to a non-thinking individual.... they would say "See that shows how bad US health care is!".

But to a thinking individual... we would say....  huh?   Cuba is just two ranks below the US?  Cuba?  Where buildings collapse on a routine basis?  Where people cobble together junk yard parts to make rafts to get to the US?   Cuba, where people go to college to get a degree, so they can be a waiter at a resort restaurant? 

That Cuba has almost as good of health care, as the US?  By just two ranks?

See, if you *want* to believe that socialized care is better than US care, then you just look at the WHO ranks, and say "well that supports what I already believe".

But to any rational person, we look at that and think.. wait a minute....

The truths and tales of Cuban healthcare

By the time I moved to Cuba in 1997, there were serious shortages of medicine - from simple aspirin to more badly needed drugs.

Ironically, many medicines that cannot be found at a pharmacy are easily bought on the black market. Some doctors, nurses and cleaning staff smuggle the medicine out of the hospitals in a bid to make extra cash.

Although medical attention remains free, many patients did and still do bring their doctors food, money or other gifts to get to the front of the queue or to guarantee an appointment for an X-ray, blood test or operation.

If you do not have a contact or money to pay under the table, the waiting time for all but emergency procedures can be ridiculously long.

Many Cubans complain that top-level government and Communist Party officials have access to VIP health treatment, while ordinary people must queue from dawn for a routine test, with no guarantee that the allotted numbers will not run out before it is their turn.

And while the preventative healthcare system works well for children, women over the age of 40 are being shortchanged because yearly mammograms are not offered to the population at large.

I saw many hospitals where there was often no running water, the toilets did not flush, and the risk of infections - by the hospital's own admission - was extremely high.​
Ok, so let's review....  1997, just three years before the 2000 WHO rankings... meaning it would be during this time that the WHO was collecting it's data to make the WHO rankings.....


There were shortages of all medicine, all the way down to basic aspirin
Medications were being smuggled out by the nurses and doctors to sell illegally
Patients bribed doctors with food, money and other gifts just to get appointment, let alone x-rays and blood tests done
If you did not have bribe money, or a contact, wait times were months, if not years
While the elite had VIP treatment, common Cubans had to queue from dawn, and many times would still fail to be seen.
Hospitals and doctors had "allotted numbers" of patients they would see in a day, meaning if you were the number after that allotted number, you didn't get seen.  Sucks to be you.
Preventative care for children existed, but for everyone else, not so much.
Hospitals had no running water, no toilets, and according to the hospitals own staff, infection risks were extremely high.
Did you catch all that?    This is Cuba.... the Cuba that the World Health Organization ranked 39th... compared to the US at 37.

And that's the information from just this one article.   There are many more things about Cuba, that are insanely bad.   Most Cubans are brought to the hospital in a wheelbarrow.   Most hospitals don't have an ambulance service.  Cuban doctors can lose their jobs if they report that a baby died, so if the infant dies soon after birth, the doctors simply don't report it.  It never happened.

A Cuban American went back to visit his mother, and snapped some photos with his phone, while in a hospital.





His parents hurt a finger, and needed an X-ray.  This is the x-ray room.  Ripped bed.  1960s, or 70s x-ray machine.  Water damage through the ceiling, and walls.

That's "free" health care.   That's 'universal government care'.

This is ranked 39th, and our system is ranked 37th?   Really?   That's almost on par with our system?
*
Now if you are rational person, you are asking yourself, how the heck did Cuba get to be almost on par with the US, on a ranking of health care?*

And the answer to that, is extremely simple.   Because of how they measured the quality of health care.... by not measuring the quality.

I have the WHO report on my computer, and you can verify for yourself everything I am saying.  I dare you to.

The following are the percentages of the score, that made the assessment.

Health 50%
Divided into two parts
Over all average 15%
Equality 35%​Responsiveness  25%
Divided into two parts
Over all average 12.5%
Equality 12.5%​Fairness of Payment.  25%

Now look at that carefully....   Fairness of payment....   that has nothing to do with the quality.  And as long as everyone pays the same, even if they pay nothing, and get nothing... that's fair.

So Cuba automatically get's 25% of the score.

Responsiveness Equality....   As long as it is equally responsive to everyone, even if the response is equally nothing... that's equal....  so Cuba gets 12.5% of the score.

Cuba has 37.5% of the score.

Health Equality....  as long as everyone is equally healthy or equally sick, as long as they are equal... Cuba gets 35% of the score.

Cuba has 72.5% of the score.

Now let's look at the remaining 27.5%.... first the 15% that accounts for "health".

So health is the ability of the health care system to heal cancer?  no.   To heal diseases?   No.    To do a heart by-pass?  No.   To do knee replacement, or hip replacement?   To remove a cataract?  No.

Health is exclusively 'life expectancy'.   That's it.     Now, we already know that Cuban doctors simply don't report infant deaths.   Of course auto fatalities are rare, because no one owns a car.   Suicides are not common, unless you count people dying while attempting to get to the US, which of course the government does not count.   And violence in a police state is also very low.

What does any of that have to do with health care?  Nothing.  Which is why again, I have said over and over, and will continue to say, life expectancy is completely irrelevant to health care.

That leaves responsiveness.   This one cracks me up.  According to the WHO report, page 32.  Again you can check everything I'm saying.   Responsiveness is the following....

Respect for dignity 16.7%
Confidentiality 16.7%
Autonomy 16.7%
Prompt attention 20%
Quality of amenities 15%
Access to social support networks 10%
Choice of provider 5%

What does any of this have to do with the quality of the care?   "Prompt Attention" was 1/5th of the score, which only counted for 12.5% of the total.

Respect for dignity?  What good does that do, if I'm dying of cancer, and all you do is 'respect' me?  Confidentiality?   If I'm dying, well at least you better keep is a secret until I'm dead?   Autonomy?  Quality of amenities?  We know Cuba didn't get high marks on that one.  Most hospitals you had to bring your own blankets, and food.   Heck, you had to bring your own water to flush the toilet.  Choice of provider?    Yeah, the choice was government.  That was the only provider.   They wish they had a choice.   Access to support networks?  Yeah, I want to hold hands with someone, more than I want healed.

Now, don't get me wrong, all those things are fine........

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ABILITY OF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO DIAGNOSE, TREAT, AND HEAL PATIENTS?!?!?!?  WHAT ABOUT THAT??!

Not one.... NOT EVEN ONE.... measured the ability of the health care system to....... HEAL...

THAT.... that right there, is why Cuba could be 39th on the list.... while average Cubans can't even get Aspirin.     The entire ranking system had nothing to do with the quality of the care.  They measure how socialized it was, how 'fair' it was, how equal it was, how long people live in the country.     They measured everything, and anything, except how good the care was.

Like all things left-wing and socialized, you have to bend over backwards, and bend yourself into intellectual pretzels, to pretend left-wing socialist policies work.

Let me spell this out.  The WHO report is 100% CRAP, from start to finish, and everything in between.  It is utter and complete CRAP.   And anyone who thinks otherwise..... doesn't think.  That's all there is to it.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 28, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Let me spell this out. The WHO report is 100% CRAP, from start to finish, and everything in between. It is utter and complete CRAP. And anyone who thinks otherwise..... doesn't think. That's all there is to it.



You are a raving FOOL! I must say you are one of  the most persistent idiots I have ever had the displeasure to meet. First of all, I don't believe you ever went to Cuba in 1997 or an other year. Your credibility tanked a long time ago but it sank deeper than whale shit when you tried to shake me down over the Commonwealth Surveys (which included references to the WHO data) and  then turned right around and  made a counter argument  based on a link that used surveys. 

The dust hasn't cleared from THAT imbroglio  and here you are again, braying incessantly against a reputable world renown  entity  such as  the WHO. You ought to know that you have been written off as a clown!


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 28, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > nah, I like mine
> ...



No way is he in agreement with the American socialist left on every issue, he may very well match some but no way would they even call him a socialist.

Not here to defend Trump in toto. I examine one idea and policy at a time and think for myself, political parties and hero worship are for idiots like socialists.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 28, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Let me spell this out. The WHO report is 100% CRAP, from start to finish, and everything in between. It is utter and complete CRAP. And anyone who thinks otherwise..... doesn't think. That's all there is to it.
> ...




Defending Cuban health care as better than the USA? LOL, not even the commonwealth liars would do that

You believe that using non health care related outcomes to measure health care systems is a fine idea, you area a proven complete moron.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Feb 28, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I see. You can't actually address or deal with the reality that I presented to you have to resort to an ad hominem.


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 28, 2017)

I take issue with the idea that the US even has a 'system', I would only call the set of hospitals and clinics under one provider a system. Everyone knows that quality varies widely and that some places specialize. That is not even a uniform system that you can put single variables on.

Since the lefties seem to like rankings here are a few, I am not going to defend the source at the moment but the seem credible. When you look at individual units, the story of crappy US health care falls apart. It is hard to fabricate some specious metric when real patients like the US treatment centers.

Worlds top hospitals, The top 7 all in the US, 17 of the top 20 in the US. No wonder the Canadian province governor came here, and I didn't see any Cuban, LOL.
World | Ranking Web of Hospitals

Worlds most technologically advanced hospitals, maybe less subjectivity here. 16 out of 30 in the US, yes the cold hearted uncaring USA spending more on medical technology. 4 in the UK (on par with US), only 2 in the whole rest of Europe. Pretty damning if you believe in those state systems, those loving socialists don't care enough to give each and every person the absolute very best.
http://www.topmastersinhealthcare.com/30-most-technologically-advanced-hospitals-in-the-world/


Top 10 cancer hospitals, top 5 all in US  10 Best Cancer Hospitals in the World - Insider Monkey

11 Best surgical US has only 1, the top spot.
11 Best Surgical Hospitals in the World - Insider Monkey


even liberal CBS has to conclude US high end care is extremely good, probably the best. Of course they have to get the standard dig in about universal care, it must be obligatory.
Reverse Medical Tourism Points Up Pluses and Minuses of U.S. Healthcare

_*While soaring medical costs in this country have driven many Americans to seek healthcare abroad, many patients from other nations continue to seek high-end care in the U.S. Some hospitals that have a reputation for treating certain ailments -- especially rare ones -- are doing a good reverse medical tourism business. But if our primary care was as good as, say, our ability to cure infant heart defects, fewer of our own citizens would be going to India or Mexico for routine operations.*_
*
*

WHO and our idiot in residence think Cuba has better healthcare. When the chips are down and you have cancer, raise your hand if you are going to Cuba. Mayo clinic versus any Cuban hospital, anyone? anyone?


----------



## NCC1701 (Feb 28, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...



It would be funny except that the left takes this crap seriously. They want convicted violent felons getting the exact treatment as you and I, while we get to pay for the violent felon. It is all good with them until it hits them personally, then look out.


good post


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 28, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



The WHO is in a far better position than you, me or anyone here to  rank healthcare systems of the world. I stand with them until someone can provide me with credible evidence  from reputable sources that can debunk the data at hand.
You and Andylusion have failed miserably in that regard. Cuba is 39th on the WHO list  for a reason.  That WHO would place Cuba so relatively high on the list is telling. To me it means that despite the US embargo, the Cubans have managed to keep the faith with Europe and other nations around the world. WHO doesn't judge Cuba the way you do. Cuba's  medical contributions aren't limited to Cuba. the Cuban government sends doctors and other medical techs  all across the globe to service underserved populations of the world  for no cost. You and Andy are so ignorant it defies the imagination.

Here is a note for you. about Cuba's global medical mission:

ELAM (Latin American School of Medicine) Cuba - Wikipedia


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 28, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



It would set a dangerous precedent for medical personnel doctors to triage patients based upon assumptions that they look like a criminal or violent felon. You are  a POS for even thinking that way!


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 28, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Let me spell this out. The WHO report is 100% CRAP, from start to finish, and everything in between. It is utter and complete CRAP. And anyone who thinks otherwise..... doesn't think. That's all there is to it.
> ...



Yes, I know the Commonwealth Survey referenced stuff from the WHO data.    Doesn't change the fact it's wrong.

Second, you didn't read what I wrote.  The writer of the article visited Cuba in 1997, not me.  Doesn't change the fact Cuba health care is absolute trash, and anyone who does any research on it, knows this.

Now you can insult me all you want, but that facts are on my side.  Anyone rational, can see that in the evidence.   You on the other hand, are just another parrot, mindless spewing what you have been told, without any effort at critical thought.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 1, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Now this is hilarious.....

Cuban citizens live in object poverty, and Cuban women routinely resort to prostitution to earn living income.....     But the government taxes the people of Cuba, to pay for an international medical school that trains foreign students to be doctors, and sends them back to their home countries to live an upper class life style......

AND YOU THINK THIS IS GREAT?!?!   YOU ARE A MORON!!!  *A MORON!!!  A TOTAL AND COMPLETE MORON!!!
*
How dumb, how absolutely stupid.... just 100% forest gump stupid, do you have to be, to think that taxing the people of Cuba, living in squalor, so that the communist government can train doctors for other countries for free, and look good?

The more you talk, the more you discredit yourself.   How can anyone, even left-wingers like you, take you seriously now? 



 

This is the reality of the Cuban people.



 

This is real daily life of Cubans, in the Capital city.  Wood holds up concrete slabs, and roofs have fences around them to keep the crumbling roofs from killing people below.  Streets largely empty, because no one can afford a car, new, or old.   And virtually no building has an actual window anymore.  And that building to the right, with the painted front... that's the side of the building that just collapsed.  They just painted wall facing the camera blue.   Those people in the picture live there.... because they have no where else to go.

This isn't a bombed out Syria...  this is 50 years of peace in Cuba.

But you think their government is great because these impoverished people are paying the taxes to fund a free medical school for foreigners??!?  YOU ARE A MORON.  Pure and simple.  An unthinking, ideological MORON.

You made yourself look ignorant in the last dozen posts.  Now you have completely discredited yourself.  You are not qualified to even be discussing this topic now.  You need to just go home and read a book or something.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 1, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



You are a left wing liar hack, reality and data nean nothing to you as evidenced by this thread. I just gave you the rankings of the best hospitals in the world, no cubans. They have a 'global medical mission' but cant crack the top 30 hospitals list. Many cuban people themselves have risked their lives for decades to escape your socialist paradise hellhole for the usa, that speaks louder than any of your lies. 2 million cubans live in florida, out of a population of 11 million in cuba that is staggering.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 1, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Pure BS imaginary speculation. Typical liberal, we cant have one imaginary wrongdoing so lets screw everyone over.You are a doucherocket for most everything you think.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 1, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Cuban citizens live in object poverty, and Cuban women routinely resort to prostitution to earn living income..... But the government taxes the people of Cuba, to pay for an international medical school that trains foreign students to be doctors, and sends them back to their home countries to live an upper class life style......
> 
> AND YOU THINK THIS IS GREAT?!?! YOU ARE A MORON!!! *A MORON!!! A TOTAL AND COMPLETE MORON!!!*



I would really be a moron to engage you in a debate about Cuba when the debate is about socialized healthcare vs capitalist based  healthcare. You can introduce all the anti-Cuban propaganda you wish but I'm not biting. why should I?
 With the weight of WHO and the Commonwealth Fund behind me I don't need to engage in a frivolous side debate about how Cuban healthcare can be two rankings below that of the USA..The methodology for the rankings can be found on the respective websites of the WHO and the Commonwealth Fund. And since Cuba is ranked below the USA. I find your bellowing about that healthcare system bizarre . I'd be more concerned about those ranked ahead of the USA...and most of those don't have the Urban blight we do.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 1, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...



Cuba is ranked below the USA  on the healthcare systems list.  Yet, you want to make Cuba the poster child of socialized medicine to use as a comparison. I'm not going there. I'm focusing on those countries ranked above the USA. But I will say this:

Having the best equipped hospitals doesn't  necessarily mean you have the best healthcare system. Primary care usually doesn't even involve hospitals at all. Can  someone out there give me an AMEN?

And while Cubans might not enjoy the highest living standards in the world on average, the USA has a sizable  population of poor people too...about 43 million of them.. That is about 4 times the population of Cuba (citing you).

 But before the ACA, America's poor had limited access to *primary care* and so did middle classed Americans who couldn't get insured because of pre existing conditions. And those  fortunate enough to have  insurance faced rising premiums every year. Cuban nationals,OTOH had better access to prime healthcare  despite their income levels. Cuba has done a marvelous job considering what they have had to work with.

But I ask you again...why pick on Cuba? Pick one of the countries  that have healthcare systems ranking higher than that of the USA. I predict if you do that, the  real differences you dread will be highlighted in MY favor!


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 1, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


Did I imagine you said this?:

"They want convicted violent felons getting the exact treatment as you and I, while we get to pay for the violent felon."

If you didn't  post that, please  correct me.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 1, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



First off, Cuba *IS* the poster child for socialized medicine.  Their health care system reflects perfectly the values of socialism.... 'fairness and equality'.

But that isn't the reasons we are pointing it out and mocking you.

YOU... brought up the 2000 WHO health care ranking system.

The fact Cuba is EVEN ON THE LIST.... discredits the list.

How can you even attempt to compare a system where people don't have access to medications, all the way down to the super advanced space age technology of "Aspirin", to the US where you can buy 100 pills for $4, at a quick mart?

How can you even try and compare a system where people bring food to doctors to bribe them into treating you, to our system I can see a specialist the same week I ask for an appointment?

That's our point.  You cited the WHO report which even had Cuba on the list.  Cuba's health care is absolutely horrific.   HORRIFIC.



 

This is not a botched surgery in Cuba.  This is normal.


Video from inside Cuban hospital.

Now you tell me in what way you can logically say a comparison between this, and the US, makes sense?  You tell me by what measure of quality of care, that the WHO placed Cuba at 39th, compared to the US 37th?


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 1, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



You again are either dishonest or stupid. Reposting what i originally said either shows that you are incapable of following along the train of thought (most likely), or are trying evasion in some sort of dishonest way. 

Probably a mixture of both, as your socialist repugnant morals are something lower intellects are attracted to.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 1, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Back to lying and dishonesty, it is VERY clear WHY the topic of cuba arose, and you have defended and lavished praise on cuba now for 2 pages in this thread, but now suddenly you cant figure out why we are discussing cuba.

Dumb or dishonest? You are both


----------



## IResist (Mar 1, 2017)

Medicare was labelled socialized medicine. It is a national treasure. 

Obamacare has been labeled socialized medicine. Not only has it saved lives, even Trump voters are worried he'll take away their insurance that they got thanks to the ACA. 

Also, I'd rather my tax dollars go to healthcare than corporate welfare.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 1, 2017)

IResist said:


> Medicare was labelled socialized medicine. It is a national treasure.
> 
> Obamacare has been labeled socialized medicine. Not only has it saved lives, even Trump voters are worried he'll take away their insurance that they got thanks to the ACA.
> 
> Also, I'd rather my tax dollars go to healthcare than corporate welfare.



When medicare was launched in 1965 or somewhere near that, they laid out what the future costs would be. By 1990 it cost 2.5 times what liberals said it would.

Obamacare has already not only broken promises but costs more than promised.

How come you dont care about that?


----------



## IResist (Mar 1, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare was labelled socialized medicine. It is a national treasure.
> ...



Obamacare is the scapegoat for premium increases. Insurance companies are the culprit.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 1, 2017)

IResist said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



You have it reversed, you are blaming insurance companies for a scheme that obama set up, not them. Funny how no matter what you refuse to blame govt for anything. How come brilliant obama and the libs could not see that coming?

What about the fiscal failure of medicare, i am sure you have a scapegoat for that too. So why did liberals lie in the 60s about the cost of medicare?


----------



## IResist (Mar 1, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> IResist said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...



The mistake is we haven't phased out insurance companies completely in favor of a national healthcare system. 

If politicians touch Medicare, there will be an uprising in this country in which we will see more protests and activism.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 2, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Instead of arguing in circles about who ends up paying for what
(not just with  health insurance, but what about the costs of crime that taxpayers foot the bill for. What about consequences of smoking pot and who is going to pay for that when we can't even agree what consequences are provable or not!)
Why not set up "separate tracks" so people CAN track the costs of their own policies, ie
A. A separate track for REGISTERED DEMOCRATS, PROCHOICE and/or PROLEGALIZATION advocates to live under and pay their taxes to VOLUNTARILY by ORGANIZING exchanges and coops based on party principles and paid membership on terms and conditions that the actual GROUP members vote on democratically
and accept FULL FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RESPONSIBLITIES for.
B. A separate track for REGISTERED REPUBLICANS and PROLIFE and Anti-Drugs advocates to pay taxes to support.

So instead of arguing back and forth, the group members ACCEPT responsibility REGARDLESS of the cost, and quit imposing on others. If any such policy is unsustainable, the group that advocated that policy has agreed to pay the costs, so it's in that groups "best interest" to pick the most cost-effective consistent policies to pay for.


----------



## Rustic (Mar 2, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


...and health insurance is NOT health care...


----------



## Rustic (Mar 2, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


Yep, the only good about cuba are the people trying to escape the socialist government/socialized medicine that is killing them. These fuckers hear that keep on saying there something good about Cuban medicine government or whatever should go over there and live there hopefully the fucking socialist government beats the fucking shit out of them before they kill them…


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 2, 2017)

IResist said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > IResist said:
> ...



So you admit obamacare is a mistake, i agree. 

You keep avoiding the question, why is medicare a national treasure when liberals first lied about the cost,and future projections show crippling cost ahead. How come cost does not matter?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Mar 2, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Why not dissolve the union into separate federations of red and blue states roughly along the Mason-Dixon line and have entirely separate political, and economic systems ?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> First off, Cuba *IS* the poster child for socialized medicine. Their health care system reflects perfectly the values of socialism.... 'fairness and equality'.
> 
> But that isn't the reasons we are pointing it out and mocking you.
> 
> ...



You've found an author who paints a portrait of  the Cuban healthcare system as one that was  spiraling into decline between 1997 and 2006. Lucia Newman left Cuba in 2006 but the report you  use as your ammunition was published in 2012, 6 years later. The WHO report was published in 2000.


. But is there really a disparity between what Newman says about Cuba's healthcare system during her tenure there and the position of Cuba on  WHO's list? Although you are determined to make it an issue, there may be none at all. Thankfully,  Newman report was more objective than your excerpts would indicate. for instance, Newman also wrote:


*"The Cuban system works - or is supposed to work - by emphasising primary and preventative healthcare. *

For any country, but particularly for a poor nation such as Cuba, it is much easier and less expensive to prevent than to cure.

*Every square block is assigned a family doctor, or general practitioner, who lives in a small, two-storey house in the neighbourhood. The bottom floor is used to receive patients and the top floor becomes the doctor's living quarters. *

He or she ensures that every child receives the proper vaccinations and that every pregnant woman has a monthly check-up, blood tests, and so on.

The doctor can prescribe medicine which, in theory, can be purchased for practically nothing at state-owned pharmacies - the only pharmacies that exist. And if a patient needs more complex care, he or she is referred to a specialist at a public hospital or clinic.

*During the period when the Cuban government received generous subsidies from the former Soviet Union, the system more or less worked well. Hospitals were clean and, although they did not have state-of-the-art equipment, people could rely on them. "*



 You have either quoted or paraphrased every negative point penned by Lucia Newman who moved with her family to Havana in 1997 as a CNN news correspondent. But you excised any positive points she made in the same report.
The red highlighted paragraph above shows a direct cause of what she perceived as a decline in  Cuban healthcare
and it isn't tied to socialism. The decline ,in her eyes , was attributed to the loss of subsidies when the former Soviet Union collapsed. But obviously, the decline was/is gradual. The years or year  the Cuban healthcare system was assessed by WHO must have been  prior to Newman's arrival in Cuba although the report was published in 2000!





Andylusion said:


> How can you even attempt to compare a system where people don't have access to medications, all the way down to the super advanced space age technology of "Aspirin", to the US where you can buy 100 pills for $4, at a quick mart?



Your dishonesty reeks! Newman provided the answer but you didn't want us to know. I found it anyway:

"
"By the time I moved to Cuba in 1997, there were serious shortages of medicine - from simple aspirin to more badly needed drugs.

*Ironically, many medicines that cannot be found at a pharmacy are easily bought on the black market. *Some doctors, nurses and cleaning staff smuggle the medicine out of the hospitals in a bid to make extra cash"



Andylusion said:


> How can you even try and compare a system where people bring food to doctors to bribe them into treating you, to our system I can see a specialist the same week I ask for an appointment?
> 
> That's our point. You cited the WHO report which even had Cuba on the list. Cuba's health care is absolutely horrific. HORRIFIC.



Again, you add your own spin to Newman's essay.  Food and money are brought by patients who want to jump ahead of the line.  Her is what Newman actually wrote:

"Although medical attention remains free, many patients did and still do bring their doctors food, money or other gifts to get to the front of the queue or to guarantee an appointment for an X-ray, blood test or operation.

If you do not have a contact or money to pay under the table, the waiting time for all but emergency procedures can be ridiculously long."



Andylusion said:


> Video from inside Cuban hospital.
> 
> Now you tell me in what way you can logically say a comparison between this, and the US, makes sense? You tell me by what measure of quality of care, that the WHO placed Cuba at 39th, compared to the US 37th?



You can post negative  pictures taken from anywhere and declare them to be related typically to the decline of Cuba's health care.  Unless I took the pictures myself I would opt to put more credence in an interview with an American student who graduated from the Cuban international Medical school:
Rich Warner writes:

"Pundits have been discussing the merits (or not) of Fidel Castro’s legacy as his body lies in state. The Cuban healthcare system is often stated as one of El Commandante’s greatest achievements. But how great is the system really? As someone who trained as a doctor in Cuba, I’d like to give you an insider’s view.

The Cuban healthcare system, borne out of its revolutionary socialist ideology, regards accessibility to healthcare as a fundamental right of its citizens. It focuses heavily on a preventative approach to medicine and offering the simplest check-up to the most complex surgery, free of charge. Dental care, medicines and even home visits from doctors are all covered by the system.

The island has the health statistics to support this seemingly impeccable system. An infant mortality rate of 4.2 per thousand births (compared with a rate of 3.5 per thousand births in the UK in 2015), life expectancy of 77 years for men and 81 years for women (on par with the UK’s life expectancy of 79 years for men and 83 years for women), and a doctor to patient ratio of one per 150, which surpasses many developed nations (UK ratio from the latest World Bank data is 2.8 doctors per 1,000 patients). It is no surprise therefore, that the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, during a visit to Cuba hailed its healthcare service as, “a model for many countries”."

This article  was published in November 2016.  To me Warner's narrative suggests the healthcare decline seen by Neman is in remission. Many of the bad press and images you have been throwing at us may be   reflections of the past if this article is any indication. Newman, in the link you provided substantiated that trend back in 2012  in the cited report:

"
"*In all fairness, in the past five years, the government has made great efforts to improve hospitals and health centres, but again, lack of resources is making the process painfully slow*."

"
*"From my experience, there are specialties in which Cuba excels, such as the rehabilitation of patients who have had strokes or are suffering from neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's disease. Patients who go to CIREN (the Centre for Neurological Regeneration) receive personalised care from well-trained therapists"

"*
"*And as with so many things in Cuba, the state health service offers some amazing paradoxes: you may have problems obtaining medicine, but getting a bust lift, or even a sex change, is no problem, and moreover, it is free of charge."

*
The data you are presenting here is outdated. Cuba has been changing for the better. But the nexus between the WHO ranking of 2000 and Newman's 2012 report  does not necessarily show a conflict. Both merely indicate observances taken at two different periods.  Warner's report, the latest assessment available thus far, indicates neither the WHO report or Newman's report are relevant today. Cuba might have a higher ranking now than it did in the 2000 Who report. The USA might be higher on the list too, thanks to Obamacare!


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...



HAHAHAHA you are such a damn idiot, further conversation with you is foolhardy. Outbursts like this one will get no response.  If you say something worthwhile I will reply!


----------



## Rustic (Mar 2, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


This is better...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


 I figured it out... Two nuts, you and Andy, introduced Cuba, ranked below the USA, into the conversation and  decided to ignore the  long list of countries  AHEAD of the USA on the list.


----------



## Rustic (Mar 2, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



17 reasons against socialized medicine…

1. To the extent that your mother is living on social security she is already the victim of an actuarially unsound program classified by many as an outright fraud. A large part of your difficulty in meeting bills is the product of this government program designed to "help the aged." You may be sure that a government program designed to "help the sick" would fare no better, and probably worse. People do better if they are charged with personal responsibility for their welfare.

2. Social security payments are reduced or eliminated if your mother earns over $1,200 per year. This particular inequity within the entire inequitable program should be remedied, yet the problems posed by any attempt at "equity" tend to point up the undesirability of seeking "solutions" on a national basis.

3. Your mother’s income is undoubtedly suffering from inflation, which is the result of prior government activity. Please, therefore, do not ask for more government programs. Inflation raises the cost of everything, medical services and supplies included, and such "hidden taxation" affects all income, taxable and nontaxable.

4. If you ask the government to force others (through taxes) to help you in your particular situation, you cannot expect others not to ask government to force you to help them. In all probability you will end by paying out much more than you will receive through this process.

5. Assuming genuine need, private charities and local agencies would be willing and able to do considerably more along lines of aiding you if taxes were not already markedly diminishing their ability and inclination to function. The high progressive rate also tends to discourage many would-be doctors, whose terrific initial educational investment should be allowed to pay off. To the extent that a doctor shortage exists, government must share a substantial portion of the blame. My own dentist has cut his work-week from five days to four because, in the words of his financial adviser, he was "working too many days for the government." Do not, therefore, add to this tax burden.

6. Even assuming that the taxes required to run a program of government medicine might aid your mother in the short run, such taxation would also put more people into her shoes.

7. Government bidding for medical services and supplies would increase costs. Great Britain‘s program has slightly more than tripled such costs. If you are serious in your alarm over high costs, you will resist a government program strongly.

8. Since the program would be designed to help millions of others, and not your mother alone, competition for supplies and services, in addition to raising costs, might make it difficult to obtain any at all. A shortage of goods and services would immediately occur if the government were to attempt to mitigate the effects of its own actions through price controls. Priority given to more serious cases would frustrate immediate treatment of minor cases. A man who could be "back on the job" in minutes might have to wait weeks, with resulting loss of production to himself and to society.

9. A program of socialized medicine, once begun, would be extremely difficult, politically, to abandon, no matter how mistaken the program should prove to be.

10. The vast majority of doctors do not like socialized medicine. The reasons they give—dislike of regimentation, the destruction of doctor-patient relationship, and the like—while important in themselves, are secondary to the inescapable conclusion. If the government seeks to accomplish by force something that would not occur voluntarily and institutes a program which doctors dislike, the result will be fewer, and poorer, doctors. We hardly want this situation.

11. The temptation to "get something for nothing" would prove irresistible for many people. Statistics contrasting the number and length of illnesses of those who have government health insurance (in Great Britain and elsewhere) with those who have private insurance (in the U.S. and elsewhere) provide amusing proof of this. A large portion of government expenditure would go to those whose needs are questionable. This, also, would increase costs. Lack of local administration and responsibility might frequently deny sufficient benefits to those whose needs are genuine.’

12. Socialized medicine would be another long step to total socialism. Socialism, whatever else it may do, hardly increases production. By its emphasis on distribution, it retards production in a thousand ways. This will lower the standard of living for everyone, your mother included.

13. The functions of medicine are basically twofold: administration of known drugs and techniques, and research. We come in contact with the profession through the former, but progress occurs only through the latter.’ Socialized medicine would cause a shifting of emphasis from research to general upkeep, with the result that over-all medical progress would be retarded. The British experience proves this beyond question.

14. Since the science of medicine under free enterprise in the United States has given us the best medical service in the world’s history; since it has prolonged life in a phenomenal manner; since our medical supplies and services are infinitely superior to those in any other country… you should attempt to retain these advantages by fighting to retain the system under which they developed.

15. It is a mistake for the government to consider the problems of the sick apart from those of society as a whole. Such consideration is a private matter, to be solved by private and local methods. Such a narrow outlook on behalf of the government obscures the broader problem which is, in a moral sense, one of promoting respect for the individual and the furtherance of initiative and self-providence; in an economic sense, one of increasing production for the benefit of all citizens;3 and in a political sense, one of removing government as a battlefield for special favor and substituting cohesion and solidarity for division and disintegration.

16. No system, not even the free economy, can give everyone everything he wants at once. It is dangerous to allow or encourage any government to substitute its judgment for that of its citizens. It is well to keep in mind that no country has come close to matching the United States in the solution of the very problem your mother presents. I would recommend investigation of the numerous, actuarially sound private health insurance programs, which already insure a substantial majority of all American families. There are approximately 150 such programs in the United States today. Such diversification provides an ability to suit individual requirements which would be impossible under a federal program.

17. Finally, let us consider the moral issue. You may feel that this is simple—that it is not morally correct for society to neglect those in need. But is there such a thing as "collective morality"?4 Is not moral action exclusively individual? Can any action be moral if it is induced by compulsion? Who is acting and thinking in moral terms: the person who, cognizant of those in need, seeks to remedy the situation insofar as possible by resorting to his own pocketbook, or a person who thinks only in terms of legislation to force everyone else to take care of the problem?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Rustic said:


> These fuckers hear that keep on saying there something good about Cuban medicine government or whatever should go over there and live there hopefully the fucking socialist government beats the fucking shit out of them before they kill them…


You mean like the cops do Blacks here?


----------



## Rustic (Mar 2, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > These fuckers hear that keep on saying there something good about Cuban medicine government or whatever should go over there and live there hopefully the fucking socialist government beats the fucking shit out of them before they kill them…
> ...


That is a nothing burger…
2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 2, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



No dipshit, you introduced the WHO propaganda whackos that ranked cuba statistically right next to the USA. 39th and 37th are close enough to be essentially the same. That is why andy highlighted it, everyone with a decent amount of smarts can see that, which also explains why you cannot.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 2, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Beacause i nailed you again, whenever i catch your lies and deflection, then you pretend to be above the crap you posted.


----------



## ph3iron (Mar 2, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…


Deadbeats = uppity nxxxx? No toothless white Mississippians? Let me guess, high school white boy sucking off his socialist VA, SS medicare benefits


----------



## ph3iron (Mar 2, 2017)

Keep the gov out of my Medicare, that's what the trumpette said. Medicare overhead 6% private 20%


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 2, 2017)

Whatever one wishes to call it, the system in France is working fine.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


 I posted a truncated list from my link you lying troll. Mine ended at 37 because I  was focusing on the 36 countries ranked ahead of the USA. Andylusion  followed the link I  had provided as a courtesy, he saw Cuba was ranked just 2 below the USA and seized upon the opportunity to throw Cuba into the  mix. That desperate tactic was all he had.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


All you are catching here is egg on your face.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Whatever one wishes to call it, the system in France is working fine.


 INdeed. And, according to Lucia Newman., the former CNN reporter, the Cuban healthcare system has been amazingly resilient.


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 2, 2017)

Cuba seems to produce a lot of good doctors. One could imagine Cuba becoming a health care paradise with a sufficient infusion of Yankee capital and infrastructure. Just light up the place with the Internet free and it will all take care of itself.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 2, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Whatever one wishes to call it, the system in France is working fine.


Commonwealth rated them last in quality and access


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 2, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


 
So sayeth the dumb liar


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 2, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever one wishes to call it, the system in France is working fine.
> ...


Appeal to authority when it suits you, question authority when they disagree, the ways of the lying socialist.


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 2, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever one wishes to call it, the system in France is working fine.
> ...



...and the last shall be first...

If France's system is poor, America can provide as much as the French State does to all its citizens even more economically. It just chooses not to.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Rustic said:


> 17 reasons against socialized medicine…
> 
> 1. To the extent that your mother is living on social security she is already the victim of an actuarially unsound program classified by many as an outright fraud. *A large part of your difficulty in meeting bills is the product of this government program designed to "help the aged."* You may be sure that a government program designed to "help the sick" would fare no better, and probably worse.* People do better if they are charged with personal responsibility for their welfare.*
> 
> 2. Social security payments are reduced or eliminated if your mother earns over $1,200 per year. This particular inequity within the entire inequitable program should be remedied, yet the problems posed by any attempt at "equity" tend to point up the undesirability of seeking "solutions" on a national basis.



I had to take pause after just two of your "reasons against socialized medicine." Your use of unsubstantiated declarations is bothersome. What precedence can you cite to validate your claim that;" 
People do better if they are charged with personal responsibility for their welfare*."? *Ostensibly, that sounds good and looks good on paper but the historical record does not support it. Socialized medicine was born to offset abuses and disparities formed by capitalistic prerogatives.

_"When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism.

And if medicine is for profit, and war, and the news, and the penal system, my question is: what's wrong with firemen? Why don't they charge? They must be commies. Oh my God! That explains the red trucks!" ~Bill Maher_
Health Care Problem Isn't Socialism, It's Capitalism | RealClearPolitics


BTW anyone reaching maximum retirement age, presently 66,before drawing social security is not penalized by earning more than the stipulated limit.  But if  all ggregagte income is above a certain limit, income tax is levied against Social security income too.



Rustic said:


> 7. Government bidding for medical services and supplies would increase costs. Great Britain‘s program has slightly more than tripled such costs. If you are serious in your alarm over high costs, you will resist a government program strongly.



From healthcare insurance to medical procedure, American healthcare has been had at the  the highest cost  in the world.
Socialized medicine has been cheaper for decades than the American model..and has ranked higher on the list generated in 2000 by WHO in regards to best overall healthcare for  respective populations.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


The reports are there for all to read for themselves.  I don't lie, I just report what  the people who appear to be the most credible say. Who are you citing?  Is it Andylusion/


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


 I'm done with you... You have run out of gas and all you have left is crude  ad hominem attacks, I have no time for such puerile nonsense. g'day,


----------



## Rustic (Mar 2, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > 17 reasons against socialized medicine…
> ...


 This is a republic that happens to be capitalistic, finding a place or a niche to make money is a good thing. No one has the right to expect free shit, Or someone else to pay for their shit.
Like I say I have no right to healthcare, but I do have a right to earn healthcare...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Rustic said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Free shit like fresh air and inheritances you didn't earn??? I started to include water but industrialists were FREE to pollute it so much people now have to have  extreme filtration or resort to drinking bottled water.

Industry and their products are infamous for making people ill but are usually not held accountable. We are left to fend for ourselves in the healthcare jungle. What rights do we have that would have prevented that? The other industrialized nations have taken that into account  in my view and have adopted socialized medicine partially  to offset the evils of industrial pollution and its ill effects on  the health of  those various populations..The least the people can do for themselves and their families is to use their power to gain universal access to healthcare with minimal or no personal cost.
 I am confident that Jesus would agree with me... I know the Pope would!


----------



## Rustic (Mar 2, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


The pope is a cult leader...
Like I said I have no right to healthcare, but I do have a right to earn health care...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 3, 2017)

Rustic said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Any rights you have are determined by the society you live in.The European Union and the United Nations (UN) recognize health care as a human right, and it is guaranteed in the constitutions of 38 percent of UN members.

You can say what you did about your right to"earn" healthcare as opposed to having the unconditional right to  healthcare because you have been socially conditioned to think that way. We all have. But some of us have come to recognize America stands virtually alone among industrialized nations who have not granted* the right* to universal healthcare to its citizens.. And when we ask ourselves why, there really is no rational explanation. The American healthcare system has, traditionally, not been kind to  those who get sick. It eats them and all they have alive. Isn't that in contravention to the
right to life, libery and the pursuit of happiness, when we  get sick?  Without universal healthcare, those rights afforded in the DOI are trivialized and become meaningless. Keep that in mind if you happen to lose everything you have worked for when your insurance has reached the  allowable limits. If Trump has his way, at your behest, we  will soon return to the time when that reality was a daily occurrence.


----------



## Rustic (Mar 3, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


 Insurance/socialized medicine/United Nations bullshit is not healthcare, that Is why America is different. We don't want to be like socialized Europe. And no I do not feel comfortable paying for something that might happen to me or anyone else… Why can't people pay for their own shit?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 3, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Insurance/socialized medicine/United Nations bullshit is not healthcare, that Is why America is different.



I can't make sense of your sentence here. Are you confusing healthcare systems with healthcare? Insurance/socialized medicine/United Nations (bullshit ?) in the context of which I was speaking are subsets of healthcare systems. America's healthcare system is based on capitalism, and, without a socialized healthcare system of some kind, millions of our citizens would be subject to greater health risks due to lack of access at the primary care level. With the demise of the PPACA, our healthcare system is spiraling back to the dark ages when middle class and poor Americans were subject to the audacious whims of health insurers. Too often those whims were based on profits and  the claims of sick people was anathema  to  their capitalist goals. Healthy people paying high premiums were ideal clients but get sick and you could be dropped like a hot potato with no thought as to reimbursement of any part of the thousands of dollars you may have paid  previously. That was ROBBERY, not healthcare insurance. BUt it didn't stop there. For those who  were not eligible for Medicare, a spend down of personal assets had to be effected before you could qualify o be considered for Medicaid.
Medicaid  offered very little help for  those people living in areas where Doctors refused to accept it due to profit limiting factors built into the program. In that scenario the healthcare system was transformed intro a healthcare jungle where only the economically fit could survive. DO we really want to go back there?




Rustic said:


> We don't want to be like socialized Europe. And no I do not feel comfortable paying for something that might happen to me or anyone else… Why can't people pay for their own shit?



who is WE?? Obviously you are hallucinating again. You don't speak for me, and; according to this PEW research chart, you don't speak for the majority of Americans either:


----------



## Rustic (Mar 3, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance/socialized medicine/United Nations bullshit is not healthcare, that Is why America is different.
> ...


Obama care only works for people who abuse it…


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 3, 2017)

Rustic said:


> It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…



So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are?  Like many things, we need a balance between socialism and capitalism.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 3, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



The EU is by their own admission in crisis, they are freaking out because we may not be taking care of them anymore, parts of the EU are breaking up, and some countries have spent themselves in oblivion, and are virtually failed states.....

But here you are saying we need to catch up to the other industrial nations? 

No, they need to catch up to us.  We're leading the world, not them.

No, it is not a contravention to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.   If you work yourself so hard you get ill, that's not an infringement of your rights.   That's you exercising your right to be stupid, and pay the consequences for it.

You engage in homosexuality, and get all kinds of STDs, you used your rights, and you still have them.   You just don't like the results of exercising your rights.

If is something random happens, that is not in our country, why must we pay for something we didn't do?   

When my air conditioning broke, I didn't run around screaming that my rights to pursue happiness were infringed.  Was I happy?  No.   But that's not your fault, so why should you pay for it?

When I got sick, I went to the hospital.  I didn't have money for it, so I got a bill.  I paid the bill.   I was the better part of three years paying off that bill.   But I paid it.  I didn't whine and cry like a left-wing baby, that it was YOUR job to pay MY bill.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 3, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> When I got sick, I went to the hospital. I didn't have money for it, so I got a bill. I paid the bill. I was the better part of three years paying off that bill. But I paid it. I didn't whine and cry like a left-wing baby, that it was YOUR job to pay MY bill.


  With the exception of  this quote, your rant has no real relevancy to the op.

MY RESPONSE:

The  anecdote of your personal experience seems contrived at best. I was under the assumption that, as a working adult you always had health insurance. Now, according to your words above, you had to pay for a hospital stay out of your pocket.  Please elaborate... Did you have insurance or not?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 3, 2017)

Rustic said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


what does that have to do with  that chart??????


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 3, 2017)

jasonnfree said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…
> ...



A 'balance between socialism and capitalism' is the cause of all the problems we have right now.

Just think about it.   Which areas of the economy right now are having tons of problems?   The virtually unregulated office supply market?  The unegulating computer market?   The unregulated building supply market?  Electrical market?  Food market?

No, none of these areas of our economy, and many others, are having any problems whatsoever.  A purely capitalistic system, that provides the most good, to the most people.

So what areas are having problems?    The highly regulated housing market, with a centralized government entity, Fannie and Freddie, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated health care market, with a centralized government agency, Medicare, controlling the vast majority of the market.

The highly regulated banking market, with a centralized government agencies, FDIC and the Federal Reserve, controlling the vast majority of the market.

If having a balance in capitalism verse socialism, was the key, then why is it that all the unregulated capitalists system have no problem providing services and products for the people, but all the 'balanced' socialized systems do?

Socialism never works.  Never.  Not one time.   And trying to have some sort of a hybrid system, means that people game the system, until it breaks.

*So you mean deadbeats are people who aren't sick but pretend they are?*

Yes.   That is very common, but also it means more than that.

For example, here in Ohio, we have had several doctors get sent to prison because they handed out tons of prescriptions for oxycodone, to people who asked for it.  

Doctors would move into economically depressed areas, where people wanted to medicate their pain away.    Doctors knew this, so they go there, open up a shop, charge people $250 per person, and hand out a prescription for $1,000 worth of pills.

So how can they afford this?   Medicaid.  Medicaid covers the majority of the cost.  They then take the pills and sell them for $10,000, which covers the cost of the next doctor visit, and the co-pay for medicaid, and of course some money and pills left over to get high off of.

In a free-market capitalist system, where the patient was paying the bill themselves, this would never work.

But of course the left-wing would hunt down some person, make up a story that they were on the verge of dying, and the evil Republicans were doing it to them.

In reality, their system has caused the opioid mass deaths across the country right now... AND is bankrupting the country.

There are other situations too.   For example, more and more people are choosing to live a promiscuous lifestyle, and highest rates of new HIV infections is happening in this group.  We have to pay for that, if we have socialized care.

Let me give you a better real life example.  I had a relative in the family who was told if he didn't quit drinking alcohol, he would die.   He refused.  He's dead today.  But not before spending hundreds of thousands in treatment.   In that case, he had private insurance, and paid for it himself.  In a socialized system, we would have to pay the price for all such examples of irresponsibility.

I had a co-worker year ago, who was an open, admitted, alcoholic.   She drink, by her own admission, until she passed out every other day.   She ended up in the hospital routinely.  The last time she ended up with her heart stopping, and had to have surgery.   Again, she's telling me this, and everyone there said this is what happened.

The doctor told her she had to stop drinking, or she was going to die.  When I left the company, she was still a drunk.

Under a socialized system, we pay for that, instead of her.

Then you have problems like they had in France.  In France, doctor visits used to be free.  But they found situations where people would go to the doctor.... simply because they were lonely.  

Another problem was that because pills were free, they could take so many pills, that they would end up getting sick from the pills, and take more pills to rememdy the illness brought on by the pills they were already taking.

Of course in a free-market capitalist system, where they were paying for their own pills, this wouldn't happen.   But is a socialized system, like that of France, the public pays for it, which is why they are in an economic crisis right now.

There are hundreds of examples where in a socialized system, people adapt to the incentives they are given, and break the system.

Venezuela is having that happen right now.   Electricity is highly regulated and subsidized in Venezuela.   This was done so the poorest people can have electricity.    At the same time, Venezuela has extensive capital controls preventing monetary flight from the country, because of high taxes and tariffs and regulations.

Well they now have found that people are renting industrial areas (which has fewer power outages), and filling them with old computers to do bitcoin mining.  They then take the bitcoins to get money outside Venezuela, to buy food, and property out of the country, so they can leave Venezuela.   And the only reason this works, is because electricity is so cheap, that bitcoin mining is profitable.

No matter what system you put in place, people are going to find a way around that system.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 3, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > When I got sick, I went to the hospital. I didn't have money for it, so I got a bill. I paid the bill. I was the better part of three years paying off that bill. But I paid it. I didn't whine and cry like a left-wing baby, that it was YOUR job to pay MY bill.
> ...



You already proved yourself unqualified to discuss this topic.  I no longer care what you think on this issue.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 3, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



The last couple or three generations of oldsters would have been up the creek without a paddle had there not been 'socialist' social security for them, to name one social program.  How about medicare/medicaid for the poor and elderly?   Our school system is somewhat socialist, since some families couldn't afford the cost of an education for their kids in a 'free market' economy.   So far, the 'free market' being the solution is just theory.  Look at turn of the century America that Jacob Riis wrote about and showed pictures about in his books about poverty in America.  Government intervention finally changed those squalid conditions, not the capitalists who were making billions.   A balance between the two systems is necessary or either one will get out of hand.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 3, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Yeah, run you lying cur RUNNNNNN! But you can't hide.....


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 3, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



I'm not hiding.. I'm just mocking you.  You have proven yourself incompetent since the start of this thread.   We're all laughing at you.  You are the only one here that hasn't caught on to us mocking you yet.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 3, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


You don't have the brains to mock me.  I handed you your ass and now you are just trying to salvage some of your dignity  with nonsense. But nonsense is your forte!
You have entertained us with your endless stupidity and endless tirades...  please do not stop... you are a superb study of comical fare... I do  declare!


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 3, 2017)

jasonnfree said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Not true.  Simply not true.    By any measure the elderly are worse off today, than ever before.

We used to have a sense of family, that people are supposed to take care of their family.    Today, people are more lonely, and empty, than ever before in the past, because the younger generation believes that they shouldn't have to take care of mom and dad.   Sadly, now the baby boomers who started this anti-family government should take care of them attitude, now are facing the same isolation they gave out.   And this generation today, will have the same problem when they get old.  No one will care about you.  No one will visit you.  No one will notice when your gone.

Now I'm saying "you", but I mean this in a general sense.   And I've seen this for years.  I worked at hospice and retirement homes, giving out drugs.   People there look absolutely hopeless and miserable.  Sitting in a dirty smelly chair, staring at a TV set, waiting for some nurse to give them their tasteless microwave food.

I've been to a number of these places.   They are all the same, until you get way outside the city limits, or in a private institution not funded by the government.

Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less.   You can earn more full time at Wendy's.

People who live off the government, are never in good condition, and often would be a ton better off, if they didn't.   We had a guy they wanted to make full time, with a pay raise, but he refused because "I'll lose my social security!".  In his own words.  Never mind that he would have made more money in wages, than he collected in social security.   But he paid into social security, and by golly he wasn't going to forfeit it!   (by the way, you do know that if you work, you lose your benefits, even though by working you are paying taxes for the benefits you are not getting... right?)

And here's the kicker.  Go back and look up the history of social security.... there was no demand for it, before they created it.    The first person to collect social security, had her own home, bought and paid for.   She wasn't in a cutter somewhere.   Go look it up, if you doubt me.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 3, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



I'm sorry.... I'm spending my time talking to the adults on this thread, which excludes you.  So thanks for coming by, but I'm busy, little boy.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 3, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Where would these individuals you treated, be without social security though, is my question.  Who would pay the salaries for the staff? At one time, most Americans lived on farms and could take in the older ones.  This is no longer the case.  And people actually are living with family more and more it seems, with the high cost of living and lack of jobs. But this is usually in the city or suburbs now,  where people can't rely on the farm to feed them.  Actually, the farm that quit feeding people is what brought in the progressives,  social security, relief etc.   Now the fact that there are not the jobs there used to be like in  the 50's or 60's isn't because people got lazy and decided to quit work because the government would aid them somewhat,  but because there just aren't the available jobs anymore.   Although yes, there are a few freeloaders, most people would rather have a regular job, has been my experience.    I still contend that I wouldn't want to live in an unbridled free market capitalistic  system,  or socialist system, but somewhere in between.  Again, my opinion based on my thoughts and experience, and I allow that, yes, I could be wrong.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 3, 2017)

jasonnfree said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Well, before there was Medicare and Medicaid, did people see doctors?  Yes.   Go to hospitals?  Yes.  Have health care?  Yes.  Before there was social security, were people able to live and survive just fine?  Yes.

That said, I disagree with the claim that there are not jobs like in the 50s and 60s.  There are.  Most certainly there are.

The difference today is, no one wants to do them.

I don't know where you guys this this wacky idea from.    You act like the 1950s jobs were this utopian view of the world.   50s and 60s jobs sucked.    A good portion of them were in mining, and lumber yards, and steel mills.   You ever seen a steel mill job for US Steel?   They suck.

And in the 1950s, you didn't get two weeks paid vacation, and all your holidays off.  Some you only got holidays and that as it.  You worked year-round.    There certainly was no sick pay.  You worked more hours, typically 48.    And the average wage in 1952 manufacturing, was $7.50 a week.   That's only $68.73 in current dollars.  Wendy's pays more than manufacturing jobs in the 50s and 60s..... and they have air conditioning, and paid breaks, and a free meal.  None of which did you get in the 50s and 60s.

There are plenty of long-term low-end manufacturing jobs, or entry level jobs, that will get a much better standard of living than anything they had in the 50s and 60s.

What has changed isn't the availability of jobs that pay as well if not much better, with more benefits and far better working conditions than the 1950s and 1960s.

What has changed... is our demands for what we want.   The people in the previous generation were far more accepting of what they had, and what they could afford, and what standard of living was good.    My grandmothers home was smaller by far, than my Condo that I live in today. 

The problem isn't a lack of 50s and 60s jobs.  There are plenty of 50s and 60s jobs.   The problem is the greed and envious public we have, that wants to live a $60,000 life style, on a 1950s and 1960s type of job.   Well those jobs didn't pay that much then, and they still don't today.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 3, 2017)

jasonnfree said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Just out of morbid curiosity, what do you consider an unbridled free market capitalistic system?

I'm only asking because every time I hear someone say something like that, they immediately point to a socialized system.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


   I was about to go but  after those remarks I'm obliged to highlight your ignorance again. Stay tuned.


----------



## Juicin (Mar 4, 2017)

Uhhh health care is the one area Americans are not best at

We pay double for the same care canadians get. Same with the French, Brits, and Germans. We spend just under 20% of GDP on healthcare when the treatment we receive* is not substantively different than societies who spend half that.

The only time you'd want to be in America is for some experimental procedure only an obscene amount of money can buy or luck can get you into the program.

Healthcare is so fucking out of whack here people go to fucking Tijuana to get medical procedures. Pretty much says it all right there, Americans going to fucking mexico for healthcare


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.



 Oh, JEESSHHHH! Don't you ever know what the heck  you are talking about?  An individual's  Old Age social security payment depends on how much he /she earned over a lifetime and is calculated by a complex formula.



Andylusion said:


> Not true. Simply not true. By any measure the elderly are worse off today, than ever before.



That is a pretty broad  statement but with people living longer I am not sure that is a fair comparison to a era when the average lifespan was  65 and when the "elderly" were far fewer in number relative to the general population.



Andylusion said:


> People who live off the government, are never in good condition, and often would be a ton better off, if they didn't.



I know your memory is bad but you  must be kidding. Were you alive in 2008. Maybe you were in a coma, so I;'l bring you up to speed on how people with government pensions, medicare and social security were  protected during those tumultuous economic times:
America Lost $10.2 Trillion In 2008

U.S. homeowners lost a cumulative $3.3 trillion in home equity during 2008, according to a report fromZillow. (MortgageWire.)

One in six homeowners is now underwater on their mortgage.
The stock market erased $6.9 trillion in shareholder wealth in 2008.
Add together the loss of housing equity of $3.3 trillion and the stock market loss of $6.9 trillion, and you've got a historic loss of wealth of $10.2 trillion.

To put that number in perspective, it's almost one fifth of the GDP of the entire world. It's about the size of the US Debt at the end 2008, meaning we could have paid off the entire debt of our government with the money we lost last year.

Given that historical precedent, your shallow thinking has been exposed once again!


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

Juicin said:


> Uhhh health care is the one area Americans are not best at
> 
> We pay double for the same care canadians get. Same with the French, Brits, and Germans. We spend just under 20% of GDP on healthcare when the treatment we receive* is not substantively different than societies who spend half that.
> 
> ...



Now everything you have said is entirely correct.  No one here even attempts to dispute that.

But the key is, you are talking about cost.   The reasons US patients go elsewhere is all about cost.

Equally the reason people from all over the world come to the US for care, is because of quality.

So we have a system that has higher quality than the rest of the world, but has a high cost.

The rest of the world has a low quality system, that is cheap.

So there must be a system that has high-quality and low-cost.... and there is.  It's called free-market capitalism.  Non-government run, non-government paid, market based health care.

Proof?   Well, all you need to do is look at your own example.  You mentioned Mexico.     Now Mexico has a government run public system, and they also have free-market capitalist systems.

Which do our people go to?   The government run health care system?  No.  Those hospitals funded by the government, are nightmares.

Moline man's nightmare vacation to Mexico

This man was in an accident where a tour bus, was hit head on by a truck.   They transported him to a government run hospital, which said he was going to die, stopped providing any treatment, put him in a room with 7 others, and left him to die.

You can read about the account if you like.

That's government health care.

Where do our people go, when they go to Mexico for health care?   To private hospitals, and private clinic, that provide the highest level of quality service and health care, to their valued customers.

Remember, when you go to a government hospital, you are not a customer.   They get paid whether you are healed or not, whether you are happy with the service or not.   So they don't care.

The same is true nearly everywhere in the world.   The vast majority of all medical tourism to Singapore, goes to the private hospitals, not the government ones, and the reasons are obvious....



 
The government run Singapore hospitals routinely stack between 6 to 10 people to a room, and air conditioning is that fan on the ceiling.  Privacy is.... well you see it.



 
Private hospitals in Singapore.....   tad bit different.   But that's no government regulation, no subsidies, no government insurance, you show up you pay for it.

Now you will ask the question, so why is our health care so expensive?

There are numerous reasons, but all fundamentally the same. Government regulation and subsidies.

As I posted several times before, your health care costs more money, to offset the cost of care that government doesn't pay to Medicare and Medicaid patients.






Again, this is a well established fact.  When you go to the hospital, a massive amount of your cost, which is passed on to you through insurance premiums, is additional cost you are paying, to offset the loss hospitals take on Medicare and Medicaid patients.

But even though that's the largest cost, it doesn't end there.

Another thing that drives up cost, is a lack of doctors.  Supply and Demand.   The government has intentionally prevented the opening of new medical schools, which reduces the supply of trained doctors.

Also, the government at the state level has put in place heavy regulations on hospitals, one of the worst being a requirement of a certificate of need.

Basically, if you want to open a hospital, you have to get a certificate of need, before you can open it.   And who decides if you get a certificate of need?   The existing hospitals.    So here in Columbus, I laughed when it came out that a company wanted to open a new hospital on the west side in Hilliard, and was rejected from getting a certificate of need.   Then just a few years later, Riverside Hospital, opened a Dublin branch, full size with ER.    So when a competitor tried to open a hospital, there was no need for a hospital.   But then magically a year later, there was a need to open a branch hospital in the same area.

Well of course keeping out competition keeps prices up.  Which by the way, was the exact rational the government used to create the certificate of need system.   If competition came into the health care market, then prices would fall, and hospitals could close... and that would be bad for the community.

So they got their regulations, and that drove up the prices.... and you are complaining about the prices now, when that's what the government intended to have happen.

And I could list many more things in addition to this.  For example, did you ever wonder why hospitals charge so much for aspirin?    Two reasons, in Singapore, they buy aspirin in bulk, and they have an intern give it to you.  In America, hospitals are required to buy individually wrapped Aspirin, which is expensive, and they have to have a Registered Nurse give it to you, which is expensive.   Regulations for the win.

Or how about regulations on Insurance.   Did you know that your insurance is now required to cover marriage counseling in many states?    That drives up the cost.    Did you know you are required to have alcohol addiction services covered by insurance?   That's expensive.     My insurance is required to cover maternity care.  I don't have a wife.   And I don't drink alcohol.    But my insurance must cover those things, and thus I have to pay premiums for that.

And then you complain about insurance premiums?    Government regulations and control for the win.

See, that's the problem.   Government.   The primary number one problem in health care in the US today, is government socialism, control, and regulation.

Should I mention the high cost of medical equipment?   Did you know that every single buyer and seller of medical equipment must have a government license?    What do you think that does?  Reduces supply of medical equipment.   Supply down and demand up, price goes up.  Government regulations and controls for the win.

Over and over.... throughout the entire system.   The problem is government.  That's why US citizen can find the same surgery in Mexico for a fraction of the cost.    They go to a private hospital that is non-socialized, non-regulated.... and shockingly...... SHOCKING I SAY!   The price is lower.


----------



## Juicin (Mar 4, 2017)

A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.

B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system

The only reason it makes more sense to have our system in America is because we are a much more rural nation than these other societies. It makes serving rural areas very difficult in a non profit system.

Otehr than that, there are no downsides for the vast majority of citizens. Again unless you need something cutting edge, but we will still have the best universities and hospitals in the world in a single payer system. All our competitors are in single payer systems

edit - i don't' see how you could acknowledge my first post as true then try to contradict me like this...Makes no sense

If you accept they're getting the same results for half the price, that should say it all shouldn't it? Pricing is fixed by single payer, it's the only way


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Social Security only pays out $1,300 a month or less. You can earn more full time at Wendy's.
> ...



The average Social Security check is $1,300.   That's the average.  That means 50% of the public, is getting less than that.

The rich might be getting more, but given they are rich, it doesn't matter.

To the lower 50% of wage earners in the country, Social Security is just them being doomed to poverty for the rest of their lives.

Most can earn more at Wendy's... which is why I see them at Wendy's, and Walmart, and Goodwill.

What is even more sad, is that if you had taken that same 15% that you flushed down the Social Security poverty drain, and placed it in any simple stock mutual fund, they would all be millionaires.   Instead, they are all impoverished, eating dog food.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

Juicin said:


> A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.
> 
> B) There is a reason you didn't put any pictures of Canadian or German hospitals up, they look just like ours. And again get the same results unless you're going to a premier hospital in America. And most western nations have their own premier hospitals...In a single payer system
> 
> ...



A:  I'll use Singapore as an example, when it is true and fits the discussion we're having, and it is, and does.    What pisses you off doesn't matter to the rest of us.  If you want to debate the facts I've presented by all means.  But just yelling that you don't like it.... I don't care.  Did I give you the impression I cared?   Debate the topic, or move on.  Either works for me.  I'll talk to someone else. I'm already ignoring that other guy.

B:  There is a reason I didn't put German and Canadian hospitals up there....   The German health care system is a lot like our own, in that that have private and public hospitals, and nearly everyone has private insurance, and it's expensive.    While the quality of German health care isn't at our level, it is very good.  But it is also very expensive.  So... it's not all that different from ours, it isn't an example of anything but, pretty much what we already have.

*Canadian hospital do look like ours, that's true*.   They have a different problem.    When you socialize health care, you have to fit the health care to the amount of money the government has.   In order to do this, you can reduce quality of the care, such as how Singapore has done, by stacking 10 people to a room, and giving them a fan.

There's another way.    The other way is simply by rationing the care.   You put people on a waiting list, and have them sit for 3 years to get surgery.

In that situation the hospital is going to look exactly like ours, with the same quality of care.   It's just that people wait for years to get it.

I just bought a book by a Veterinarian in Canada, called "Lucky Dog".

Lucky Dog: How Being a Veterinarian Saved My Life: Sarah Boston: 9781770893511: Amazon.com: Books

The basic story is, a Dog in Canada has much much better care than humans do.  Because a life threatening cancer, can take literally months to diagnose, and then months to get treatment, all during which a dog can get diagnosed, and treated in a few days.

In this case, the Veterinarian actually ended up diagnosing herself, using medical equipment for a horse.   Of course the average people in the country without such access... simply wait... and die.

But yes, the hospitals look the same.

Your first post largely talked about the cost of care.  I agree the cost of care is high, and I listed my reasons for it.   What I contradict is the idea that moving more towards the very causes of the problems, is a solution.   Socialized health care is the reason our health care is so expensive.   So the solution given by many, is that we should socialize it more.   As if that is going to reduce cost.  It isn't.

We already have health care systems refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid, because it doesn't pay enough.    The only reasons Hospitals still accept Medicare and Medicaid, is because private patients are over charged to make up that loss.   Well what do you think is going to happen if everyone is on Medicare and Medicaid?     The hospitals will either go broke and close (which has already happened in California, or they will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid (and we already have a few hospitals that have done this), or Medicare and Medicaid will drastically have to increase their payouts.... which means you will not be reducing costs.  Taxes in this country will have to increase by no less than 15% on nearly everyone, if not more.

Costs will go up, not down if you socialize the system even more.


----------



## Juicin (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Juicin said:
> 
> 
> > A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.
> ...



Again no it's not

Every other developed nation does it for half what we do and gets the same results. Period

And still waiting for these terrible Canadian hospitals, lol. No pics?

You're fucking deluded. 99% of the market was single payer they wouldn't have a fucking choice. We'd just make them even if they all wanted to shut down.

We make truckers work why the fuck would you imagine doctors or nurses could just all strike and our state wouldn't' react?

Pull your head out of your ass, you reek of partisan bullshit. Fucking vile

edit - and singapore should be a model of public healthcare. It's not because their wealth gap is fucking insane there. Just like every CITY

you fuckwit


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 4, 2017)

Juicin said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Juicin said:
> ...



* 440,000 people die each year needlessly in the US healthcare system and Andy wants to ignore that. The fool has blinders and rose colored glasses on.






These are some of the things in "clean"
US hospitals pictures won't show!*


*Andy is good at cherrypicking the worst hospitals  where socialized medicine reigns but he has been eerily silent on the worst US hospitals. Let's give him a reality check, shall we?*
10 Cities Where You Don’t Want to Get Sick

Rural hospitals in critical condition

Our Unsanitary Hospitals

Poor Sanitation Found at Pharmacy Linked to Meningitis Outbreak
Video ad warns Prospect patients on catheterization overuse in ...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


 As usual, your hindsight is 2020. You original statement made no distinctions at all. You suggested that everyone on SS received 1300 a month. And you have n0 idea that the lower 50% are doomed to poverty for the rest of their lives. Many of them are still working while drawing full social security benefits without penalty. That added income keeps them well above the poverty line and Medicare gives them  access to healthcare without having to liquidate their assets. Add that Wendy's pay to that Social Security pay and it adds up!


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



I would say that unbridled capitalism is what most on the extreme right would want.  No government interference and let the market decide winners and losers. You say you work in health care.    Honestly, if social security and medicare ended, how  many older people would be getting health care?  Not too many I think.   And I say there aren't the jobs now that there were in  the '50s.  We've shifted more and more from industrial and heavy manufacturing jobs to more and more jobs in health services and high tech. and  I'm not saying this is good either.  Jobs went overseas for higher profits for companies.  There were many more high paying manufacturing jobs available in '50s and '60s in Los Angeles and Cleveland, than there are now,  (two cities I'm familiar with from the old days), and each manufacturing job created many jobs in the communities those jobs were based in.  One reason for so many once vibrant areas now being ghost towns.   Lots of jobs in the needle industries too.  No more.  Too much offshoring.  I'm not sure what you mean by wages being $7.50 a week in '52.   They were much higher.  By the way, name a couple modern first world countries that don't combine both socialism and capitalism.   I'll bet you can't.   Japan, for example, is  a very successful country, and they have national health care as well as a social security system similar to ours.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Juicin said:
> 
> 
> > A) Don't ever use Singapore as an example of anything, they're not a nation. They're a city state, I am half South Asian, nothing pisses me off more than some dumbass from Singapore saying stupid shit like "racism" doesn't exist here. Or in any way implying we the United fucking States of America are analogous to the little pissant place.
> ...



If these corporations are so great, then why do they need to lobby congress so much?  You'd think they could make it on their own merit.  Fact is,  corporate america gets lots of help from uncle sam in subsidies and technology that was funded by the taxpayers.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

Juicin said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Juicin said:
> ...



I just posted a book on Canadian health, from a Canadian who needed health care.    

You can't "make them".   You think you are going to force hospitals to stay open?  How?   This isn't communist China, or Soviet Russia.  If I don't want to work, you can't force me to do jack.

My dentist that I have been going to for 10 years, quit the practice.  Why?  In his own words, ObamaCare.    He's retired.  You can't force him to do diddly jack.

Where do you get this idea you can force people to do anything?

More five-day doctor strikes announced - BBC News

"Simon Emmet has a kidney stone and is waiting for surgery. He is meant to have the operation in the next four weeks, but is certain the strikes will push it back."

This aspect of left-wing ideology is the most confusing to me.   You think that you can force doctors to work for low wages, and give you everything they want? No.

Poll shows 60% of European doctors are considering leaving UK

60% of current UK foriegn doctors may leave.   You can't force these people to anything.

A third of A&E doctors leaving NHS to work abroad

1/3rd of A&E doctors (that would be ER doctors in the US), are leaving the NHS.   




 

Doctors in France go on strike.
French doctors have gone on strike this year, last year, and nearly every other year.

UK doctors go on strike all the time.
German doctors have gone on strike.

The NHS is in the middle of 'the biggest cash crisis in its 68-year history'

Yeah, they spend less money than the US, which exactly why the system is breaking down.

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

French health care is going broke.  

And those are just the problems we in the US know about.  Tons of stuff in other countries is almost un-noticed.

Take Swedish health care.  A lot of people don't know, Swedish health care is in massive trouble.

'Unlike Sweden, when you call an ambulance in the US, it comes'

'Unlike Sweden, when you call an ambulance in the US, it comes'

On March 27, The Local reported that a young woman in Timrå died after being denied ambulance services even after her third call begging for help. And just two weeks earlier, on March 14th, The Local ran a story about a man in Stockholm for whom, after three calls and thirteen hours, the ambulance arrived too late. There are two similar articles from the month of February as well. And these are just the deaths.​
Now if you want to read the whole article, you can, but here's the basic premise.  In order to reduce costs, operators will ask questions to determine if they should send an ambulance.  

Why?   Because it's government care, and the amount of money for ambulances is limited.  So they have to limit ambulance services.   In the US, the customer pays for the ambulance, thus as more people call, more money is available to provide more services.

How many more examples would you like?  I can keep going.

Yes, it is cheaper elsewhere, and that's why elsewhere, people die.   Something has to give.  The bill has to be paid.  THere is no free lunch.   If you doubt that, look at the VA.   The hospitals are open, and people are on massive waiting lists.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Juicin said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



So lets take a look at some of your links.

First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??


The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.​
So your own article confirms my points.  Government regulations and controls, is destroying health care.   

Not only that, but it also points out the other aspect I was talking about, where people live poorly, and have health problems because of that, and the hospital has no control over the people.  The hospital is saying, we treat these people, and they leave, and because of their life choices, then end up coming back, and we're penalized for it.   

Exactly what I said before.

*Now how about the worst cities to get sick.*

The entire thing is pointless, because it doesn't separate gov-care from free-market Capitalist care.

Let me give you an example.  If you look at health care statistics from India as a whole, their health care system is terrible.  Just absolutely horrific. 

Yet people fly to India all the time for care.   So what gives?   Well the difference is, people are not flying to India's government care hospitals that suck.  They are flying to the private hospitals that are great.

Similarly, when you say X city has terrible care... that's because you are looking at all hospitals on average, not separating gov-care from private-care.   

It is interesting though, that 4 of the top 10, are in the most highly regulated and socialized states in the Union, NY and CA.

*The Unsanitary Hospitals article....*

Same thing.  It's a problem in NY, because NY has such a highly socialized and regulated system.   When the government is paying most of the bill, and regulating how much hospitals can charge, then funds are limited.

When funds are limited, you have to cut something.  What do you cut?  Nurses and doctors?  X-ray machines and MRIs?

Or cleaning?   Cleaning is the best thing, out of a long list of bad options, to cut.   The story in the article you posted, matches my experience perfectly.  Private hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices, are all perfectly clean.    The government run hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices, are all dirty, and disgusting.   I've been to hundreds of them, because I worked for a pharmacy that delivered everywhere in Ohio.

By the way, the last thing you want to do is retire without any money, and end up on Medicaid.  You will end up in the most horrific places when the government is paying for it.

*Not sure what your point is about the pharmacy scandal.*

It does not appear to be anything systemic to the system, but rather just a company that went bad.

Actelion’s key Drug linked to Deaths, prompting EMA Investigation
EU drug company linked to deaths, being investigated.


Here's a great story about the VA hospital.

Now, if you want to claim that if the system was socialized and government run, that magically everything would be clean and pure.... then explain that.

I don't have access to your last link, so I'm not going to comment.  I wager you don't either, but have no problem posting the link under the assumption it supports your position.   Kind of like that first one, which ended up (when you actually read the article) to support my position, not yours.

That's one of the many differences between the left and right.  You just mindlessly post stuff, and assume it supports your claims. We on the right, actually read your links and find out the real story.  In simpler terms, we're better thinkers than you.... by far.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

jasonnfree said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Juicin said:
> ...



Let me ask you something....

Alternate reality situation.   Let us say that your local town decided that they were going to regulate *YOU*....   You personally and maybe a few others in the town.   So that now if you want a promotion, or to earn more money, or get a pay raise, you have to have your local town government pass a regulation to allow you to do that.

So you reach your pay cap, and you can't do anything more in life, until someone on the town committee says you can.

Hey you think you might go have a chit chat with the town mayor? Or the city counsel members?

And then especially if you found out that your competitor was able to get a pay raise by paying a few hundred dollars to take the Mayor out for a meal... you think you might pay a few hundred bucks to take the mayor out if it meant you could get a promotion?

Now maybe you, and you alone, would be that one guy who would be content to work the rest of his life for $50,000 a year with no hope of ever making anymore, or growing your business any larger.

The fact is, the vast majority of people if they knew that once they reached the maximum pay scale, and the only way to advance was to spend some money to talk to some politicians, they'd do it.

Everyone would.

All these businesses are just people.  They want to be able to advance themselves, just like you would.   So if government is controlling every aspect of their business, then government is who they are going to lobby to allow them to advance.

And by the way, the politicians that you elect into government, know this.     You think they don't know that if they regulate companies, that companies will start spending money on them?

Take a look at Microsoft.   Microsoft before the late 1990s, didn't spend almost anything at all, on lobbying government.    Then government started making up all these bogus claims against the company, involved them in a 3 or 4 year investigation, and shockingly..... by the end of the 1990s, Microsoft was spending millions on lobbying, and magically the lawsuit was largely settled with no real penalties. (because there was no real violations to penalize).

See government knows that high taxes and massive regulations, is the key to getting corporations to pay them money.   So they whip up people like you, to support massive regulations and taxes, so they can get money from the companies.

And of course the people who are hurt the most by taxes and regulations, is not the big companies.   They have the money to lobby government.     The people who are harmed are the small companies and businesses that don't have lobbying money.

Rich get richer.  Poor get poorer.

Stop supporting regulations and taxes.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> So lets take a look at some of your links.
> 
> First the Rural hospitals.... did you read the article you posted??
> 
> ...



Yep, I read the entire link.  That is why I can easily see how you cherry picked it, typically, and culled what you needed to bolster another argument. But   my point in  posting that link in conjunction with the others was to show that many hospitals in the USA were closed down because of unsanitary conditions and /or mismanagement.  I knew you would deflect from that pertinent point and search around for anything that might support your desperate case.

Reference to  unknown critics of ACA  in the link  got your attention when they blamed  the closings of rural hospitals on
Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So, discharging patients  too early was addressed and that was the cause of hospitals closing????

A lot of hospitals were closing because their clientele couldn't afford insurance. Most rural hospitals are located in red states,, ,states having the option of rejecting Obamacare.

BTW did you miss this in the link:

" Some rural hospitals, even their advocates acknowledge, are in such bad shape and serve so few people that they probably don't deserve to stay open."


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > So lets take a look at some of your links.
> ...



Of course.  You think all regulations didn't exist until Obama Care?   

You say that they were closing because clientele couldn't afford insurance, and yet Obamacare supposedly fixed that... yet they are closing now more than ever?    Your system still doesn't work, regardless of your claims.

Further, in a free-market system, the customer and the hospital will determine if the patient was discharged too early.

When you have government paying for it, and regulations controlling it, that's when hospitals discharge people too early, because the government puts limits on payment, and limits on hospital time.

Only in leftist land, do people think some politician knows better when people should be kept, or released, than the patient and the doctor.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Allow me to put things back into perspective. The PPACA was not designed specifically  with  rural hospitals in mind. Emergency room visits were common place  for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer. That makes the idea that rural hospitals are closing their doors because of (HRRP)  suspect.  Here is why:


 In any given year, few people even went to rural hospitals, and those that did had limited funds. So how did they survive all this time? Evidently rural hospitals were being subsidized  well before the PPACA came along. Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to  double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense. The  HRRP clause in Obamacare put an end to that. So with those fraudulent funds drying up, subsidies based on number of  admittances and emergencies weren't enough to keep the doors open.

 I am not sure how primary care  is addressed in the rural community right now,but I will find out. I suspect rural hospitals are involved in it somehow but private doctors may also be present for primary care. I will have to research that. However, I suspect that primary care,  regardless of setting, may impact the revenue generated by hospitals through preventative medicine!


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



And that's MY point.

*Emergency room visits were common place for uninsured folks before the PPACA came along and the costs of treating the poor was passed on to the taxpayer.*

Is that Free-market Capitalism, or Socialized Gov-care at work?   It's socialized gov-care.  People would find cheaper alternatives if they had to pay something for the service.  Because government both required hospitals to treat anyone regardless of pay, and because the government subsidized the hospital for ER visits, then you have this problem.

Which goes back to what I said before.  When you have a socialized system, people find a way to exploit it.   This right here is proof of my claim!

*Further, I would not rule out fraud such as releasing patients early for the purpose of readmitting them several times in succession to double and triple the revenue at taxpayers expense*

Is that free-market capitalist, or socialized gov-care?   Socialized gov-care.   Again, this wouldn't happen if it was a true free-market system.

And again, this is more proof of exactly what we said.  People will find a way to exploit the system, when government is paying the bill.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 4, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



I see now that you have embraced the republican world view of  healthcare. You, and they, would have us return to a time when midwives and Rasputin-like medicine men provided medical remedies passed down through the ages. If you are against socialized medicine in any form, even the kind paid for by payroll taxes, I  have to wonder what kind of world you are envisioning. Oh, the rich and the middle class  can pay for health insurance and enjoy the benefits of primary care for themselves and their families; but, what about the poor?

I will take pause for now to reflect on  what you have said  and to evaluate your premise with as much objectivity as I can. Rest assured, I will return with a well researched response!


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 4, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



I see now that you have embraced the Democrat world view of healthcare. You, and they, would have us move to a time when hospitals are closed and the economy is in a total colaspe. If you are for socialized medicine in any form, even the kind paid for by payroll taxes, I have to wonder what kind of Greek economy you are envisioning. Oh, the rich and the middle class can move to other countries and enjoy the benefits of paying for care for themselves and their families; but, what about the poor?

I will take pause for now to reflect on what you have said and to evaluate your premise with as much objectivity as I can. Rest assured, I will return with a well researched response!

(hey, if you are just going to make up crap I didn't say, I might as well throw that crap right back at you.  Enjoy your poop)


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 5, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


What did I make up? All I was seeking from you was an honest appraisal of what you envision as  the ideal for US  healthcare in  2017 before I call it a night.
I wanted to review your response ,evaluate it and ponder the humanity of it. It is your stage and I am  listening!


----------



## AsherN (Mar 5, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > I broke my ankle hiking in Nova Scotia a while ago.
> ...



Just finished my 2016 tax return. Between my wife and me, we pull in just shy of 6 figures. we pay 19% tax. Yeah, crippling.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 5, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



medicare recipients do get more, as do the poor, which is why ours is broken, too many handouts

secondly only an idiot thinks the US could copy the Freanch exactly

third, it was a subjective study and they included non healthcare variables in their "Healthy Lives" metric. Why do you shallow thinking idiots think non healthcare variables should be used to measure health care systems?


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 5, 2017)

JQPublic1 said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



what a dipshit, he hurls a one liner at me, so I hurl one back then he pretends to be 'above it all'

You have to be really stupid to be a socialist, then be a liar to defend it. JQ epitomizes the way of the socilaitst


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 5, 2017)

AsherN said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



add in province taxes you fucking liar, that is who pays for healthcare in Canada. Also add in your private insurance if you have it as many Canadians do.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 5, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...



Exactly.   He did the same to me, multiple times.    He'll scream endless insults, and then the moment you throw one of his own insults, back at him.... his panties get all bunched up, and he starts clutching his purse and moaning about how he's better than insults.

Hypocrisy:  Hallmark of the left wing.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 5, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



You did a beautiful job and have way more patience than I do. The second I detect dishonesty then real discussion is impossible, a detailed logical argument backed up by real data is useless when the other guy is intellectually dishonest.

Think about it, there are actually people like JQ who think Cuba is something to follow. A place where doctors are paid shit and at government gunpoint produce a few 'outcomes' so socialists can say 'see, it works'. We are still having this discussion in 2017, people really are scary.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 6, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...



Well it has to do with "feeling" your way through life like a child, rather than "thinking" your way through life like an adult.

Many people are completely duped and indoctrinated by left-wing propaganda, because it 'feels' good.   Michael Morons Sicko movie, felt right.     If there was any truth to the film whatsoever, then Cuban exiles that still to this day, could easily be interviewed by Michael Moron, to determine how amazing the health care is.

But of course that requires thinking your way through an issue, rather than 'feeling' your way.

That left-wing is an entire ideology of a 5-year-old.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 6, 2017)

If you are talking about Doctors, Hospitals, Drug development, Treatments etc, the US is second to none!




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 7, 2017)

Juicin said:


> Uhhh health care is the one area Americans are not best at
> 
> We pay double for the same care canadians get. Same with the French, Brits, and Germans. We spend just under 20% of GDP on healthcare when the treatment we receive* is not substantively different than societies who spend half that.
> 
> ...



17 of the top 20 hospitals on the planet were rated here in the states, that commonwealth survey found US care better than Sweden and France, so they invented a dishonest 'healthy lives' metric to make France and Sweden better


I would not call it equal at all, US is probably better. The reason we pay so much is that you libs demand that everyone gets that superior care, and you seem to like scumbag trial attorneys.


----------



## NCC1701 (Mar 7, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Well said, and I would go further, liberalism is a religion. Government is their god and they have many dogmas they hold onto with the exact same fervor as a muslim drools over mohammed. Their reaction to Trump is proof. There is some science behind this, they way we store and hold beliefs.


----------



## Juicin (Mar 8, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Juicin said:
> 
> 
> > Uhhh health care is the one area Americans are not best at
> ...



it's too bad we're a nation of 300 million and most Americans will never see those hospitals even if they needed it

We pay double for the same outcomes, that is not great healthcare. It's barely mediocre considering what it costs.

Public healthcare is good enough for senators, it's good enough for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 8, 2017)

AsherN said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



You DO realize that if you think your taxes should be more than they are, you can simply write a check to the government without imposing your asinine views of what's "fair" on the rest of us, right?


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 9, 2017)

Juicin said:


> NCC1701 said:
> 
> 
> > Juicin said:
> ...



*Three problems with your first statement....*

*First, years ago there was some lady who got a bad cancer, and found that the absolute best place to go for this specific type of cancer, was the Mayo Clinic*.   Mayo Clinton doesn't take Medicare, so she had to pay with cash.   She sold some stuff, saved like crazy, and raise money from her family and church, and paid for the treatment, and was cured.

So when you said "they'll never see those hospitals", you don't know that.  You assume that, because it fits with your ideology.  But it's not a fact.

*Second, you said that our people can't see those best hospitals in the world*.  The fact is, the people all over the rest of the world, are the ones who actually can't see the best hospitals... because the best hospitals are HERE.  Not there.

*Third, we have to ask the questions, so why are the best hospitals here?*  And the answer is because our system is not as socialized and government controlled as their systems are.

Point being, if we adopt their socialized system, we won't have those best hospitals in the world anymore.

*To your last claim, you said "Public healthcare is good enough for senators"....*

But it's not.     Routinely around the world, people in leadership constantly escape their own systems, and seek health care from capitalists free-market hospitals, not the public ones.

I realize that you seem to have just started posting on this thread, but if you had been here for the last 26 pages, we have posted numerous examples of people in government, legislators, parliament members, and others, who have ditched their public health care system, to get treatment elsewhere.

And given that most of them have all their health expenses covered by the tax payers, the purpose wasn't to save money, which is the key reason Americans look for health care outside the US.   The key reason is, their public health care system sucks, and they want good quality treatment.

So no, the public healthcare system isn't 'good enough' for government people that promote government health care.

*And Finally, to your claim about cost.*

This claim is true.   However, I have already pointed out dozens of reasons why this is.  Government is the reason our health care costs are so high.     You are demanding more of the poison that is damaging the system, is if getting a higher dose of poison will cure us.   That's ridiculous.

Moreover, you seem to ignore the fact that the quality of health care is lower in all those places around the world.

I don't know why this is a hard concept.   When you get to super high end technology, the cost is exponentially higher.

Getting from a survival rate of 50% to 80%, costs very little.  The technologies used to achieve that, have been around for ages, and are relatively cheap.   But as you keep trying to improve the quality, the price goes up.   Going from an 80% survival rate to a 90% survival rate, is highly expensive, because the newer equipment.   When you go from 90% to 95%, you are talking about bleeding edge, highest end stuff.

Think about computers.  The original Core i7 intel CPU, now goes for $20.  Of course the newest Core i7 goes for almost $3,000.    The difference between a $15 computer from the 1980s, and a Core i7, is $5.  But the difference between a Core i7 from 2008, to 2017 is $2,995.

Point is, if health care systems around the world, set their standard level of care, at the level the US had 10 years ago, they will be difference in quality of care will not be that large, but the difference in price will be massive.

Let me give you are more direct example.  Take a mammogram machine.  They currently come in three main types.   Film, 2D Digital, and 3D Digital.   The film type is the oldest.  You can get one for $50,000, down to $20,000.     The 2D Digital type, is up near $200,000.  And the 3D Digital type, is up near $500,000.

Now what's the difference in quality of the results?  

Digital Mammography vs. Film Mammograms | Susan G. Komen®

The randomized clinical trial, showed accuracy went from 63% to 77%.

That means that a crappy low quality health care system, with a low cost $20,000 film based mammogram machine from 20 years ago, or even a used machine for $10,000, will reach roughly 63% accuracy.  While our 77% for a bran new digital mammogram machine that costs $200,000 or more.

Do you get my point now?    To get the best care, you are going to pay the highest prices for the bleeding edge technology.   That's true about EVERYTHING.

Part of the reason we pay more for health care, is due to government, but the other part is that we get the best possible care.    Other countries don't do that.   In fact in many countries, they are using the old used equipment, that our doctors consider obsolete, and don't use.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 9, 2017)

Socialized Medicine works in every civilized country except the US where it works for Medicare.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 10, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Socialized Medicine works in every civilized country except the US where it works for Medicare.



You have the right to be wrong for a long as you want.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 10, 2017)

Andylusion said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Socialized Medicine works in every civilized country except the US where it works for Medicare.
> ...


You'd have to read to know it works.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 10, 2017)

NCC1701 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > NCC1701 said:
> ...


An oddity for sure, a con who believes in science.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 10, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



It is specifically because I read, and apparently you don't, that I know it doesn't work.


----------



## Mindful (Mar 10, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Socialized Medicine works in every civilized country except the US where it works for Medicare.



It's not working very well in the UK. An overloaded system, teetering on the financial brink.


----------



## yiostheoy (Mar 10, 2017)

Mindful said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Socialized Medicine works in every civilized country except the US where it works for Medicare.
> ...


Nothing is working in the UK.

So that's no reason to blame healthcare there.


----------



## Mindful (Mar 10, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Who's blaming it? I'm not.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 10, 2017)

Trump campaigned on universal healthcare .. care for everyone.
The GOP has massaged that into access for everyone.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 10, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Trump campaigned on universal healthcare .. care for everyone.
> The GOP has massaged that into access for everyone.



I didn't pick Trump.   That's one of the reasons.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 11, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Socialized Medicine works in every civilized country except the US where it works for Medicare.



Knowing what I do about Medicare, not to mention healthcare in "every civilized country", I really have to question your definition of "works".


----------

