Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lol why am I not surprised you missed the point entirely? Yes obviously I don't know 10 people who have cancer. The point is it doesn't matter if I did or not. Statistics are what they are. Me knowing such a person would not be real evidence of those stats.if you say that you know 10 people dying of cancer that are denied treatment due to no insurance or no money, you are an outright liar.For chrissakes, if I gave you examples of 10 people I KNOW that couldn't afford treatment, it would hardly be the whole picture.Question for you pal....Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.
Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.
Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.
And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.
There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.
Sadly, we all know people who have battled cancer.
Likewise, we all know people (or know OF people) who dieD of cancer.
Other than reading about it on left wing blogs and hearing about it from left wingers during debates.....
HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW THAT HAVE DIED OF CANCER BECUASE THEY WERE UNABLE TO RECEIVE / DENIED TREATMENT DUE TO THIER HEALTHCARE PLANS?
You people are getting desperate lol
If you say you know 1, you are an outright liar.
the point I was making, dumbass, is that no one knows anyone that has or had cancer that was or is currently being denied treatment for any reason whatsoever.....because here in the US, people are not left to die.Lol why am I not surprised you missed the point entirely? Yes obviously I don't know 10 people who have cancer. The point is it doesn't matter if I did or not. Statistics are what they are. Me knowing such a person would not be real evidence of those stats.if you say that you know 10 people dying of cancer that are denied treatment due to no insurance or no money, you are an outright liar.For chrissakes, if I gave you examples of 10 people I KNOW that couldn't afford treatment, it would hardly be the whole picture.Question for you pal....Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.
Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.
And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.
There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.
Sadly, we all know people who have battled cancer.
Likewise, we all know people (or know OF people) who dieD of cancer.
Other than reading about it on left wing blogs and hearing about it from left wingers during debates.....
HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW THAT HAVE DIED OF CANCER BECUASE THEY WERE UNABLE TO RECEIVE / DENIED TREATMENT DUE TO THIER HEALTHCARE PLANS?
You people are getting desperate lol
If you say you know 1, you are an outright liar.
Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.
There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.
The only thing proved is that cancer treatment has gotten better. Thats it. That is shit we already knew. Meanwhile costs of treatment are going up while wages for the poor remain flat.Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.
There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.
You don't get an outcome of more people living longer if fewer people are getting treatment. Even if the treatment is better. You will have more people living shorter and a few people living longer. That is not what the data shows about the U.S.
The opinion of people that something is good does not mean that it is good. The entire population of the world could believe that the Canadian system is better than ours and it wouldn't make that true. Show some hard facts that Canada's system is better than ours. Then show some hard facts that the same system implemented here would turn out the same as it has in Canada. Opinions aren't facts.
You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?Did you review the data of that poll? Are you aware that the poll actually has positive data that drags the US down?
For example...."financial distribution"....a factor that talks about how much MORE the rich pay into the healthcare system over the poor......we were ranked very HIGH as expected.....in other words, we have a very large amount of people that get healthcare but dont pay for it.......and that is deemed as a "bad thing" in the poll and it drags us down....whereas "responsiveness" (one of the most important things), we are number 1.
Learn to not just look at poll numbers. Understand the criteria used for those numbers.
Otherwise, you will look like a dumbass when you post it.
The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?Did you review the data of that poll? Are you aware that the poll actually has positive data that drags the US down?
For example...."financial distribution"....a factor that talks about how much MORE the rich pay into the healthcare system over the poor......we were ranked very HIGH as expected.....in other words, we have a very large amount of people that get healthcare but dont pay for it.......and that is deemed as a "bad thing" in the poll and it drags us down....whereas "responsiveness" (one of the most important things), we are number 1.
Learn to not just look at poll numbers. Understand the criteria used for those numbers.
Otherwise, you will look like a dumbass when you post it.
Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?Did you review the data of that poll? Are you aware that the poll actually has positive data that drags the US down?
For example...."financial distribution"....a factor that talks about how much MORE the rich pay into the healthcare system over the poor......we were ranked very HIGH as expected.....in other words, we have a very large amount of people that get healthcare but dont pay for it.......and that is deemed as a "bad thing" in the poll and it drags us down....whereas "responsiveness" (one of the most important things), we are number 1.
Learn to not just look at poll numbers. Understand the criteria used for those numbers.
Otherwise, you will look like a dumbass when you post it.
And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.
Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.
Actually, it does.Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?Did you review the data of that poll? Are you aware that the poll actually has positive data that drags the US down?
For example...."financial distribution"....a factor that talks about how much MORE the rich pay into the healthcare system over the poor......we were ranked very HIGH as expected.....in other words, we have a very large amount of people that get healthcare but dont pay for it.......and that is deemed as a "bad thing" in the poll and it drags us down....whereas "responsiveness" (one of the most important things), we are number 1.
Learn to not just look at poll numbers. Understand the criteria used for those numbers.
Otherwise, you will look like a dumbass when you post it.
And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.
Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.
25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.Actually, it does.Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?Did you review the data of that poll? Are you aware that the poll actually has positive data that drags the US down?
For example...."financial distribution"....a factor that talks about how much MORE the rich pay into the healthcare system over the poor......we were ranked very HIGH as expected.....in other words, we have a very large amount of people that get healthcare but dont pay for it.......and that is deemed as a "bad thing" in the poll and it drags us down....whereas "responsiveness" (one of the most important things), we are number 1.
Learn to not just look at poll numbers. Understand the criteria used for those numbers.
Otherwise, you will look like a dumbass when you post it.
And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.
Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.
It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.
Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.
The only thing proved is that cancer treatment has gotten better. Thats it. That is shit we already knew. Meanwhile costs of treatment are going up while wages for the poor remain flat.Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.
There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.
You don't get an outcome of more people living longer if fewer people are getting treatment. Even if the treatment is better. You will have more people living shorter and a few people living longer. That is not what the data shows about the U.S.
The opinion of people that something is good does not mean that it is good. The entire population of the world could believe that the Canadian system is better than ours and it wouldn't make that true. Show some hard facts that Canada's system is better than ours. Then show some hard facts that the same system implemented here would turn out the same as it has in Canada. Opinions aren't facts.
The WHO report is sufficient evidence.
The World Health Organization s ranking of the world s health systems
Actually, it does.Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?Did you review the data of that poll? Are you aware that the poll actually has positive data that drags the US down?
For example...."financial distribution"....a factor that talks about how much MORE the rich pay into the healthcare system over the poor......we were ranked very HIGH as expected.....in other words, we have a very large amount of people that get healthcare but dont pay for it.......and that is deemed as a "bad thing" in the poll and it drags us down....whereas "responsiveness" (one of the most important things), we are number 1.
Learn to not just look at poll numbers. Understand the criteria used for those numbers.
Otherwise, you will look like a dumbass when you post it.
And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.
Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.
It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.
Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.
Question for you pal....Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com
"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.
The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.
Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.
Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."
Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?
First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."
Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.
Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.
Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.
Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.
And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.
There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.
Sadly, we all know people who have battled cancer.
Likewise, we all know people (or know OF people) who dieD of cancer.
Other than reading about it on left wing blogs and hearing about it from left wingers during debates.....
HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW THAT HAVE DIED OF CANCER BECUASE THEY WERE UNABLE TO RECEIVE / DENIED TREATMENT DUE TO THIER HEALTHCARE PLANS?
uh......Einstein....25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.Actually, it does.Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?Did you review the data of that poll? Are you aware that the poll actually has positive data that drags the US down?
For example...."financial distribution"....a factor that talks about how much MORE the rich pay into the healthcare system over the poor......we were ranked very HIGH as expected.....in other words, we have a very large amount of people that get healthcare but dont pay for it.......and that is deemed as a "bad thing" in the poll and it drags us down....whereas "responsiveness" (one of the most important things), we are number 1.
Learn to not just look at poll numbers. Understand the criteria used for those numbers.
Otherwise, you will look like a dumbass when you post it.
And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.
Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.
It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.
Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.
Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.
[25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all..
Lol it is you who brought up ObamaCare. Not me the liberal. Obviously when I refer to cost I am referring to the patient's cost. Of course if you were smart you would know the cost in the industry is positively correlated with the patient's cost.uh......Einstein....25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.Actually, it does.Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?
And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.
Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.
It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.
Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.
Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.
The cost of healthcare is not an insurance issue....it is a medical industry issue.
Healthcare does not mean insurance.
The ACA addressed the "insurance" issue. It did not address the cost of healthcare issue. We, the taxpayer...well.....ME the taxpayer...you likely are not one......but ME the taxpayer will still be footing the bill for healthcare for the poor. The only difference now is that I am forced to pay MORE for my own health insurance and dolts like you are giving credit to Obama while the tax payer is STILL the one paying for healthcare for the poor.
Nothing has changed for the poor. All is still free for them.
SO thank Obama.....not the taxpayer?
What the hell are you talking about.Lol it is you who brought up ObamaCare. Not me the liberal. Obviously when I refer to cost I am referring to the patient's cost. Of course if you were smart you would know the cost in the industry is positively correlated with the patient's cost.uh......Einstein....25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.Actually, it does.Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.
And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.
Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.
It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.
Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.
Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.
The cost of healthcare is not an insurance issue....it is a medical industry issue.
Healthcare does not mean insurance.
The ACA addressed the "insurance" issue. It did not address the cost of healthcare issue. We, the taxpayer...well.....ME the taxpayer...you likely are not one......but ME the taxpayer will still be footing the bill for healthcare for the poor. The only difference now is that I am forced to pay MORE for my own health insurance and dolts like you are giving credit to Obama while the tax payer is STILL the one paying for healthcare for the poor.
Nothing has changed for the poor. All is still free for them.
SO thank Obama.....not the taxpayer?
Okay we're done. Good. Socialized medicine is the answer.What the hell are you talking about.Lol it is you who brought up ObamaCare. Not me the liberal. Obviously when I refer to cost I am referring to the patient's cost. Of course if you were smart you would know the cost in the industry is positively correlated with the patient's cost.uh......Einstein....25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.Actually, it does.Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?
It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.
Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.
Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.
The cost of healthcare is not an insurance issue....it is a medical industry issue.
Healthcare does not mean insurance.
The ACA addressed the "insurance" issue. It did not address the cost of healthcare issue. We, the taxpayer...well.....ME the taxpayer...you likely are not one......but ME the taxpayer will still be footing the bill for healthcare for the poor. The only difference now is that I am forced to pay MORE for my own health insurance and dolts like you are giving credit to Obama while the tax payer is STILL the one paying for healthcare for the poor.
Nothing has changed for the poor. All is still free for them.
SO thank Obama.....not the taxpayer?
Jeez. Your reading comprehension ski8lls are so lacking that I find myself having to talk in circles to keep you in the loop.
By the way....notice how none of your friends on the left are here to defend your position?
Wanna know why?
They know they cant.
Cay.
Okay we're done. Good. Socialized medicine is the answer.What the hell are you talking about.Lol it is you who brought up ObamaCare. Not me the liberal. Obviously when I refer to cost I am referring to the patient's cost. Of course if you were smart you would know the cost in the industry is positively correlated with the patient's cost.uh......Einstein....25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.Actually, it does.
It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.
Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.
Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.
The cost of healthcare is not an insurance issue....it is a medical industry issue.
Healthcare does not mean insurance.
The ACA addressed the "insurance" issue. It did not address the cost of healthcare issue. We, the taxpayer...well.....ME the taxpayer...you likely are not one......but ME the taxpayer will still be footing the bill for healthcare for the poor. The only difference now is that I am forced to pay MORE for my own health insurance and dolts like you are giving credit to Obama while the tax payer is STILL the one paying for healthcare for the poor.
Nothing has changed for the poor. All is still free for them.
SO thank Obama.....not the taxpayer?
Jeez. Your reading comprehension ski8lls are so lacking that I find myself having to talk in circles to keep you in the loop.
By the way....notice how none of your friends on the left are here to defend your position?
Wanna know why?
They know they cant.
Cay.
The only thing proved is that cancer treatment has gotten better. Thats it. That is shit we already knew. Meanwhile costs of treatment are going up while wages for the poor remain flat.Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.
There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.
You don't get an outcome of more people living longer if fewer people are getting treatment. Even if the treatment is better. You will have more people living shorter and a few people living longer. That is not what the data shows about the U.S.
The opinion of people that something is good does not mean that it is good. The entire population of the world could believe that the Canadian system is better than ours and it wouldn't make that true. Show some hard facts that Canada's system is better than ours. Then show some hard facts that the same system implemented here would turn out the same as it has in Canada. Opinions aren't facts.
The WHO report is sufficient evidence.
The World Health Organization s ranking of the world s health systems
