Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare

[Bfgrn]

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

I try to keep it simple for you... don't want you to have angst...

 

[Oddball]

If anyone here knows simple, it's you, Buckwheat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Having worked at a university, surrounded by professors with PhDs, I lost all awe and wonder concerning IQ when it became apparent how many of these intellectual lights needed a diagram posted on the stall door in order to wipe their own asses.

This is not to say that I dislike intellectual people. But it "transcends" nothing, and especially not common sense. Krugman strikes me as very similar to professors who have to have a secretary just to make sure they find their way back to the office after lunch.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Perhaps you should stick to struggling vainly to come up with your own responses, rather than attempting to compose mine, a task for which you are woefully outclassed.

My actual response is "I never said ONE illness, dumbass. I've named several, and it's not my fault that you didn't pay attention."

Try again, dumbass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Aren't they also going bankrupt?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Yeah, okay. I put up lengthy posts full of facts and data, and you choose ONE LINE out of all of them to respond to, and then snottily ask for data?

Kiss my ass. Go find the bazillion times I've already done this and read them, then get back to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Been there, done that already. On threads that you're on, in fact, and in which you have noticeably, OBVIOUSLY avoided ever answering those particular posts or touching those facts.

What you can take my word on is that you are an utter, lying, testicle-deprived poltroon.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Detach your lips from Krugman's left butt cheek long enough to contemplate the fact that Yassir Arafat is also a Nobel Prize winner. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's widow tried to give his back, saying she didn't believe her husband would want to be included in the kind of company that was now being given prizes. They're practically giving those fuckers away in cereal boxes now.

Have you always been such a blind celebrity whore, or is it a new thing?

Good thing I wasn't holding my breath for you to give any real responses.

 

[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.

Having worked at a university, surrounded by professors with PhDs, I lost all awe and wonder concerning IQ when it became apparent how many of these intellectual lights needed a diagram posted on the stall door in order to wipe their own asses.

This is not to say that I dislike intellectual people. But it "transcends" nothing, and especially not common sense. Krugman strikes me as very similar to professors who have to have a secretary just to make sure they find their way back to the office after lunch.

He strikes me the same way.

Krugman would be at least marginally more interesting and intellectually stimulating if his op-ed "work" (for lack of a better term) stuck to possible economic consequences and externalities of the policies he opposes, rather than the ad homenims and imputation of motivations upon those with whom he disagrees.

Just sayin'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Having worked at a university, surrounded by professors with PhDs, I lost all awe and wonder concerning IQ when it became apparent how many of these intellectual lights needed a diagram posted on the stall door in order to wipe their own asses.

This is not to say that I dislike intellectual people. But it "transcends" nothing, and especially not common sense. Krugman strikes me as very similar to professors who have to have a secretary just to make sure they find their way back to the office after lunch.

He strikes me the same way.

Krugman would be at least marginally more interesting and intellectually stimulating if his op-ed "work" (for lack of a better term) stuck to possible economic consequences and externalities of the policies he opposes, rather than the ad homenims and imputation of motivations upon those with whom he disagrees.

Just sayin'.

Apparently, the high and lofty morality of his leftism imparts to him the ability to read minds.

 

[Oddball]

Apparently.

 

[raines]

This entire argument has been supported and debased working from the base of either other countries systems, or our own medicaid/medicare system. Points made from either example are fundamentally flawed.
You can't model after or even compare the system of another country to ours when our tax structure, and societies (to name little) are so grossly different.
You can not compare medicare/medicaid to the proposed function of a national plan... (which is what it would be. We can all agree that that "optional" BS is just that... it would be optional in the sense that you would be limited through affordability of anything else) because the dollar amount to sustain a small percentage would increase exponentially on a national level. We can not sustain it unless we are ALL paying for it (ie participating in it), and when we do, and are it will be much like the system I experience only degraded. I use the military health care system.
I'm no longer concerned about this happening after the last month or so. I see some fashion of it getting pushed through, but only a fraction of what was proposed. And nothing then that can not be rescinded.

 

[Oddball]

This
You can not compare medicare/medicaid to the proposed function of a national plan... (which is what it would be. We can all agree that that "optional" BS is just that... it would be optional in the sense that you would be limited through affordability of anything else)

If that is indeed the case, why can't we compare the abysmally flawed Medicare/Medicaid debacles to what's being proposed??

Or maybe you have an example of a federal program that is an unqualified and unambiguous success to go with??

C'mon.....Dazzle us.

 

[raines]

This
You can not compare medicare/medicaid to the proposed function of a national plan... (which is what it would be. We can all agree that that "optional" BS is just that... it would be optional in the sense that you would be limited through affordability of anything else)

If that is indeed the case, why can't we compare the abysmally flawed Medicare/Medicaid debacles to what's being proposed??

Or maybe you have an example of a federal program that is an unqualified and unambiguous success to go with??

C'mon.....Dazzle us.

Not one... I'm not sure where my post was misleading about favoring national health care. I don't. I'm just pointing out that the arguments here both for and against are fundamentally flawed. The the truth is that I can state facts that reasonably point to a federally run health care system being an unsustainable utter failure when held up against the idealistic sell of it. Proponents of it, however, have no applicable examples to draw from to support their argument, and the math of what is being proposed doesn't add up.

 

[Oddball]

K....My mistake.

 

[Vast LWC]

Aren't they also going bankrupt?

Because they are not businesses, they are social programs, and are not being adequately funded. That doesn't change the fact that they cost less per patient than private health care.

Yeah, okay. I put up lengthy posts full of facts and data, and you choose ONE LINE out of all of them to respond to, and then snottily ask for data?

We also have better survival rates when it comes to premature babies, children with spina bifida and people with heart disease and chronic renal failure. This would be according to the Commonwealth Fund and Health Statistics Quarterly.

You're right, apparently I did in fact miss this one line in the long string of quotes. I apologize.

However, after an extensive search on the internet, I honestly cannot find any examples of the data you mention from the sources you provided, the Commonwealth Fund and Health Statistics Quarterly, or from any other source.

Perhaps you could link supporting data from these sources to your assertion? Especially since, as far as heart disease goes (which is in fact the largest killer in the US), this would directly contradict data from the World Health Organization.

 

[Vast LWC]

Detach your lips from Krugman's left butt cheek long enough to contemplate the fact that Yassir Arafat is also a Nobel Prize winner.

Yassir Arafat won a Peace prize, which is pretty much a BS prize anyway, as it doesn't require anything, in many cases but the ability to call for a truce or cease fire. Any shmoe who leads a country can do that.

Krugman won a Nobel Prize in Economics, which requires much more.

Again, due to this, as well as other factors, I'll have to take your opinion of him with a grain of salt.

 

[Oddball]

Problem being that Krugman very, very rarely discusses economic concepts in his bi-weekly polemics. Instead, he uses his platform at NYT to play just another run-of-the-mill political hack-in-the-box.

 

[Oddball]

Never heard of "flooding", have you, Jay??

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh man I just watched that video of krugman again.

its still funny