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.
are you denying that you send high risk pregnancies to the US OF KKKA? or that a female member of your parliament came to the US OF KKKA to receive treatment for her breast cancer????? really???
no I'm not denying some people who have the money to spend sometimes travel to other nations to recieve treatment from a Dr of their choice and that happens in your nation as well...but I fail to see what that has to do with your crumbling system that allows millions of it's own citizens to go with no coverage at all?
No it doesn't! Where the hell do you think Americans would go to get health care? Riiiiight, we wouldn't go to the MAYO Fucking Clinic if we got diagnosed with cancer, we'd go to the fucking Phillipines I suppose. nutjob!
High Risk Pregancies?
5x the cancer mortality rate?
LINK PLEASE, and no, again, opinion pieces do not count as valid source material.
Try and spin this.....are you ready? It's not because that it's such a good healthcare that Canada has.....it's about the money they have to pay for it. That is the begining, and that's the end to why people in Canada think it a good system It's not because of the service they receive. So spin on that sonny.
that is you opinion you have spoon fed to you by Fox News so congrats...I didn't see your plan to fix your own mess yet?
You are the "tard". You have just proved to me and the people on this thread that you really don't read the posts. Go back to post #61, you will see where I stated how we can do it. You really are embarrassing yourself.
- get back to the T.V and when I want the opinion Fox news has I will change my T.V channel over there.
Vast LWC;1394133First of all said:I'll engage just about anyone in a debate if they start from a reasonable and rational place. You can ask anyone on here. I've even engaged some of the notorious dumb asses on here that never have anything reasonable to say. We'll hope you won't prove to be one of those.
Nixon was a traditional conservative, and he was the one who came up with the first plan for Universal Health Care.
If you think Nixon was a conservative, you are a moron and wouldn't know a conservative if he was sitting on you. Since when is creating a new government agency conservative? Since when is instituting wage and price controls conservative. Please!
If you were actually in the military, I can certainly believe that all you would qualify for was infantry, considering you inability to carry on an intelligent debate (shithead).
Yep, my 120 GT score only qualified me for the Infantry.....or maybe any MOS I wanted.
You get out, what you put in. You through out a bunch of shit and hopefully, you got back a bunch of shit.
And as far as being REMF, it was one of my MOS that was the first MF killed officially in Vietnam, driving around the front lines with an antenna on the top of our truck like a great big target.
OK, so you admit being a REMF. I thought so. You are either Infantry or you exist to support the Infantry. You existed to support the Infantry. (I'll give a slight nod to the Cavalry....'cept they are paid to run not fight. Still they don't get it their way all the time.)
This is a decent point, since the military is a socialist organization by nature. But it also means that I fought for our democratic form of government, not a totalitarian state, which would make me, decidedly, not a "Stalinist".
What you did has no bearing on it. What you support now does. You support an over powerful central government that dictates to the states and their citizens how they will live. Stalinist.
I'll admit, I was being provocative, you may turn out not to be a Stalinist. But the jury is still out on you.
that is you opinion you have spoon fed to you by Fox News so congrats...I didn't see your plan to fix your own mess yet?
You are the "tard". You have just proved to me and the people on this thread that you really don't read the posts. Go back to post #61, you will see where I stated how we can do it. You really are embarrassing yourself.
You are the "tard". You have just proved to me and the people on this thread that you really don't read the posts. Go back to post #61, you will see where I stated how we can do it. You really are embarrassing yourself.
You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.
YOUR ARGUMENT
that is you opinion you have spoon fed to you by Fox News so congrats...I didn't see your plan to fix your own mess yet?
You are the "tard". You have just proved to me and the people on this thread that you really don't read the posts. Go back to post #61, you will see where I stated how we can do it. You really are embarrassing yourself.
You are the "tard". You have just proved to me and the people on this thread that you really don't read the posts. Go back to post #61, you will see where I stated how we can do it. You really are embarrassing yourself.
You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.
YOUR ARGUMENT
High Risk Pregancies?
5x the cancer mortality rate?
LINK PLEASE, and no, again, opinion pieces do not count as valid source material.
then find something that suits your taste.. we don't jump through libtard hoops! you don't like the source?? come up with yer own.
You are the "tard". You have just proved to me and the people on this thread that you really don't read the posts. Go back to post #61, you will see where I stated how we can do it. You really are embarrassing yourself.
You are a moron, I have embarrassed you and that's all you got? These are solutions that have come from the right, and not from Fox News assbite. Your an ignorant moron at that. You have not brought one source to this thread and like I said earlier, you are running on emotion and stupidty with no facts. Go back to your sandbox sonny because you are way out of your league here.
High Risk Pregancies?
5x the cancer mortality rate?
LINK PLEASE, and no, again, opinion pieces do not count as valid source material.
then find something that suits your taste.. we don't jump through libtard hoops! you don't like the source?? come up with yer own.
In other word you got nothing credible and your arguement is empty.
no I'm not denying some people who have the money to spend sometimes travel to other nations to recieve treatment from a Dr of their choice and that happens in your nation as well...but I fail to see what that has to do with your crumbling system that allows millions of it's own citizens to go with no coverage at all?
No it doesn't! Where the hell do you think Americans would go to get health care? Riiiiight, we wouldn't go to the MAYO Fucking Clinic if we got diagnosed with cancer, we'd go to the fucking Phillipines I suppose. nutjob!
you sound like a real expert on healthcare in Canada and in the U.S.A (probably around the world too) I would like a credible link to the #'s you are throwing around.
Survival Rates for Specific Cancers. U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies. As Figure II shows:
Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher. 2
Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher.
The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular).
Furthermore, the Lancet Oncology study found that lung cancer patients in the United States have the best chance of surviving five years about 16 percent whereas patients in Great Britain have only an 8 percent chance, which is lower than the European average of 11 percent.
Results for Canada. Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada: 3
For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
Early Diagnosis. It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government. 4
In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.
You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.
they are indoctrinated at the fountain of KOS.
High Risk Pregancies?
5x the cancer mortality rate?
LINK PLEASE, and no, again, opinion pieces do not count as valid source material.
then find something that suits your taste.. we don't jump through libtard hoops! you don't like the source?? come up with yer own.
In other word you got nothing credible and your arguement is empty.
You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.
they are indoctrinated at the fountain of KOS.
What I find funny is that Conservatives used to try and argue that all media was left wing except for FoxNews. They called it the "Liberal MSM" (though they never seemed to mention that radio is entirely right-wing).
Now, that MSNBC has come along, people now see what an actual left-wing media outlet looks like, and their starting to realize that the rest of the media isn't "left-wing" after all.
You know the conservative in this thread your arguing with could throw that right back at you and change FOX to MSNBC.
they are indoctrinated at the fountain of KOS.
What I find funny is that Conservatives used to try and argue that all media was left wing except for FoxNews. They called it the "Liberal MSM" (though they never seemed to mention that radio is entirely right-wing).
Now, that MSNBC has come along, people now see what an actual left-wing media outlet looks like, and their starting to realize that the rest of the media isn't "left-wing" after all.
But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly
So let's get this straight....the left have the majority of newspapers in this country, and have the majority of television in this country, and they are bitching because the right has a majority on the radio, Hmmm, I get it.
doesn't mean they aren't left wing
But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly
So, let me see if I have this straight.
The US beats Canada in ONE disease (cancer) by 3-4%? Wow, that sure proves your point that American health care is way better than Canadian...
And what's the reason for that? Early Detection! And what would help save even more lives through early detection? That's right, everyone having health insurance!
But aside from that, there is no good point to your entire argument, as no-one is currently suggesting full universal health-care in our government right now.
The current plan is to provide a public option as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.
The current plan is to provide a public option as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.
