72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[Chris]

No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?

I have sad assed coverage now, and I pay for it with my employer. Between what I pay, what the deductible is, and the copay, I still have to think two or three times before I go to the doc. I save it for my kids. If you're insulted by the reality dealt with daily by the vast majority who don't enjoy the platinum coverage you enjoy, or have no coverage at all (and before you start, the majority of them work damned hard for a living, often at more than one job) , by all means don't look. And the "success stories" you mention? They are for the insured. My brother died of cancer, so I'm pretty well versed on what is covered, how it is classified by our lovely insurance companies as a pre-existing condition, and the letter he wrote to Governor Bush of Florida asking him if the Medicaid system was waiting for him to die before they covered him for palliative care. As for broken bones, no one goes to their primary care physician for that. You're throwing shit against the wall to see what will stick. We have triage to decide what's an emergency now, that little feature isn't likely to be thrown out the window under a public option.

I'm sorry to hear that your brother died of cancer, Barb. But that does not negate the fact that our health insurance for cancer and heart disease IS the best in the world...hands down. Canada's healthcare you wait up to 8 weeks for radiation treatments.
If you don't think that the government coverage isn't going to pick and choose who lives and dies, then your naive.
You mentioned medicaid....that's a government run system isn't it? That should give you a heads up of what you can expect.
Barb, I'm not against health coverage for all, but there has to be a better one than the one we will end up with. I want it done right where there is a blend of private coverage with the assistance of the government. I just don't want to have to pay for mine, which isn't cheap, and then being taxed to pay for others. I'm retired, and pretty much on a fixed income.

Our healthcare is the best in the world? Not for the 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Not for the single mother with cancer who can't pay her premiums.

I am a amazed what a bubble some people live in.

 

[Chris]

Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:

Health care is a basic human right[99][103][104] or entitlement.[105]
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[106]
About 59% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.[107]
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[108] Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.[109]
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system[110][111][112]
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[113]
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[114]
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[115]
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[116]
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[117]
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.[118]
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.[119]
According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.[120]
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.[121]
Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.[122]
Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.[123]
Conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.[124]

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Barb]

No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?

I have sad assed coverage now, and I pay for it with my employer. Between what I pay, what the deductible is, and the copay, I still have to think two or three times before I go to the doc. I save it for my kids. If you're insulted by the reality dealt with daily by the vast majority who don't enjoy the platinum coverage you enjoy, or have no coverage at all (and before you start, the majority of them work damned hard for a living, often at more than one job) , by all means don't look. And the "success stories" you mention? They are for the insured. My brother died of cancer, so I'm pretty well versed on what is covered, how it is classified by our lovely insurance companies as a pre-existing condition, and the letter he wrote to Governor Bush of Florida asking him if the Medicaid system was waiting for him to die before they covered him for palliative care. As for broken bones, no one goes to their primary care physician for that. You're throwing shit against the wall to see what will stick. We have triage to decide what's an emergency now, that little feature isn't likely to be thrown out the window under a public option.

I'm sorry to hear that your brother died of cancer, Barb. But that does not negate the fact that our health insurance for cancer and heart disease IS the best in the world...hands down. Canada's healthcare you wait up to 8 weeks for radiation treatments.
If you don't think that the government coverage isn't going to pick and choose who lives and dies, then your naive.
You mentioned medicaid....that's a government run system isn't it? That should give you a heads up of what you can expect.
Barb, I'm not against health coverage for all, but there has to be a better one than the one we will end up with. I want it done right where there is a blend of private coverage with the assistance of the government. I just don't want to have to pay for mine, which isn't cheap, and then being taxed to pay for others. I'm retired, and pretty much on a fixed income.

Our health facilities, not our coverage. Major difference.
I'm too old to be naive. I didn't live this long not knowing when to duck. Anyway, thanks. You have a happy holiday.

 

[elvis]

Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:

Health care is a basic human right[99][103][104] or entitlement.[105]
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[106]
About 59% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.[107]
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[108] Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.[109]
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system[110][111][112]
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[113]
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[114]
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[115]
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[116]
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[117]
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.[118]
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.[119]
According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.[120]
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.[121]
Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.[122]
Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.[123]
Conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.[124]

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wiki says it. I'm convinced now.

 

[Meister]

I have sad assed coverage now, and I pay for it with my employer. Between what I pay, what the deductible is, and the copay, I still have to think two or three times before I go to the doc. I save it for my kids. If you're insulted by the reality dealt with daily by the vast majority who don't enjoy the platinum coverage you enjoy, or have no coverage at all (and before you start, the majority of them work damned hard for a living, often at more than one job) , by all means don't look. And the "success stories" you mention? They are for the insured. My brother died of cancer, so I'm pretty well versed on what is covered, how it is classified by our lovely insurance companies as a pre-existing condition, and the letter he wrote to Governor Bush of Florida asking him if the Medicaid system was waiting for him to die before they covered him for palliative care. As for broken bones, no one goes to their primary care physician for that. You're throwing shit against the wall to see what will stick. We have triage to decide what's an emergency now, that little feature isn't likely to be thrown out the window under a public option.

I'm sorry to hear that your brother died of cancer, Barb. But that does not negate the fact that our health insurance for cancer and heart disease IS the best in the world...hands down. Canada's healthcare you wait up to 8 weeks for radiation treatments.
If you don't think that the government coverage isn't going to pick and choose who lives and dies, then your naive.
You mentioned medicaid....that's a government run system isn't it? That should give you a heads up of what you can expect.
Barb, I'm not against health coverage for all, but there has to be a better one than the one we will end up with. I want it done right where there is a blend of private coverage with the assistance of the government. I just don't want to have to pay for mine, which isn't cheap, and then being taxed to pay for others. I'm retired, and pretty much on a fixed income.

Our healthcare is the best in the world? Not for the 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Not for the single mother with cancer who can't pay her premiums.

I am a amazed what a bubble some people live in.

I'm surprised how stupid you are and still living.

Chris, here is a little fact for you...it isn't 50 million Americans that number is including the illegals also. Next...only around 16-17 million of those will end up being insured you twit.

 

[Chris]

Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:

Health care is a basic human right[99][103][104] or entitlement.[105]
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[106]
About 59% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.[107]
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[108] Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.[109]
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system[110][111][112]
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[113]
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[114]
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[115]
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[116]
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[117]
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.[118]
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.[119]
According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.[120]
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.[121]
Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.[122]
Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.[123]
Conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.[124]

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wiki says it. I'm convinced now.

You should be. The rest of the world is smarter than you are.

 

[Meister]

I have sad assed coverage now, and I pay for it with my employer. Between what I pay, what the deductible is, and the copay, I still have to think two or three times before I go to the doc. I save it for my kids. If you're insulted by the reality dealt with daily by the vast majority who don't enjoy the platinum coverage you enjoy, or have no coverage at all (and before you start, the majority of them work damned hard for a living, often at more than one job) , by all means don't look. And the "success stories" you mention? They are for the insured. My brother died of cancer, so I'm pretty well versed on what is covered, how it is classified by our lovely insurance companies as a pre-existing condition, and the letter he wrote to Governor Bush of Florida asking him if the Medicaid system was waiting for him to die before they covered him for palliative care. As for broken bones, no one goes to their primary care physician for that. You're throwing shit against the wall to see what will stick. We have triage to decide what's an emergency now, that little feature isn't likely to be thrown out the window under a public option.

I'm sorry to hear that your brother died of cancer, Barb. But that does not negate the fact that our health insurance for cancer and heart disease IS the best in the world...hands down. Canada's healthcare you wait up to 8 weeks for radiation treatments.
If you don't think that the government coverage isn't going to pick and choose who lives and dies, then your naive.
You mentioned medicaid....that's a government run system isn't it? That should give you a heads up of what you can expect.
Barb, I'm not against health coverage for all, but there has to be a better one than the one we will end up with. I want it done right where there is a blend of private coverage with the assistance of the government. I just don't want to have to pay for mine, which isn't cheap, and then being taxed to pay for others. I'm retired, and pretty much on a fixed income.

Our health facilities, not our coverage. Major difference.
I'm too old to be naive. I didn't live this long not knowing when to duck. Anyway, thanks. You have a happy holiday.

I did noticed you had no comment about medicaid...I don't know why you wouldn't, it is a government run system. I also noticed you didn't acknowledge my idea toward a coverage for all. Nobody is too old to be naive, Barb...nobody. You have a good fourth of July also.

 

[elvis]

Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:

Health care is a basic human right[99][103][104] or entitlement.[105]
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[106]
About 59% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.[107]
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[108] Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.[109]
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system[110][111][112]
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[113]
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[114]
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[115]
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[116]
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[117]
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.[118]
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.[119]
According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.[120]
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.[121]
Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.[122]
Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.[123]
Conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.[124]

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wiki says it. I'm convinced now.

You should be. The rest of the world is smarter than you are.

don't you have some veterans to swindle?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.

Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.

Worst outcomes? How so?

just below Costa Rica.
37 United States of America
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

You really ought to keep up on the news - the REAL news - on this topic if you're going to bloviate about it. The WHO measured quality of healthcare systems in that study by how socialized the systems were, directly and specifically. We didn't rank behind Costa Rica because our healthcare is ineffective. We ranked behind Costa Rica because we're not as socialized.

Call me after you buy a clue.

 

[Political Junky]

Are you really trying to equate the sad assed insurance most people have, if they have that, with what is enjoyed by members of Congress, on the taxpayer dime? Honestly? Our insurance wouldn't cover that, and once it is established the co-pay is out of the budget, all heroic measures are stopped.

Americans pay more per capita than the any other nation in the industrialized world, for the worst outcomes and the fewest insured.

No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?

Well, if we're going to talk about "worst outcomes", then I think we NEED to talk about life-threatening problems, and whether or not you're better off being in the US when it happens. I know if you're a prematurely-born baby, you're DEFINITELY better off being born in the US.

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

 

[Full-Auto]

No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?

Well, if we're going to talk about "worst outcomes", then I think we NEED to talk about life-threatening problems, and whether or not you're better off being in the US when it happens. I know if you're a prematurely-born baby, you're DEFINITELY better off being born in the US.

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Based on what the bogus W H O REPORT. Laughable.

 

[Political Junky]

Well, if we're going to talk about "worst outcomes", then I think we NEED to talk about life-threatening problems, and whether or not you're better off being in the US when it happens. I know if you're a prematurely-born baby, you're DEFINITELY better off being born in the US.

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Based on what the bogus W H O REPORT. Laughable.

Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com

 

[Full-Auto]

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Based on what the bogus W H O REPORT. Laughable.

Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com

Great no measurement criteria again. Why is this a common theme?

 

[Meister]

No Barb, I'm not. I'm trying to equate the sad ass insurance we will have once the dust is settled, with the what the kind of insurance that is, and will still be enjoyed by our congress. My private insurance is a very good one, and I'm not willing to step down to a government run insurance plan.
As far as your stated worst outcomes....don't even insult me with that. Do you realize that, when it comes to treating heart disease, and cancer there is no country better, Barb. I know, I know, your going to say that is just the "life saving" treatment, but what about a broken arm?

Well, if we're going to talk about "worst outcomes", then I think we NEED to talk about life-threatening problems, and whether or not you're better off being in the US when it happens. I know if you're a prematurely-born baby, you're DEFINITELY better off being born in the US.

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Wanna do a little reading and get the real facts, or do you still wanna stick your head in the ground???
Is europes infant mortality rate superiority over the USA a myth or just that we use different standards? - Yahoo! Answers
Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality? | Coyote Blog

 

[Political Junky]

Well, if we're going to talk about "worst outcomes", then I think we NEED to talk about life-threatening problems, and whether or not you're better off being in the US when it happens. I know if you're a prematurely-born baby, you're DEFINITELY better off being born in the US.

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Wanna do a little reading and get the real facts, or do you still wanna stick your head in the ground???
Is europes infant mortality rate superiority over the USA a myth or just that we use different standards? - Yahoo! Answers
Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality? | Coyote Blog

OMG, the wingut's Bible ... Newsmax. LOL

 

[Meister]

US infant mortality rate is higher than Canada and most European countries.

Wanna do a little reading and get the real facts, or do you still wanna stick your head in the ground???
Is europes infant mortality rate superiority over the USA a myth or just that we use different standards? - Yahoo! Answers
Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality? | Coyote Blog

OMG, the wingut's Bible ... Newsmax. LOL

Once a fool always a fool, Junkie. Keep sticking your head into the ground, because you will never look at facts.

Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.

The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.

World Infant Mortality Rates & the Truth : Lone Star Times

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.

Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

Pajamas Media » The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage

Junkie, stop drinking your Kool-Aid for a minute and try to digest these articles. They are pretty simple to read, and very straight forward. But, I know you will just say what your prior post stated, and you will still be blind to facts. But, that will be the stupidity that runs through your sorry ass veins.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

If you break down the 895 people who took the poll 612 are registered democrats and 283 are registered republicans.

Just some FYI for people, polls are easily manipulated by people on either side of an issue

 

[elvis]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

If you break down the 895 people who took the poll 612 are registered democrats and 283 are registered republicans.

Just some FYI for people, polls are easily manipulated by people on either side of an issue

especially when morons like chris are involved.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

aw no need to be mean

 

[Barb]

Worst outcomes? How so?

just below Costa Rica.
37 United States of America
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

You really ought to keep up on the news - the REAL news - on this topic if you're going to bloviate about it. The WHO measured quality of healthcare systems in that study by how socialized the systems were, directly and specifically. We didn't rank behind Costa Rica because our healthcare is ineffective. We ranked behind Costa Rica because we're not as socialized.

Call me after you buy a clue.

Part of the criteria is % covered. A wider % covered = socialism to you? My God. So by your standards, superior health care (and it is two words) depends on the level of specialness you feel. How enlightening. What color is the sky in your world?