Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you talking about quality healthcare or, just like what Europe, and Canada have??? You know, if you make statements like you did, you have to be precise in what kind of healthcare you want. Because if you want real good healthcare from our government...your not going to get it.
If you could actually PROVE that Canada or most of Europes HC systems were inferior you would.
I defy you to do that.
You cannot because I KNOW the morbitity and mortality statistics prove eexactly the opposite of what you believe.
Do feel free to do your own research to refute my claims.
I'll wait...forever...because you won't be able to refute my claims.
Can you answer why Canadians and Europeans come to this country for treatment?? I bet it's because they have such superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Can you answer why private clinics in Canada are starting to open their doors to private healthcare?? I bet it's because they have superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Mortatality has nothing to do with healthcare, It's more like our lifestyle that creates it. You do your fucking reasearch and refute my claims. Geeze, kind of pompous aren't you? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, OK?
Jesus Christ.. another WHO parrot
Try looking at the fucking criteria the WHO used.. it did NOT even deal with the services available.. level of procedure advancements... types and numbers of procedures available...
The WHO report is a fucking joke
If you could actually PROVE that Canada or most of Europes HC systems were inferior you would.
I defy you to do that.
You cannot because I KNOW the morbitity and mortality statistics prove eexactly the opposite of what you believe.
Do feel free to do your own research to refute my claims.
I'll wait...forever...because you won't be able to refute my claims.
Can you answer why Canadians and Europeans come to this country for treatment?? I bet it's because they have such superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Can you answer why private clinics in Canada are starting to open their doors to private healthcare?? I bet it's because they have superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Mortatality has nothing to do with healthcare, It's more like our lifestyle that creates it. You do your fucking reasearch and refute my claims. Geeze, kind of pompous aren't you? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, OK?
Sure that's easy. America isn't necessarily terrible at offering intervention-based care, it's just that it does that at the cost of not doing preventive care, which offsets most of the benefits of the intervention. Other countries are better at preventive care, and this lead to better mortality and morbidity countries, ceteris paribus.
If you could actually PROVE that Canada or most of Europes HC systems were inferior you would.
I defy you to do that.
You cannot because I KNOW the morbitity and mortality statistics prove eexactly the opposite of what you believe.
Do feel free to do your own research to refute my claims.
I'll wait...forever...because you won't be able to refute my claims.
Can you answer why Canadians and Europeans come to this country for treatment?? I bet it's because they have such superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Can you answer why private clinics in Canada are starting to open their doors to private healthcare?? I bet it's because they have superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Mortatality has nothing to do with healthcare, It's more like our lifestyle that creates it. You do your fucking reasearch and refute my claims. Geeze, kind of pompous aren't you? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, OK?
Sure that's easy. America isn't necessarily terrible at offering intervention-based care, it's just that it does that at the cost of not doing preventive care, which offsets most of the benefits of the intervention. Other countries are better at preventive care, and this leads to better mortality and morbidity stats in those countries, ceteris paribus. Not everybody with better outcomes leads more healthy lives than us. We all know how the French are.
Jesus Christ.. another WHO parrot
Try looking at the fucking criteria the WHO used.. it did NOT even deal with the services available.. level of procedure advancements... types and numbers of procedures available...
The WHO report is a fucking joke
If you're referring to my post you didn't read it. I know it was long but it's not longer than a magazine article.
Can you answer why Canadians and Europeans come to this country for treatment?? I bet it's because they have such superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Can you answer why private clinics in Canada are starting to open their doors to private healthcare?? I bet it's because they have superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Mortatality has nothing to do with healthcare, It's more like our lifestyle that creates it. You do your fucking reasearch and refute my claims. Geeze, kind of pompous aren't you? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, OK?
Sure that's easy. America isn't necessarily terrible at offering intervention-based care, it's just that it does that at the cost of not doing preventive care, which offsets most of the benefits of the intervention. Other countries are better at preventive care, and this leads to better mortality and morbidity stats in those countries, ceteris paribus. Not everybody with better outcomes leads more healthy lives than us. We all know how the French are.
Jesus Christ.. another WHO parrot
Try looking at the fucking criteria the WHO used.. it did NOT even deal with the services available.. level of procedure advancements... types and numbers of procedures available...
The WHO report is a fucking joke
If you're referring to my post you didn't read it. I know it was long but it's not longer than a magazine article.
Yes I did bubba.... and your reasonings are about as bullshit as the premise of "but according to organizations like the World Health Organization, America is in the middle of the pack of all nations, and near the bottom when compared to other developed nations"
You are yet another advocate of something for nothing (which is basically something for you for nothing at the expense of someone else).. you are a fan of governmental control in insurance or care coverage.... you want a fucking freebie...
What you WANT is available.... but what you don't want is the responsibility to fucking provide for it yourself
What amazes me most is there are still people who argue there is no problem with American healthcare, or that it can be fixed with tax credits, but they are underinformed. America spends over 15% of its GDP on healthcare, which is the highest in the world, and this value is expected to reach 20% in the next decade. Medical bills are also the most common reason for personal bankruptcy. These drawbacks might be tolerated if America also had the best health in the world, but according to organizations like the World Health Organization, America is in the middle of the pack of all nations, and near the bottom when compared to other developed nations. Basically, we dont get what we pay for, but many wonder why.
The issue of healthcare reform wouldnt simply be fixed by making it government-funded. But effective, comprehensive reform would have to involve moving to a quasi-single-payer system.
Healthcare needs to be socialized, but I wouldn't extend that to all of the economy. See healthcare is different from other sectors of the economy. How much are people willing to pay for a procedure that will save their lives? There is no upper limit. The answer is whatever it takes or whatever they can come up with. Thus the traditional rules of supply and demand do not work for healthcare. Without a single payer, the cost goes to the highest bidder as doctors are not exactly in a desperate situation.
There is also a much, much higher than usual asymmetry of knowledge. There's some asymmetry when a sleazy car salesman tells you that the crappy looking car runs great. But even if you're not a car expert, you can test his claims to some extent. Effective healthcare requires so much specialized knowledge that very few consumers have any basis to second guess what their doctor says. If their treatment is ineffective they can simply claim they did all they could or you would have been worse off if not for them. Most doctors are honorable, but some consciously or subconsciously recommend expensive procedures in questionable circumstances. Again, regulation under a single-payer system could help here.
Finally, need is very unpredictable for most people. Where need is predictable, private insurance will treat you like a hot potato. You can guess how much food youre going to need next week and about how much it will cost. You dont know if youre going to need an emergency surgery in the next year or even within your lifetime, or if it will cost a few thousand or hundreds of thousands of dollars. This necessitates some kind of insurance for pooling of risk, but then when the private insurance company sees that bill they often find it cheaper to use their mercenary army of lawyers to deny you coverage.
Healthcare throughout the world is facing a challenge because of aging populations. America has done worse than the other industrialized or post-industrial nations (except South Africa, which also relies on the private sector) on most measures, despite the fact that we spend dramatically more.
Whatever virtues you might wish the free market has, it will reliably push towards one goal: profit - not health. I would argue that the quest for profit doesn't always lead to bad outcomes, as Adam Smith argued, but in this case it does. This worked better, if not ideally, when our main source of mortality/morbidity was with acute infections and diseases as at the turn of the 20th century. The interventionist ideology that is emphasized in America more than elsewhere developed not only because some doctors and insurance companies are greedy, but also because it was effective versus these infectious diseases that used to kill people most. With these problems mostly dealt with in industrialized nations, we are now being killed by chronic conditions like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. The way to deal with these is not acute intervention, as medicine in America is set up to do, but rather long-term prevention. A penny of prevention can literally be worth a dollar of intervention when you consider how expensive surgery can be. Furthermore, the private sector has demonstrated its incapability of effectively adapting to new times except for the purpose of making profit at the expense of patients. It is time for the government to take a bigger and smarter role.
It would be okay for the free market to handle healthcare if profit and effective healthcare were not incompatible. Unfortunately they are because, from the provider's perspective, prevention is not something to encourage because it is a lot less profitable than intervention (usu. surgery). Why would they want to get 1,000 dollars from a decade of doctor's visits when they could gain 100,000 dollars or more from the one surgery the patient needs without preventive care?
From a coverage perspective, preventive care is not something private insurance companies emphasize because it is unreliable whether or not they will see the benefit: the person covered often switches insurance companies. Then when somebody does have a health crisis, it is in their interest to deny them coverage and let them die if they can possibly legally do so. Hence their favorite phrase: Pre-existing condition. Sorry sir, you've been dying since the day you were born.
A single payer system, whether it be administered by states with federal matching funds or just an overall federal system, would definitely help us with this problem and others. I don't expect it to be amazingly efficient, but it would be easy for it to do better than the private sector has and with effective leadership could do very well. I am not convinced my state is competent enough to do this. However if it is done we will need to seek guidance from our own VHA, which made a dramatic and sustained improvement 10 years ago, as well as other countries like the Japanese and French. Since the government's goal would not be profit but rather breaking even and working within a budget, this could promote a movement towards evidence-based medicine, preventive care, and overall healthcare with the purpose of improving health, not profit.
Here is a list of the reforms I would suggest:
1. National health insurance with income-adjusted copays for interventionist tx, and free prevention-based care. Another consideration for copays is whether there is evidence to support the clinical effectiveness of the tx. The government can use its leverage through a quasi-single-payer system to bring costs down. (Quasi since supplemental insurance would be allowed, but probably not necessary)
2. More general practitioners, with an emphasis on prevention-based care and patient education. This could be facilitated with state or federally funded tuition forgiveness programs for doctors who choose to go into general practice. People need to learn to see their GP regularly to avoid crises, rather than wait until a crisis occurs.
3. Salaried doctors with bonuses for outcomes (pay for performance = P4P), P4P on the hospital level too. Greatly reduce hospital/clinic level reimbursements for interventions; modestly increase hospital/clinic reimbursements for prevention.
4. Electronic medical records and software like VistA. These help to coordinate care.
5. Evidence-based medicine.
6. Revise malpractice law in (at least) two ways:
a. Put a cap on pain and suffering damages that can be awarded, limit lawyer contingency fees, but still award full amounts for medical costs incurred as a result of a medical error.
b. Allow informed patient choice in addition to informed consent so that doctors/hospitals can provide unbiased decision-aids when a patient is considering undergoing an invasive procedure so that they can weigh the risks against their own priorities.
7. Provide better regulation of the pharmaceutical industry.
a. Require new drugs to be compared to both the existing treatment and a placebo at comparable doses if possible. In order to be approved the drug must show some kind of significant improvement over existing tx in some situation. (currently only placebo comparison is required, so we get a lot of copycat or me-too drugs).
b. The FDA needs more funding, and must be made independent of the industry it regulations, e.g. repeal user fees. Drug companies can currently legally pay money to expedite the approval process.
c. There should be no way to extend a drugs patent, e.g. by suing generic manufacturers or testing the drug in children, but the patent time should not begin to be used until the drug hits the market.
d. The government should be able to negotiate for better drug prices (one major problem with medicare is they cant by law).
e. Pharmacies should not be allowed to sell the prescribing patterns of individual doctors to pharmaceutical companies.
f. Drug companies should not provide continuing medical education to doctors.
g. Ban DTC ads.
h. Drug companies should be required to disclose and make publicly available basic financial information about R+D, marketing, and other costs vs. profits.
8. Eliminate the way special interests control politicians in America:
Scores of members of Congress, for example, accepted contributions from the same pharmaceutical companies that reaped millions of dollars of additional profit from the provision in Medicare Part D legislation that prevented the government from negotiating discount prescription prices for beneficiaries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/business/06view.html
Sure that's easy. America isn't necessarily terrible at offering intervention-based care, it's just that it does that at the cost of not doing preventive care, which offsets most of the benefits of the intervention. Other countries are better at preventive care, and this leads to better mortality and morbidity stats in those countries, ceteris paribus. Not everybody with better outcomes leads more healthy lives than us. We all know how the French are.
If you're referring to my post you didn't read it. I know it was long but it's not longer than a magazine article.
Yes I did bubba.... and your reasonings are about as bullshit as the premise of "but according to organizations like the World Health Organization, America is in the middle of the pack of all nations, and near the bottom when compared to other developed nations"
You are yet another advocate of something for nothing (which is basically something for you for nothing at the expense of someone else).. you are a fan of governmental control in insurance or care coverage.... you want a fucking freebie...
What you WANT is available.... but what you don't want is the responsibility to fucking provide for it yourself
lol, okay I can see quickly that you have unshakeable faith in the free market on healthcare. I don't think the majority's faith will prove so unshakeable in the long run. America's phobia of socialism is the main thing that's caused us to be the odd one out on this area of policy for so long.
On another forum I countered the lifestyle argument with this example:
Lifestyle doesnt account for the difference. The number 2 cause of death in America is cancer, and the number 1 cancer is lung cancer. Smoking contributes to nearly a quarter of all deaths in developed countries. 17.5% of Americans smoke daily, 27% of the French smoke daily. America does not do better than France by that kind of margin on lung cancer mortality.
NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons and CAUSES OF DEATH
And claiming that I want a freebie is a laughable joke. There's a reason ad hominem is a fallacy, especially when you know nothing about me at all. My plan is to become a doctor so, if anybody would lose from what I propose financially I would. But I don't want to become a doctor for the money, I want what's best for peoples' health.
If you could actually PROVE that Canada or most of Europes HC systems were inferior you would.
I defy you to do that.
You cannot because I KNOW the morbitity and mortality statistics prove eexactly the opposite of what you believe.
Do feel free to do your own research to refute my claims.
I'll wait...forever...because you won't be able to refute my claims.
Can you answer why Canadians and Europeans come to this country for treatment?? I bet it's because they have such superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Can you answer why private clinics in Canada are starting to open their doors to private healthcare?? I bet it's because they have superior healthcare over ours...huh?
Mortatality has nothing to do with healthcare, It's more like our lifestyle that creates it. You do your fucking reasearch and refute my claims. Geeze, kind of pompous aren't you? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, OK?
Sure that's easy. America isn't necessarily terrible at offering intervention-based care, it's just that it does that at the cost of not doing preventive care, which offsets most of the benefits of the intervention. Other countries are better at preventive care, and this leads to better mortality and morbidity stats in those countries, ceteris paribus. Not everybody with better outcomes leads more healthy lives than us. We all know how the French are.
Jesus Christ.. another WHO parrot
Try looking at the fucking criteria the WHO used.. it did NOT even deal with the services available.. level of procedure advancements... types and numbers of procedures available...
The WHO report is a fucking joke
If you're referring to my post you didn't read it. I know it was long but it's not longer than a magazine article.
"America's fear of socialism"... well, we see where this is going
Its not a fear of socialism... it is a knowledge that socialism is a system that does not, can not, and will not work... PERIOD
Lifestyle DOES account for a lot of the difference.. and it is not just debunked because "France smokes too"... choice is a huge part of it, something I am not giving up from my freedoms
As for you not wanting a freebie.... then are you the one wanting to earn higher where then you are taxed more to provide for someone else at no cost, without you having a choice whether you provide that or not??
The other thing is that you FLAT OUT STATED THAT YOU WANTED FREE PREVENTATIVE CARE FOR ALL... if that is not wanting a freebie in your world, I am glad I don't live in your lunacy
but that does not chance the fact that we live in a free society of choice, not a socialist society of force..
"America's fear of socialism"... well, we see where this is going
Its not a fear of socialism... it is a knowledge that socialism is a system that does not, can not, and will not work... PERIOD
And I'm not advocating for the total adoption of socialism, I just think that healthcare in particular should be socialized but Americans haven't done it because they associated it with the enemy of the Cold War. I explained why I thought healthcare is different from the rest of the economy and you didn't really address that or most of my points in that post specifically.
Lifestyle DOES account for a lot of the difference.. and it is not just debunked because "France smokes too"... choice is a huge part of it, something I am not giving up from my freedoms
Actually I said France smokes A LOT more and does not have a lot more lung cancer death. Early detection makes a big difference in the mortality of most cancers. Early detection is one of many benefits of preventive care.
I disagree, but I also didn't cite them so I'm not sure where that's coming from.
Doctors earn comfortable livings in countries with socialized medicine, but they do earn less than doctors here.
The other thing is that you FLAT OUT STATED THAT YOU WANTED FREE PREVENTATIVE CARE FOR ALL... if that is not wanting a freebie in your world, I am glad I don't live in your lunacy
So the idea is to strongly encourage preventive care as it is effective and cheap, and penalize people who don't use it by charging copays for intervention.
Preventive healthcare can, in many cases, reduce or eliminate a later need for expensive intervention. For example if you catch a cancer before it metastasizes, you are more likely to get it once and for all rather than do dozens of procedures to catch where it pops up next, or have to do palliative care as the patient dies.
but that does not chance the fact that we live in a free society of choice, not a socialist society of force..
I think the basic illusion you're falling under is that the government is the only possible source of power and tyranny. Transnational corporations can quite easily be as powerful and tyrannical as a government, particularly when you have a conflict of interest like with healthcare and profit. So what we need is a balance of power rather than a concentration of it. Socialize where appropriate, privatize where appropriate. Healthcare is one area I would socialize, but it's not like I'm done researching the topic. It's about time I read another book on it. Recommendations?
"America's fear of socialism"... well, we see where this is going
Its not a fear of socialism... it is a knowledge that socialism is a system that does not, can not, and will not work... PERIOD
And I'm not advocating for the total adoption of socialism, I just think that healthcare in particular should be socialized but Americans haven't done it because they associated it with the enemy of the Cold War. I explained why I thought healthcare is different from the rest of the economy and you didn't really address that or most of my points in that post specifically.
Actually I said France smokes A LOT more and does not have a lot more lung cancer death. Early detection makes a big difference in the mortality of most cancers. Early detection is one of many benefits of preventive care.
I disagree, but I also didn't cite them so I'm not sure where that's coming from.
Doctors earn comfortable livings in countries with socialized medicine, but they do earn less than doctors here.
So the idea is to strongly encourage preventive care as it is effective and cheap, and penalize people who don't use it by charging copays for intervention.
Preventive healthcare can, in many cases, reduce or eliminate a later need for expensive intervention. For example if you catch a cancer before it metastasizes, you are more likely to get it once and for all rather than do dozens of procedures to catch where it pops up next, or have to do palliative care as the patient dies.
but that does not chance the fact that we live in a free society of choice, not a socialist society of force..
I think the basic illusion you're falling under is that the government is the only possible source of power and tyranny. Transnational corporations can quite easily be as powerful and tyrannical as a government, particularly when you have a conflict of interest like with healthcare and profit. So what we need is a balance of power rather than a concentration of it. Socialize where appropriate, privatize where appropriate. Healthcare is one area I would socialize, but it's not like I'm done researching the topic. It's about time I read another book on it. Recommendations?
Yeah i got one..."Eat Shit, and Die" by Phauk Auph
1) You did cite the WHO rankings in your first post
2) Healthcare is only different if your body is public domain... if your body is indeed PRIVATE and not PUBLIC, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide for it's care... if you don't or don't choose to, too bad too sad
3) Because people who smoke, including me are going to fucking die of cancer.... but the fact is our treatment and research into LC and other cancer research is leaps and bounds above any other country's... but no matter what, we're all fucking dying anyway.. and cancer ain't going away anytime in our lifetimes
5) Encourage all you want.... but to provide for your private care of your private body... that's on you.. not me.. not society... you want to be a health freak and vitamin head with regular colon scrapings... fine.. you want to spend the day putting germy washcloths in your eyeball and go on the all butter diet... fine too.. I am not knocking the benefits of preventative care, only that it is something that is a PERSONAL responsibility.. not a societal one
oh pleaseignore Sealy
He is a fucking moron and never brings up any points in his comments
ACtually in this case, Andrew it is you looking moronic.
And I have to tell you, on you it doesn't look good.
Do some research.
1) You did cite the WHO rankings in your first post
2) Healthcare is only different if your body is public domain... if your body is indeed PRIVATE and not PUBLIC, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide for it's care... if you don't or don't choose to, too bad too sad
3) Because people who smoke, including me are going to fucking die of cancer.... but the fact is our treatment and research into LC and other cancer research is leaps and bounds above any other country's... but no matter what, we're all fucking dying anyway.. and cancer ain't going away anytime in our lifetimes
4) The WHO ratings ARE complete horseshit... and it has been pointed out to you even in a basic breakdown article as to why... without even getting to the details of information and reporting accuracy of bullshit countries like Cuba, etc... the ratings criteria were in fact GEARED towards an outcome favoring socialized systems...
5) Encourage all you want.... but to provide for your private care of your private body... that's on you.. not me.. not society... you want to be a health freak and vitamin head with regular colon scrapings... fine.. you want to spend the day putting germy washcloths in your eyeball and go on the all butter diet... fine too.. I am not knocking the benefits of preventative care, only that it is something that is a PERSONAL responsibility.. not a societal one
6) Lord knows I know business tyranny... I've worked for some of the worst.. WorldCom etc.. government is not the only source of corruption.... but because WorldCom was an example of corruption, it was not the government or society's job to take over the responsibility of providing all telecommunications services and redistributing it by subjective want or need... the funny thing is that the balance you say you want is not going to come from the government... rather t comes from the openness and competition... with a set of guidelines, laws, and basic regulations to ensure laws are not broken and rights are not infringed upon; but not complete government intervention and control
Women get better care in the United States than in Canada or England
Obama spins that "only"71.8% of women age 50 to 64 and 63.8% of women age 65 or older received screening mammograms in 2005.
http://change.gov/page/-/Health Care Community Discussion Participant Guide.pdf
Yet in Canada where everyone is insured, the screening rate is only 51.8%.
Health Indicators
1) You did cite the WHO rankings in your first post
2) Healthcare is only different if your body is public domain... if your body is indeed PRIVATE and not PUBLIC, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide for it's care... if you don't or don't choose to, too bad too sad
3) Because people who smoke, including me are going to fucking die of cancer.... but the fact is our treatment and research into LC and other cancer research is leaps and bounds above any other country's... but no matter what, we're all fucking dying anyway.. and cancer ain't going away anytime in our lifetimes
4) The WHO ratings ARE complete horseshit... and it has been pointed out to you even in a basic breakdown article as to why... without even getting to the details of information and reporting accuracy of bullshit countries like Cuba, etc... the ratings criteria were in fact GEARED towards an outcome favoring socialized systems...
5) Encourage all you want.... but to provide for your private care of your private body... that's on you.. not me.. not society... you want to be a health freak and vitamin head with regular colon scrapings... fine.. you want to spend the day putting germy washcloths in your eyeball and go on the all butter diet... fine too.. I am not knocking the benefits of preventative care, only that it is something that is a PERSONAL responsibility.. not a societal one
6) Lord knows I know business tyranny... I've worked for some of the worst.. WorldCom etc.. government is not the only source of corruption.... but because WorldCom was an example of corruption, it was not the government or society's job to take over the responsibility of providing all telecommunications services and redistributing it by subjective want or need... the funny thing is that the balance you say you want is not going to come from the government... rather t comes from the openness and competition... with a set of guidelines, laws, and basic regulations to ensure laws are not broken and rights are not infringed upon; but not complete government intervention and control
You already have government healthcare, don't you?
Women get better care in the United States than in Canada or England
Obama spins that "only"71.8% of women age 50 to 64 and 63.8% of women age 65 or older received screening mammograms in 2005.
http://change.gov/page/-/Health Care Community Discussion Participant Guide.pdf
Yet in Canada where everyone is insured, the screening rate is only 51.8%.
Health Indicators
Obama only has a rough idea of the specifics needed for preventive healthcare. Mammography as a primary screening tool is the standard of care but it's still a hot area of research. You do have a point but I think you overstate your case, at least based upon that alone. No healthcare system yet devised is perfect and Canada should work on doing more mammography. However, the incidence and mortality of breast cancer in America and Canada are very similar. This could be explained by the fact that many things other than mammography can be used to detect breast cancer such as self palpation, physican palpation, contrast MRI, and ultrasonography.
1) You did cite the WHO rankings in your first post
2) Healthcare is only different if your body is public domain... if your body is indeed PRIVATE and not PUBLIC, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide for it's care... if you don't or don't choose to, too bad too sad
3) Because people who smoke, including me are going to fucking die of cancer.... but the fact is our treatment and research into LC and other cancer research is leaps and bounds above any other country's... but no matter what, we're all fucking dying anyway.. and cancer ain't going away anytime in our lifetimes
4) The WHO ratings ARE complete horseshit... and it has been pointed out to you even in a basic breakdown article as to why... without even getting to the details of information and reporting accuracy of bullshit countries like Cuba, etc... the ratings criteria were in fact GEARED towards an outcome favoring socialized systems...
5) Encourage all you want.... but to provide for your private care of your private body... that's on you.. not me.. not society... you want to be a health freak and vitamin head with regular colon scrapings... fine.. you want to spend the day putting germy washcloths in your eyeball and go on the all butter diet... fine too.. I am not knocking the benefits of preventative care, only that it is something that is a PERSONAL responsibility.. not a societal one
6) Lord knows I know business tyranny... I've worked for some of the worst.. WorldCom etc.. government is not the only source of corruption.... but because WorldCom was an example of corruption, it was not the government or society's job to take over the responsibility of providing all telecommunications services and redistributing it by subjective want or need... the funny thing is that the balance you say you want is not going to come from the government... rather t comes from the openness and competition... with a set of guidelines, laws, and basic regulations to ensure laws are not broken and rights are not infringed upon; but not complete government intervention and control
You already have government healthcare, don't you?
He has you on ignore, so I'll respond. You are a worthless yellow piece of shit, Monica.
