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.
Hey Germanguy, you'll have to excuse my fellow countymen, for a lot of them tend to be morons.
Leave it to you to cheer for the Commies. I bet you think Reagan didn't win the Cold War, huh?
Finally, you are beginning to learn something...
Leave it to you to cheer for the Commies. I bet you think Reagan didn't win the Cold War, huh?
Finally, you are beginning to learn something...
What country are you in?
Finally, you are beginning to learn something...
What country are you in?
Why?
Medicare and Medicaid operate at far greater efficiency than the private insurance market. The reason they're "In trouble" is because they can't keep up with the rising costs, and people are living 20 or so years longer than they did in the past.
The poor post office just makes an easy target. It's a service, partially subsidized by customer contributions. It doesn't have to make a profit; Few government programs do. People want their mail, and people don't want the price to go up. Show me someone else who an deliver a letter from California to New Jersey in a few days for 44 cents.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. If we can get back to ECO101, the reason the prices are so high is that providers are pricing their services @ market clearing level, and due to staggering redundancies inherent in the system, and as I said before, we are all subsidizing the uninsured in a ridiculously expensive way. I think the current proposal would do wonders to reign in costs. Add a public option, even more. Single payer, more still. But hey, that's just me.
I'll agree that a hands-off approach would also reduce costs, but in order for it to work, you would have to deny care to non-payers, period.
This is me, searching high and low in this post for any kind of evidence or substantiation of your statement that Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient than private insurance OR your statement that their only problem is that costs are rising too fast for them. Funny how I'm not finding it.
You're not looking very hard then.
Medicades admin costs are 4% of overall costs.
Priavte insurance returns about 75% of their premiums to their patients.
Heritage Foundation tried to attack that by saying the the PER PATIENT costs are lower, but their reasoning is flawed because they do not take into account that medicade and medicare patients tend to already BE SICK BEOFRE they go on those plans.
Now if you compare those who actually USE either their private or public plans, you see that the public plans are wildly more efficient than the pribvate plans.
heritage foundation is really good at spinning what appears to the unwashed to be a serious economic argument.
That's because they're basically apologists for a system that is a proven failure.
Because it shows your perspective.
Are you afraid to tell us?
I'll go first...I live in Michigan, USA.
Because it shows your perspective.
Are you afraid to tell us?
I'll go first...I live in Michigan, USA.
Not at all. Most people on here know I'm from NZ, and have been living in Oz for the past two years....
New Zealand?
What's OZ? The land of Oz?
New Zealand?
What's OZ? The land of Oz?
Yep, and Oz is Australia, or as they call themselves, The Lucky Country (why it's called that when it's got more dangerous wildlife than any other place in the world is beyond me - then again, maybe they have a sense of humour)...
Ahh...New Zealand - the land of skittish sheep.New Zealand?
What's OZ? The land of Oz?
Yep, and Oz is Australia, or as they call themselves, The Lucky Country (why it's called that when it's got more dangerous wildlife than any other place in the world is beyond me - then again, maybe they have a sense of humour)...
Ahh...New Zealand - the land of skittish sheep.New Zealand?
What's OZ? The land of Oz?
Yep, and Oz is Australia, or as they call themselves, The Lucky Country (why it's called that when it's got more dangerous wildlife than any other place in the world is beyond me - then again, maybe they have a sense of humour)...
Please tell me that no one still believes the lie that Reagan won the cold war all by himself?
Once again we are not really 37. There are NO stabdards, each Country is free in each category reported to use what ever system they want to report with.
For example.... Live Births. In the US EVERY child that is alive AT the moment of birth is listed as a live birth, even the ones that have no chance of surviving more then a couple hours on their own. In other Countries live birth may mean the kid is a week old before they declare it a live birth.
And every category is like that. One can NOT compare Countires when one can not even know what the standard for repo0rting is and it is not a standard system for ALL countries.
YouTube - "We're Number 37" - Paul Hipp
Go America!!!
What a clever way of getting the message across..Wish someone would have shown this @ Blair House yesterday.
Once again we are not really 37. There are NO stabdards, each Country is free in each category reported to use what ever system they want to report with.
For example.... Live Births. In the US EVERY child that is alive AT the moment of birth is listed as a live birth, even the ones that have no chance of surviving more then a couple hours on their own. In other Countries live birth may mean the kid is a week old before they declare it a live birth.
And every category is like that. One can NOT compare Countires when one can not even know what the standard for repo0rting is and it is not a standard system for ALL countries.
Link that pile of shit or STFU!!
You know that is a bunch of crap!! The WHO uses the same standards for all there statistics!!
Prove otherwise or get off the pony!!
The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage
Posted By Dr. Linda Halderman On August 3, 2008 @ 12:00 am In . Positioning, Health, Science & Technology, US News | 41 Comments
Q: If socialized medicine is so bad, why are infant mortality rates higher in the U.S. than in other developed nations with government or single-payer health care?
A: U.S. infant mortality rates (deaths of infants <1 year of age per 1,000 live births) are sometimes cited as evidence of the failings of the U.S. system of health care delivery. Universal health care, its argued, is why babies do better in countries with socialized medicine.
But in fact, the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported and how such babies are treated statistically tells a different story than what the numbers reveal.
Low birth weight infants are not counted against the live birth statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies considered unsalvageable outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.
When Canada briefly registered an increased number of low weight babies previously omitted from statistical reporting, the infant mortality rose from 6.1 per 1,000 to 6.4 per thousand in just one year.
...
Once again we are not really 37. There are NO stabdards, each Country is free in each category reported to use what ever system they want to report with.
For example.... Live Births. In the US EVERY child that is alive AT the moment of birth is listed as a live birth, even the ones that have no chance of surviving more then a couple hours on their own. In other Countries live birth may mean the kid is a week old before they declare it a live birth.
And every category is like that. One can NOT compare Countires when one can not even know what the standard for repo0rting is and it is not a standard system for ALL countries.
Link that pile of shit or STFU!!
You know that is a bunch of crap!! The WHO uses the same standards for all there statistics!!
Prove otherwise or get off the pony!!
