Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare

[Cecilie1200]

If it hasn't already been mentioned...

Krugman is a total neo-Marxist useful idiot.

I would have shortened that to just the last word.

I can't do that and remain intellectually honest.

Krugman is a pretty smart guy, who is using his intelligence to be a willing neo-Marxist tool.

There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart". Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.

 

[Oddball]

There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart". Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.

I merely disagree to degrees.

Krugman is an incredidbly intelligent man, to the point that he really believes that his intellect tanscends commom sense....Which is also a measure of his tremendous arrogance.

 

[Toro]

If it hasn't already been mentioned...

Krugman is a total neo-Marxist useful idiot.

I would have shortened that to just the last word.

If you think Paul Krugman is a Marxist, you don't know very much.

This is the type of thing that absolutely drives me fucking crazy about the Right. It is so ignorant.

 

[Oddball]

If you think Paul Krugman is a Marxist, you don't know very much.

This is the type of thing that absolutely drives me fucking crazy about the Right. It is so ignorant.

Krugman is defacto Marxist by being the useful idiot for Marxistic policy.

 

[Toro]

If you think Paul Krugman is a Marxist, you don't know very much.

This is the type of thing that absolutely drives me fucking crazy about the Right. It is so ignorant.

Krugman is defacto Marxist by being the useful idiot for Marxistic policy.

Yes, yes, yes. And Bush and Cheney were Nazi fascists.

 

[Oddball]

O.K...I can live with that.....It's pretty much true.

Ready to give up your hero worship now??

 

[Toro]

O.K...I can live with that.....It's pretty much true.

Ready to give up your hero worship now??

Don't be silly. Have you had too many beers this Friday night?

 

[Oddball]

Nope.

Krugman is a party man hack ideologue first, and economist a distant second.

The editorial evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Toro]

He may be a hack but he ain't a Marxist in any way shape or form.

 

[Oddball]

Maybe not overtly, but he's still a classic example of a useful idiot.

 

[Vast LWC]

Unlike overall life expectancy and infant mortality, survival rates of life-threatening illnesses is a valid indicator of quality of healthcare.

ONE ILLNESS. Not "Illnesses". There are many illnesses in the world. Heart disease is in fact the leading cause of death in the United States, for instance.

Here are just a few examples:


Circulatory disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 219
United States: 265

Original Source: OECD Health Data 2003 and Health Data 2002. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's Health 2002

Digestive disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 17.4
United States: 20.5

Original Source: World Health Organization

Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births
Canada: 5.08
United States: 6.3

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

Intestinal diseases death rate
Canada: 0.3%
United States: 7.3%

Original Source: World Health Organization

Respiratory disease child death rate per 100,000
Canada: 0.62
United States: 40.43

Original Source: World Health Organization

Heart disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 94.9
United States: 106.5

Original Source: World Health Organization

HIV deaths per million people:
Canada: 47.423
United States: 48.141

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

And here's an interesting fact:

Proability of not reaching age 60:
Canada: 9.5%
United States: 12.8%

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

Now I imagine your response will be something along the lines of "They're all lying because the World Health Organization, Australia, and the CIA are clearly all out to destroy America", right?

 

[Vast LWC]

Yeah, and the way to lower costs is to give control to the government.

Well, since Medicare and Medicaid are in fact more cost effective that for profit Health Insurance, yeah, I'd say that was correct.

Per Capita, national health expenditures are as follows, as of 2007:

Private: $3,991.00
Public: $3,429.00

As can be seen here

Source: Dpt of Health and Human Services

That's a cost savings of what, around 15% or so? Yep, that seems about right.

 

[Vast LWC]

Quote: Originally Posted by Vast LWC
In total, our care is just not as good.
No matter how many times you shout this canard while sticking your fingers in your ears so you won't hear any of the refutations, it still won't make it true.

I guess, the above post supports my "canard".

Perhaps you'd also like to show us some data to support your claim?

 

[Vast LWC]

What's strange is that you thought you were thinking at all.

So you hurl an insult...

as often as people who can get someone else to foot the bill? No, but that's okay

And then back up my claim.

Interesting.

I've actually read the turkey plan the administration is peddling, and everything you just said is a baldfaced lie.

Reeeeally?

But I notice that you don't link or post any actual part of the plan that refutes what I said. You just state that you "read" it, and naturally we should take your word on that.

 

[Vast LWC]

I will thank you to debate ME, rather than projecting onto me the person you desperately WISH you were debating

Funny though that I didn't say you actually watch either. I just made a comparison between various media sources. Note I also included a good reference for the Wall Street Journal.

You should really learn to READ what your debating opponent writes before you look foolish blaming them for something that they didn't actually say.

Then perhaps you should try referencing the Wall Street Journal, rather than someone who's only discernible difference from an Internet blog is that they're also published on paper.

In your opinion, that is. Perhaps you'd like to give us examples of specific innacurate information printed by the LA Times as a news report. (Opinion pages don't count)

Or you can just keep on stating your opinion about the LA Times without bothering to post a lick of evidence to back up your assertion.

Up to you really.

I can list a whole lot of examples from the NY Post, the media source that I put down as unreliable, if you'd like.

 

[Vast LWC]

Krugman is defacto Marxist by being the useful idiot for Marxistic policy.

Krugman, a Marxist???

You must not know Krugman very well.

 

[Vast LWC]

I would have shortened that to just the last word.

I can't do that and remain intellectually honest.

Krugman is a pretty smart guy, who is using his intelligence to be a willing neo-Marxist tool.

There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart". Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.

Hmm, let's see...

Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner, and an award winning columnist for what is arguably the world's most prestigious newspaper.

But some random poster on a message board has named him an "idiot".

Guess I'll have to take the poster's word for it.

LOL.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?

How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers? | KeithHennessey.com

* There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.

* Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.

* Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There’s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.

* Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.

* Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.

* Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.

* The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:
o U.S. citizens;
o with income below 300% of poverty;
o not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;
o and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.

 

[Bfgrn]

If it hasn't already been mentioned...

Krugman is a total neo-Marxist useful idiot.

I would have shortened that to just the last word.

I can't do that and remain intellectually honest.

Krugman is a pretty smart guy, who is using his intelligence to be a willing neo-Marxist tool.

Krugman is... as opposed to YOU...a pea brain with NO intellect?

 

[Oddball]

And that's really all you have, isn't it, neutron brain?