Do You SUPPORT Finding a Cure for Cancer?

Do You SUPPORT Finding a Cure for Cancer?

  • I Support Finding a Cure for Cancer

    Votes: 10 66.7%

  • I Do Not Support Finding a Cure for Cancer

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • Total voters
    15
PinktheFloyd88 said:
Do you support funding research to find a cure to Cancer once and for all? Do you feel this is fair to folks in the past who had Cancer but had to suffer with no cure? What about the folks who have successfully beaten Cancer and lived to tell about it, would it be fair to them if we find a cure after they went through hell and all that hard work to beat it?


Thank you :)
Click to expand...
This might be THE most ridiculous thread OP I have EVER seen.

You are seriously suggesting we NOT find a cure for cancer because to do so would not be fair to those who died of it?

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
 
PinktheFloyd88 said:
Do you support funding research to find a cure to Cancer once and for all? Do you feel this is fair to folks in the past who had Cancer but had to suffer with no cure? What about the folks who have successfully beaten Cancer and lived to tell about it, would it be fair to them if we find a cure after they went through hell and all that hard work to beat it?


Thank you :)
Click to expand...

As soon as I saw the thread title, I was sure that I knew right away what sort of dishonesty was going to be involved, and as it turns out, I was exactly right.
[Edit: OK, not quite. The dishonesty that I expected is certainly here, but now it appears that it was a metaphor, a hook, to drag us into a different, unrelated set of deceits. A new level of dishonesty built on a previous level of dishonesty.]​

Of course, nobody is opposed to finding a cure for cancer.

When you speak of FUNDING, we certainly have to ask, who is going to be made to pay how much, and for what?

Any time you see this sort of bait-and-switch, you can be certain that the one seeking “funding” is not doing so with any intention of using that funding in a way that supports the claimed purpose.

Count my vote, not as a vote against truly finding a cure for cancer, but as a vote against whatever thieving scam PinktheFloyd88 is trying to sell under the fraudulent guise of finding a cure for cancer.

1651437360110.png
 
Last edited:
Canon Shooter said:
I'd like to see the reason behind the votes cast by Bootney Lee Farnsworth and Gabe Lackmann. I just don't see how anyone could cast such a vote honestly.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is an ignorant, gullible sucker.

Not that anyone who believes that Canon makes decent photographic equipment worthy of any serious photographer, would have any hope of understanding this point.
 

It is tax money in the UK. However we are in danger. Boris wants to get us involved in your system. I checked out what that guy would have do to to get his treatment How To Get Cancer Treatment Without Health Insurance I could certainly do without that and I have heard that even people with good health insurance can have problems and need to pay something. Being ill can apparently bankrupt people in the US. You even need to pay to get an ambulance!!!

[/QUOTE]

Most people use the NHS for serious problems not least because once you have some serious illness your health insurance goes spiralling up. What you get extra in private is the choice of Drs and a bit more time spent with them as well as better accommodation and food. It is not uncommon for top physicians to work in the NHS and then have a day or two when they work privately. There was no one who had done my job so I had to go to a major city to have it done. However there was not anyone there who had ever worked with a patient with my illness either. I was given a Consultant who was a top heart surgeon. He managed to get what it was thought would be two operations done it one. I would say you do need to rely more on luck. In England now they get to choose what hospital they want to go to. Every now and then there is some scandal but I bet it is the same with you.

[/quote]

It really is just luck and the Dr who quietly looks after his or her NHS patients may well produce better outcomes than the one who also works privately. What seems crazy about the US is that your people need to pay the most but you have among 1st world states, the worst outcomes. Given that it is a bit difficult to argue what you are doing is better.



I grant you do seem to have some problems with your democracy.
[/QUOTE]

The WHO rates us at the bottom because we don't have socialized healthcare, not because we don't have good outcomes. Our country attracts the best from around the world because nobody beats our pay for professionals. As a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can testify that when an American goes into their downtown campus, we are the ones that feel like the foreigners. People come from all over the world from these socialized medical care countries to get treatments and surgeries they can't get at home. A family member of mine works there. They will rent an entire floor for royalty and the only way to get on the floor is to have a key for the elevator for security reasons. They pay cash every day they stay. The only people privy to the situation are those that work there on a need-to-know basis.

Like the WHO report, the bankruptcy thing is a lie. People do go bankrupt, but not because of medical bills. Very often when people fall to serious illness they stop working for months and perhaps up to a year. The only way to handle normal monthly bills is to file for bankruptcy protection. The lie was created by the Democrats who push for government healthcare so they have more control over the people. They use this lie at campaign time and people just believe it.

We do have deductibles, co-pays, and out of pocket expenses. If you have the money, those are non-existent or very minimal. Today I'm starting on Medicare, a fully government plan. Same thing as insurance companies. I will be responsible for whatever Medicare doesn't pay. It could be a small amount or a huge debt depending on what I'm going to need in the future. I'll be on Medicare because I've been on disability for over two years. I won't get the same benefits as those who are the age of 65 and older.

As per cancer, the US has the top 6 hospitals in the world for treatment.

www.topmastersinhealthcare.com

30 Most Technologically Advanced Cancer Centers in the World - Top Master's in Healthcare Administration

By Iris Stone March 2016 Welcome to our ranking of the 30 most technologically advanced cancer centers in the world. What does it mean to be "high-tech" in medicine? How do we determine the hospitals that are truly the "best"?
www.topmastersinhealthcare.com www.topmastersinhealthcare.com
 
DukeU said:
You can find this warning on many of the things we buy and use each day.
·​
·​
·​
WARNING - CA PROP 65
Click to expand...

DukeU said:
Here are just a few things with cancer causing agents......


List of Products Covered by California Proposition 65: An ...


  • PU leather skirts and pants
  • Vinyl shirts
  • Hats
  • Belts
  • Scarves
  • Gloves
  • Clasps
  • Bracelets
  • Necklaces
  • Anklets
  • Rings
  • Pearl products
  • Crystal and glass jewelry
  • Gem products
  • Plastic Watches
  • Stainless Steel Watches
  • Ceramic Watches
  • Wooden Watches
  • Watch straps
  • Plastic toys
  • Plush dolls
  • Wooden toys
  • Ceramic toys
  • Chemical fiber carpet
  • Upholstered Furniture
  • Wooden chairs
  • Desks
  • Eyeliners
  • Eyeshadows
  • Concealer
  • Blush
  • Lipsticks
  • Erasers
  • correction fluid
  • Pens
  • Highlighter
  • Oil pastels
  • Book protectors
  • Notebook
Click to expand...

DukeU said:

About Proposition 65 - OEHHA​


Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals can be in the products that Californians purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By requiring that this information be provided, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals.

Proposition 65 also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.

Proposition 65 requires California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 900 chemicals since it was first published in 1987.

Proposition 65 became law in November 1986, when California voters approved it by a 63-37 percent margin. The official name of Proposition 65 is the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.
Click to expand...

I refer to Proposition 65 as “The Law That Cried ‘Wolf!’”.

It's a perfect example of what happens when you promote what seems, superficially, like a good idea, to people who are too stupid to think any deeper than the shallow claims made for it. If there is a chemical nearby, that could possibly harm you, you'd like to know about it, right?

Even if that chemical is present in such a small amount, that it cannot possibly harm you?

Even if it's in a form that is harmless?

Even if it's sealed into something else, such that there is no possibility of you even coming into direct contact with it?

Proposition 65 simply requires a warning, anywhere that a chemical “known to the state of California to cause cancer birth defects, or other reproductive harm” is present. It takes nothing in to account about the amount or form of tha chemicals, or whether it actually poses any genuine threat. In the vast majority of instances where such a warning is present or required, no actual threat exists to anyone's health or safety as any result of the chemical for which the warning is required.

Here in California, we've become so accustomed to seeing these meaningless Proposition 65 warnings all over the place, warning of of chemical hazards that are no hazards at all, that where a genuine chemical-based hazard really might exist, it is nearly impossible to warn us in a manner that we would take seriously.
 
Last edited:
Ray From Cleveland said:
The problem is when over spending and wasteful spending takes place, it has no impact on the average citizens so most don't are [sic].
Click to expand...

It does have an impact, on the economy as a whole, that affects everyone.

It's just that too damn many people are too damn oblivious to how they are impacted; to how much harder they have to work, to earn enough to buy less, than they otherwise would.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not everyone is an ignorant, gullible sucker.
Click to expand...

The question is regarding whether or not we support finding a cure for cancer.

I just don't see how anyone could honestly answer "no" to that question...

Bob Blaylock said:
Not that anyone who believes that Canon makes decent photographic equipment worthy of any serious photographer, would have any hope of understanding this point.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha... is it true that you sit when you pee?
 
Canon Shooter said:
Bob Blaylock said:
Not that anyone who believes that Canon makes decent photographic equipment worthy of any serious photographer, would have any hope of understanding this point.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha... is it true that you sit when you pee?
Click to expand...

Hell, no.

Just because you're a Canon guy does not mean that real men, who use Nikons, are as pathetic and emasculated as you are.

ZSC_4829_1600x1280.jpg
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Here in California, we've become so accustomed to seeing these meaningless Proposition 65 warnings all over the place, warning of of chemical hazards that are no hazards at all, that where a genuine chemical-based hazard really might exist, it is nearly impossible to warn us in a manner that we would take seriously.
Click to expand...
Everyone has, it's not just California.

We've also become accustomed to seeing cancer numbers explode in the last 40-50 years.

I wonder if those 2 things are connected?!? :safetocomeoutff:

A​

B​

C​

D​

E​

F​

G​

H​

I​

K​

L​

M​

N​

O​

P​

R​

S​

T​

U​

V​

W​

Y​

 
Last edited:
Ray From Cleveland said:
You are 100% correct. Anybody that can tell me of a perfect medical system, please let me know which country has it.
Click to expand...
I can't Ray.....

Being i'll never leave America , i've no basis for comparison

What i did see serving here turned me, it just seemed the entire system was geared to 'kicking a man down'

And the thing was, for so many of us, is coming away with this "these were good folks, what did they do to deserve this fate?" mindset

alexa said:
Being ill can apparently bankrupt people in the US. You even need to pay to get an ambulance!!!
Click to expand...

Yes our insurance companies will (most of the time) pay for an ambulance response Alexa

And nobody is refused emergency services here for lack of funds

That said , definitive care is vetted, basically the better insurance customers go to the front of the line, those of lesser worth are continually batted about in a mobius logic strip of bureaucratic baloney

The end result being those here w/$$$ live, those w/out $$$ not at well



Bob Blaylock said:
Any time you see this sort of bait-and-switch, you can be certain that the one seeking “funding” is not doing so with any intention of using that funding in a way that supports the claimed purpose.
Click to expand...
oh you would go down that road Bobby

You're actually spot on

but so few understand , or will admit to it

~S~
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It does have an impact, on the economy as a whole, that affects everyone.

It's just that too damn many people are too damn oblivious to how they are impacted; to how much harder they have to work, to earn enough to buy less, than they otherwise would.
Click to expand...

Many don't even understand the basics like supply and demand yet alone how spending indirectly affects them. An actual consumption tax is tangible. You not only physically pay it, but it's on the receipt of whatever it is you purchased.

For instance one of my tenants bought a hybird a few months ago. Our birthdays are fairly close so we both had to get new license plate tags this year. Hers were $100.00 more than mine because I pay road taxes when I purchase gasoline. She has to buy gasoline too, just not as much. She thought she was saving money until that bill came in the mail. She has to go online or write a check for that money which hits way closer to home.
 
Sandisk said:
This might be THE most ridiculous thread OP I have EVER seen.

You are seriously suggesting we NOT find a cure for cancer because to do so would not be fair to those who died of it?

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
Click to expand...

Actually, he's seriously suggesting that having cancer is the same as taking out a student loan debt and then not wanting to pay it.
 

The WHO rates us at the bottom because we don't have socialized healthcare, not because we don't have good outcomes. [/quote]

I wasn't talking about the WHO. Its a well known fact and it is about bad outcomes. The US spends twice as much as any other developed country on health care and gets the worst outcomes though on some things for instance heart problems it is the best.

news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu

I don't know if you have seen the videos of people in the UK being told how much healthcare costs in the US.....? An organisation called NICE decides what meds we can use - that is what it believes is a good deal based on price and the effect it has on people. Then they do deals to get things cheaper. Other countries pay less for US drugs than you do.

Ray from cleveland

Our country attracts the best from around the world because nobody beats our pay for professionals. As a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can testify that when an American goes into their downtown campus, we are the ones that feel like the foreigners. People come from all over the world from these socialized medical care countries to get treatments and surgeries they can't get at home. A family member of mine works there.
Click to expand...

Yes I know people do crowd funding to go to the US for really expensive medical treatment which may work, will not definitely work but may work because they cannot get it here.
Ray from cleveland
They will rent an entire floor for royalty and the only way to get on the floor is to have a key for the elevator for security reasons. They pay cash every day they stay. The only people privy to the situation are those that work there on a need-to-know basis.
Click to expand...

Well and good but totally unnecessary.
Ray from cleveland
Like the WHO report, the bankruptcy thing is a lie. People do go bankrupt, but not because of medical bills. Very often when people fall to serious illness they stop working for months and perhaps up to a year. The only way to handle normal monthly bills is to file for bankruptcy protection. The lie was created by the Democrats who push for government healthcare so they have more control over the people. They use this lie at campaign time and people just believe it.
Click to expand...

Well I have heard lots of Americans speak about this in Documentaries. Too many to be making up lies and no reason to lie. Many people go bankrupt with your ridiculous bills even when they are not taking over a wing of a private hospital.

Using international data primarily from 2013 to 2016, the researchers compared the U.S. with 10 other high-income countries — the U.K., Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan, Sweden, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland — on approximately 100 metrics that underpin health care spending.

The study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries. For example, in 2016, the U.S. spent 17.8 percent of its gross domestic product on health care, while other countries ranged from 9.6 percent (Australia) to 12.4 percent (Switzerland). Life expectancy in the U.S. was the lowest of all 11 countries in the study, at 78.8 years; the range for other countries was 80.7 to 83.9 years. The proportion of the U.S. population with health insurance was 90 percent, lower than all the other countries, which ranged from 99 to 100 percent coverage.
Click to expand...
news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu

Ray from cleveland

We do have deductibles, co-pays, and out of pocket expenses. If you have the money, those are non-existent or very minimal. Today I'm starting on Medicare, a fully government plan. Same thing as insurance companies. I will be responsible for whatever Medicare doesn't pay. It could be a small amount or a huge debt depending on what I'm going to need in the future. I'll be on Medicare because I've been on disability for over two years. I won't get the same benefits as those who are the age of 65 and older.

As per cancer, the US has the top 6 hospitals in the world for treatment.

www.topmastersinhealthcare.com

30 Most Technologically Advanced Cancer Centers in the World - Top Master's in Healthcare Administration

By Iris Stone March 2016 Welcome to our ranking of the 30 most technologically advanced cancer centers in the world. What does it mean to be "high-tech" in medicine? How do we determine the hospitals that are truly the "best"?
www.topmastersinhealthcare.com www.topmastersinhealthcare.com
Click to expand...

But you do remain paying about twice as much as other first world countries and you do have the worst outcomes. That article is confirming this but also saying the reasons for this situation is different to what people believe. No one has ever said, and I did not say that you do not have some of the best Drs in the world but it does remain that as things are you pay about twice as much as people in other 'Western' countries for your Medical Care and you have the worst health outcomes.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
That's what they want you to think.
Click to expand...

No, that's what I know, because I work in the healthcare administration field. I know that cancer is not just one disease, but hundreds, all of which would require a different cure. I know that the first company to break the code on even one of those hundreds to produce a cure or preventative would make FAR more money off of it than they do off of treatments. I know that said company would also have the inside track on producing the second cancer breakthrough, meaning even more money. I know that there are a lot more people out there at risk of cancer than there are people who actually have cancer, providing a far larger market for preventatives and cures than there is for treatments currently.

Do I need to go on, or have I made my point?
 
alexa said:
The WHO rates us at the bottom because we don't have socialized healthcare, not because we don't have good outcomes.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the WHO. Its a well known fact and it is about bad outcomes. The US spends twice as much as any other developed country on health care and gets the worst outcomes though on some things for instance heart problems it is the best.

news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu

I don't know if you have seen the videos of people in the UK being told how much healthcare costs in the US.....? An organisation called NICE decides what meds we can use - that is what it believes is a good deal based on price and the effect it has on people. Then they do deals to get things cheaper. Other countries pay less for US drugs than you do.



Yes I know people do crowd funding to go to the US for really expensive medical treatment which may work, will not definitely work but may work because they cannot get it here.


Well and good but totally unnecessary.


Well I have heard lots of Americans speak about this in Documentaries. Too many to be making up lies and no reason to lie. Many people go bankrupt with your ridiculous bills even when they are not taking over a wing of a private hospital.


news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu



But you do remain paying about twice as much as other first world countries and you do have the worst outcomes. That article is confirming this but also saying the reasons for this situation is different to what people believe. No one has ever said, and I did not say that you do not have some of the best Drs in the world but it does remain that as things are you pay about twice as much as people in other 'Western' countries for your Medical Care and you have the worst health outcomes.
[/QUOTE]

Did you bother to read the article you triumphantly produced as "proof" of what you want to believe? Did you see what the "poorer healthcare outcomes" are that you're trumpeting? Let me enlighten you.

"Life expectancy in the U.S. was the lowest of all 11 countries in the study, at 78.8 years; the range for other countries was 80.7 to 83.9 years."

Life expectancy, as you clearly are not aware, is not a result of healthcare.

"Overall, quality of care in the U.S. isn’t markedly different from that of other countries, and in fact excels in many areas. For example, the U.S. appears to have the best outcomes for those who have heart attacks or strokes, but is below average for avoidable hospitalizations for patients with diabetes and asthma."

Oh, look, one of your major points refuted by your own article.

For the record, those are the ONLY mentions of "poorer healthcare outcomes" in the entire article. That's it. That's all they have. "The US has a lower life expectancy than other countries." Never mind that there are large numbers of factors at play in the US life expectancy that have not a damned thing to do with healthcare.
 
alexa said:
The WHO rates us at the bottom because we don't have socialized healthcare, not because we don't have good outcomes.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the WHO. Its a well known fact and it is about bad outcomes. The US spends twice as much as any other developed country on health care and gets the worst outcomes though on some things for instance heart problems it is the best.

news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu

I don't know if you have seen the videos of people in the UK being told how much healthcare costs in the US.....? An organisation called NICE decides what meds we can use - that is what it believes is a good deal based on price and the effect it has on people. Then they do deals to get things cheaper. Other countries pay less for US drugs than you do.



Yes I know people do crowd funding to go to the US for really expensive medical treatment which may work, will not definitely work but may work because they cannot get it here.


Well and good but totally unnecessary.


Well I have heard lots of Americans speak about this in Documentaries. Too many to be making up lies and no reason to lie. Many people go bankrupt with your ridiculous bills even when they are not taking over a wing of a private hospital.


news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu



But you do remain paying about twice as much as other first world countries and you do have the worst outcomes. That article is confirming this but also saying the reasons for this situation is different to what people believe. No one has ever said, and I did not say that you do not have some of the best Drs in the world but it does remain that as things are you pay about twice as much as people in other 'Western' countries for your Medical Care and you have the worst health outcomes.
[/QUOTE]

Your article talks very little about outcomes and focuses mostly on spending. What outcomes are they speaking of and where are they getting their data from?

Healthcare services are not the entire picture. In fact most people that die do so on a government healthcare plan like Medicare. Many of our healthcare problems are more related to lifestyle than the quality of healthcare.

For instance we have a huge drug problem in this country and it's only getting worse now that this dementia patient is allowing all kinds of drugs and illegals into the country. We are also the fattest country in the world as well. Single-parent homes often depend on fast food to feed the family. There is nothing that any healthcare system can do about that. In our country women are having children at a much later age than those in other countries. They use their youth to attend school, pay off student loans, pursuing a career, and then have children well past the age of 30. This leads to premature infant deaths and illnesses.

As for costs, government is the main culprit. Government programs often pay only 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Healthcare providers need to make up that loss, and they do so with insurance covered patients. This increases the cost of healthcare for everybody else. I forget who said it now, but it was stated only a fool would expect the entity that created the problem to have a solution to it.

In our lawsuit happy country our doctors and nurses have to pay for malpractice insurance which is very high. Lawsuits are seldom ruled in the plaintiffs favor, but the cost to fight these lawsuits are astronomical. This leads to what's called Defensive Medicine. Years ago if you went to your family doctor for an ear ache, he would examine you and provide a solution to your problem. Today, your family doctor is more or less a referral service. If you have an ear ache, he now sends you to an ear, nose and throat specialist. If you have diabetes, the doctor sends you to an endocrinologist. If it's a vision problem, he or she sends you to ophthalmologist. The list goes on and on. The bottom line is everybody is trying to pass the buck to another doctor so they don't have to deal with any potential lawsuit.

In the ER they too face liability. So they run you through every possible test imaginable even if it doesn't have anything to do with your condition. In the ER they have to treat the problem right away and can't rely on any specialist to takeover. These tests cost a ton of money, and that adds to our healthcare costs.

The problem is nobody in our government will address these cost problems, because many of our representatives were lawyers, and they're not about to turn their back on their colleagues. After all, if they lose an election, they will have to return to their former profession.
 
Y
alexa said:
Your article talks very little about outcomes and focuses mostly on spending. What outcomes are they speaking of and where are they getting their data from?

Healthcare services are not the entire picture. In fact most people that die do so on a government healthcare plan like Medicare. Many of our healthcare problems are more related to lifestyle than the quality of healthcare.

For instance we have a huge drug problem in this country and it's only getting worse now that this dementia patient is allowing all kinds of drugs and illegals into the country. We are also the fattest country in the world as well. Single-parent homes often depend on fast food to feed the family. There is nothing that any healthcare system can do about that. In our country women are having children at a much later age than those in other countries. They use their youth to attend school, pay off student loans, pursuing a career, and then have children well past the age of 30. This leads to premature infant deaths and illnesses.

As for costs, government is the main culprit. Government programs often pay only 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Healthcare providers need to make up that loss, and they do so with insurance covered patients. This increases the cost of healthcare for everybody else. I forget who said it now, but it was stated only a fool would expect the entity that created the problem to have a solution to it.

In our lawsuit happy country our doctors and nurses have to pay for malpractice insurance which is very high. Lawsuits are seldom ruled in the plaintiffs favor, but the cost to fight these lawsuits are astronomical. This leads to what's called Defensive Medicine. Years ago if you went to your family doctor for an ear ache, he would examine you and provide a solution to your problem. Today, your family doctor is more or less a referral service. If you have an ear ache, he now sends you to an ear, nose and throat specialist. If you have diabetes, the doctor sends you to an endocrinologist. If it's a vision problem, he or she sends you to ophthalmologist. The list goes on and on. The bottom line is everybody is trying to pass the buck to another doctor so they don't have to deal with any potential lawsuit.

In the ER they too face liability. So they run you through every possible test imaginable even if it doesn't have anything to do with your condition. In the ER they have to treat the problem right away and can't rely on any specialist to takeover. These tests cost a ton of money, and that adds to our healthcare costs.

The problem is nobody in our government will address these cost problems, because many of our representatives were lawyers, and they're not about to turn their back on their colleagues. After all, if they lose an election, they will have to return to their former profession.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
Cecilie1200 said:
I wasn't talking about the WHO. Its a well known fact and it is about bad outcomes. The US spends twice as much as any other developed country on health care and gets the worst outcomes though on some things for instance heart problems it is the best.

news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu

I don't know if you have seen the videos of people in the UK being told how much healthcare costs in the US.....? An organisation called NICE decides what meds we can use - that is what it believes is a good deal based on price and the effect it has on people. Then they do deals to get things cheaper. Other countries pay less for US drugs than you do.



Yes I know people do crowd funding to go to the US for really expensive medical treatment which may work, will not definitely work but may work because they cannot get it here.


Well and good but totally unnecessary.


Well I have heard lots of Americans speak about this in Documentaries. Too many to be making up lies and no reason to lie. Many people go bankrupt with your ridiculous bills even when they are not taking over a wing of a private hospital.


news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu



But you do remain paying about twice as much as other first world countries and you do have the worst outcomes. That article is confirming this but also saying the reasons for this situation is different to what people believe. No one has ever said, and I did not say that you do not have some of the best Drs in the world but it does remain that as things are you pay about twice as much as people in other 'Western' countries for your Medical Care and you have the worst health outcomes.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the article you triumphantly produced as "proof" of what you want to believe? Did you see what the "poorer healthcare outcomes" are that you're trumpeting? Let me enlighten you.

"Life expectancy in the U.S. was the lowest of all 11 countries in the study, at 78.8 years; the range for other countries was 80.7 to 83.9 years."

Life expectancy, as you clearly are not aware, is not a result of healthcare.

"Overall, quality of care in the U.S. isn’t markedly different from that of other countries, and in fact excels in many areas. For example, the U.S. appears to have the best outcomes for those who have heart attacks or strokes, but is below average for avoidable hospitalizations for patients with diabetes and asthma."

Oh, look, one of your major points refuted by your own article.

For the record, those are the ONLY mentions of "poorer healthcare outcomes" in the entire article. That's it. That's all they have. "The US has a lower life expectancy than other countries." Never mind that there are large numbers of factors at play in the US life expectancy that have not a damned thing to do with healthcare.
[/QUOTE]
Yes I did read the article. That the US has the worst health outcomes is known to everyone, except perhaps some Americans and this article confirms this. That was my point, The poster was denying it and to you it appears to be something which has got your shoulders prickled. Learn to live with it or change it but stop feeling so godly when you are denying information known to the whole world. You pay on average twice as much for your health care as the other most wealthy countries but you have the poorest outcome. Have a cup of tea and face reality. What the article was suggesting was that the reason for this situation is not what is believed.
 
Ray from Cleveland
Your article talks very little about outcomes and focuses mostly on spending. What outcomes are they speaking of and where are they getting their data from?
Click to expand...
They simply pointed out that things are what I said. US citizens pay around 2 times as much for their healthcare but have the poorest outcomes. It is top Universities, Unless it is one of those very rare scandals their information will be accurate.
Ray from cleveland
Your article talks very little about outcomes and focuses mostly on spending. What outcomes are they speaking of and where are they getting their data from?
Click to expand...

Please. The reality that the US has the most expense healthcare among rich countries and the poorest outcomes is a known.
Ray from Cleveland
Healthcare services are not the entire picture. In fact most people that die do so on a government healthcare plan like Medicare. Many of our healthcare problems are more related to lifestyle than the quality of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Well the article gives credit to very good care once someone in the US manages to get it but does not put down Medicare.
Ray from Cleveland
For instance we have a huge drug problem in this country and it's only getting worse now that this dementia patient is allowing all kinds of drugs and illegals into the country. We are also the fattest country in the world as well. Single-parent homes often depend on fast food to feed the family. There is nothing that any healthcare system can do about that.
Click to expand...

OK. You haven't said it and probably do not believe it but what you have said above could be read as a need of improved social services to deal with these issues. This apparently is a reason people give for the poor outcomes and it makes sense. However the paper claims this is not the problem.

  • Contrary to commonly held beliefs, high utilization of health care services and low spending on social services do not appear to play a significant role in higher U.S. health care costs.
  • In addition, despite poor population health outcomes, quality of health care delivered once people are sick is high in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Same link. Note he is saying that the quality care of given to these people once they receive treatment is high.
Ray from clevelandIn our country women are having children at a much later age than those in other countries. They use their youth to attend school, pay off student loans, pursuing a career, and then have children well past the age of 30. This leads to premature infant deaths and illnesses.
Click to expand...

They are not alone in that. Many people are now having children later and I do not see how this would cause hardship on health services or ill health.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ray from Cleveland
As for costs, government is the main culprit. Government programs often pay only 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Healthcare providers need to make up that loss, and they do so with insurance covered patients. This increases the cost of healthcare for everybody else. I forget who said it now, but it was stated only a fool would expect the entity that created the problem to have a solution to it.
Click to expand...

The article sees costs as being what must be brought down. You can see in their common findings the mistaken beliefs people have as to why US medical care is so expensive and then go on to say what their research showed was the problem.

What does explain higher spending in the U.S. is administrative complexity and high prices across a wide range of health care services. For example, the findings showed that:

  • Administrative costs of care — activities related to planning, regulating, and managing health systems and services — accounted for 8 percent of total health care costs, compared with a range of 1 to 3 percent for other countries.
  • Per capita spending for pharmaceuticals was $1,443 in the U.S., compared with a range of $466 to $939 in other nations. For several commonly used brand-name pharmaceuticals, the U.S. had substantially higher prices than other countries, often double the next-highest price.
  • The average salary for a general practice physician in the U.S. was $218,173, while in other countries the salary range was $86,607 to $154,126

  • The new findings, from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the Harvard Global Health Institute, and the London School of Economics, suggest that common explanations why health care costs are so high — such as the notions that the Americans have too many doctor visits, hospitalizations, procedures, and specialists, and spend too little on social services that could mitigate health care needs — may be wrong.
Click to expand...
news.harvard.edu

U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes

A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu

I've cut out the last bit because there is nothing said to suggest this is the reason for your high health costs. The only reason I am answering posts with you is because you could not accept that the US pays more than twice the amount of other wealthy nations for its healthcare but has the worse outcomes. The particular paper I used which was the first my search brought up is trying to find the reasons just as you are trying to present them. On healthcare itself the article believes your healthcare itself is about as good as everyone else and excels in some areas. In the main Ray you are looking at the situation in the right way but you claimed your outcomes were not poorer. As long as you accept that you are then open to arguments of why this is the situation. They believe you should work on getting your costs reduced. I would agree with that, When people can afford healthcare they usually go earlier. The other things - we all suffer from them as well. People in poorer areas can live up to ten years less than those in richer areas and this sort of thing a healthy society would try to change.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Goya Foods CEO warns we’re on the precipice of a global food crisis

< Previous Thread

FDA moves to ban menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Crepitus
Congress voted against funding a cure for cancer just to block a win for Biden
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
1K
Smokin' OP
S
g5000
Are There Any Unpardonable Sins Left?
Replies
11
Views
146
Magnus
Magnus
excalibur
Biden’s DEI Policies Zap Electric Vehicle Charging Station Construction
Replies
7
Views
149
CrusaderFrank
CrusaderFrank
IM2
Zone1 Why Are Blacks Told to be Self Sufficient when Others have not been?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
783
Markle
Markle
Litwin
  • Poll
question to MAGA DO YOU Support ‘Drone sanctions’ ( burn down putin oil reserves )? GREAT NEWS FOR US LNG-OIL industry
2
Replies
36
Views
544
Litwin
Litwin

Latest Discussions

excalibur
  • Locked
Shenandoah County (Virginia) School Board votes to restore the Confederate memorial names of schools ...
12 13 14
Replies
261
Views
3K
AyeCantSeeYou
AyeCantSeeYou
toobfreak
Decomposing Body Left Out For Manhattan Trash
Replies
8
Views
60
Auld Phart
Auld Phart
C_Clayton_Jones
Kansas' top court rejects 2 anti-abortion laws, bolstering state right to abortion access
2 3
Replies
41
Views
275
pknopp
pknopp
eagle1462010
Mob of looters ransacks gas station in Oakland.
Replies
19
Views
160
Sayaras
Sayaras
toobfreak
Judge Puts On Brakes In Trump Document Case
Replies
11
Views
49
Smokin' OP
S
View more…

Forum List

Back
Top