Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[Christopher]

So I have nothing to support the claim that the health care system can get people to change their lifestyles?

I guess you missed the campaign against tobacco, which has resulted in lower smoking rates for children? I guess you missed the way the hog farmers changed the way they raised pigs to meet the publics' desire for low fat meat?

"For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor.'

And you have no support for that claim either. Longevity was a factor. There was nothing that made it a MAIN factor. You are just making stuff up again.

"Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending. "

And yet, once again, you can't post the quote where I said this. You say you CAN post, yet you DON'T actually post it.

I said the international study that ranked the US so low did not take spending into accoutn. Please stop lying about what I said.

"My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low. Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries. Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. "

It is a tautology to say that if you take out the negatives, the result will be more positive. This is a straw man that no one is disagreeing with.

However, the study which ranked the health care of nations all over the world, did not take out the factors that are beyond the control of the health system in the US because they did not do that for ANY nation. We are not the only nation where lifestyles impact health. That is true all over the world

So, of course we would do better if they took out all the factors beyond OUR control. The same is true for every other nation. So if they did the same for every other country, there's no reason to think we would not end up in the same spot.

But worst of all, even if what you said was true, it still wouldn't lead to the conclusion that "our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking"

If we took out all those factors you mentioned, there is still no evidence that our ranking would improve ENOUGH to move us significantly higher in the rankings.

"Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc. These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors. "

This is true for EVERY nation. You have presented absolutely NO EVIDENCE that our ranking would change if it eliminated all those factors.

There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries. It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you.

With that said, I’m going to stop giving you a shovel. You just keep digging yourself further into a hole. I will however, give you where you lied once since you seem to have forgotten.

What I quoted from the CBO (refer to post #48):


Your lie about what the CBO said (refer to post #49):

the quote you just added...actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING.

Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending. I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit. The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies.

Good luck with your dishonesty. I will no longer be responding to you. You will not even take the time to ready the studies I provided, yet say you read them and understand them. You will not provide any credible evidence to support your claims either. I have been patient enough.

"There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries. It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you"

And yet, you can't quote any of this evidence.

"Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending. I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit. The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies."

Umm, neither of those quotes talk about increased spending. They talk about Broader access to health insurance coverage and That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems],

"Broader access" and "expansion of 3rd party payment systems" are not "higher or increased spending"

IOW, neither of those quotes say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies. They say "Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies"

They are saying that LESS SPENDING leads to the development of new technologies. This is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you claim.

I don’t know now whether you are intentionally misinterpreting or you just are too focused on what you believe to pay attention, so I decided to respond.

I already quoted from the UPenn study, refer to post #26. Here part of it is again:

One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009).

This is how much our life expectancy ranking would increase just taking into account deaths attributed to smoking. Here is another quote from the study which I had already provided:

Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).

So, what would be our ranking once we factor in our “more adverse” obesity? How about you just read the study.

Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less “out-of-pocket” spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid. They spend less “out-of-pocket”; that does not mean there is less spending occurring. When people have insurance (in this case government insurance) paying the bills, people spend more.
If you had read the CBO study, you would know it mentions specifically the spending increases as a result of the expansion of the third-party systems (Medicare and Medicaid).

There is no question that expansion of third-party systems has increased spending.
So, the increased spending as a result of decreasing “out-of-pocket” spending “hastened” the development of new technologies and lead to higher spending. The last quote also says that expanding the third-party systems could have had a larger effect on spending than what the CBO had estimated in the study because it allowed for the adoption of new technologies. You obviously don’t know what the CBO study says and it is apparent to me that you have not read it.

If you want to honestly discuss these studies, you need to actually read them first.

 

[sangha]

There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries. It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you.

With that said, I’m going to stop giving you a shovel. You just keep digging yourself further into a hole. I will however, give you where you lied once since you seem to have forgotten.

What I quoted from the CBO (refer to post #48):


Your lie about what the CBO said (refer to post #49):


Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending. I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit. The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies.

Good luck with your dishonesty. I will no longer be responding to you. You will not even take the time to ready the studies I provided, yet say you read them and understand them. You will not provide any credible evidence to support your claims either. I have been patient enough.

"There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries. It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it. I shouldn’t have to do your homework for you"

And yet, you can't quote any of this evidence.

"Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending. I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit. The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies."

Umm, neither of those quotes talk about increased spending. They talk about Broader access to health insurance coverage and That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems],

"Broader access" and "expansion of 3rd party payment systems" are not "higher or increased spending"

IOW, neither of those quotes say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies. They say "Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies"

They are saying that LESS SPENDING leads to the development of new technologies. This is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you claim.

I don’t know now whether you are intentionally misinterpreting or you just are too focused on what you believe to pay attention, so I decided to respond.

I already quoted from the UPenn study, refer to post #26. Here part of it is again:

One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009).

This is how much our life expectancy ranking would increase just taking into account deaths attributed to smoking. Here is another quote from the study which I had already provided:

Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).

So, what would be our ranking once we factor in our “more adverse” obesity? How about you just read the study.

Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less “out-of-pocket” spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid. They spend less “out-of-pocket”; that does not mean there is less spending occurring. When people have insurance (in this case government insurance) paying the bills, people spend more.
If you had read the CBO study, you would know it mentions specifically the spending increases as a result of the expansion of the third-party systems (Medicare and Medicaid).

There is no question that expansion of third-party systems has increased spending.
So, the increased spending as a result of decreasing “out-of-pocket” spending “hastened” the development of new technologies and lead to higher spending. The last quote also says that expanding the third-party systems could have had a larger effect on spending than what the CBO had estimated in the study because it allowed for the adoption of new technologies. You obviously don’t know what the CBO study says and it is apparent to me that you have not read it.

If you want to honestly discuss these studies, you need to actually read them first.

1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.

2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"

3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more

4) :Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less “out-of-pocket” spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"

Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means

 

[Bern80]

1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.

This makes it invalid how exactly?

2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"

No the only thing we can assume here is that you are unable to grasp the difference between a change in what YOU spend (out-of-pocket) on health care and change in what government spends on health care.

3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more

The CBO is not the WHO. They wouldn't even comment on the overall health of our country. However, it should be intuitively obvious to most the most casual observer that we, as a nation, have rather poor health habits. Try finding half a dozen countries with higher obesity rates than ours for starters.

The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved. As if we are suppossed to believe that lower life expectency is somehow an indictiment of our health care system. The FACT is low life expectency is an indictment of the health choices each and every one of us make day in and day out. It is undeniable fact that if you factored out things like obesity and smoking, the life expectency of this country would go up. And the FACT is those two things are out of the control of our health care system. They are simply treating YOUR bad choices. They are not the cause of them.

4) :Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less “out-of-pocket” spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"

Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means

He's a liar because you don't understand the difference between nothing and less?

 

[Christopher]

1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.

The majority of the countries ranked in the top for life expectancy are OECD countries. It is a completely valid comparison.

2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"

You really like that word wingnut. Sorry, just an observation.

If you would actually read in context what the CBO study says, you would get it. I think your biggest problem is that you do not want to accept it.

Read the CBO study; it proves that expansion of third-party payment systems has increased spending. There is no question. Yes, it says out-of-pocket spending decreased. That is where the Medicare and Medicaid came into play. When Medicare and Medicaid are spending the money, people’s out-of-pocket spending does decrease. It creates a situation where people are more apt to "spend" money on their health when it is not coming out of their own pocket.

3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more

No, you did not ask me to provide a quote from the CBO study regarding US lifestyles being unhealthier. We were discussing the UPenn study which shows that US lifestyles are unhealthier. That study was backed up by other studies, just read it. I provided the quotes, and refuse to do your homework for you.

No, it is not just that Americans smoke more; the study also shows that we have more adverse obesity. There are a number of health issues which the study talks about. Again, just read it.

4) :Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less “out-of-pocket” spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"

Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means

Of course you spend money out of pocket since you are not on Medicare or Medicaid. I’m not saying any different. If you were on a Medicare or Medicaid you would spend less out of pocket. The CBO confirmed that third-party payment systems increased spending overall because they decreased what people who were on these systems had to pay out of pocket.

 

[sangha]

1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.

This makes it invalid how exactly?

You're kidding, right?

Do you really not understand how a study that includes only 20 OECD nations cannot possibly show that the US lifestyles are more less healthy than all the other nations, including the third world nations?

2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"

No the only thing we can assume here is that you are unable to grasp the difference between a change in what YOU spend (out-of-pocket) on health care and change in what government spends on health care.

The quote says nothing about what the govt spends on health care. If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more

The CBO is not the WHO. They wouldn't even comment on the overall health of our country. However, it should be intuitively obvious to most the most casual observer that we, as a nation, have rather poor health habits. Try finding half a dozen countries with higher obesity rates than ours for starters.

Once again, the wingnuts prove unable to support their inane lies with any evidence.

The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved. As if we are suppossed to believe that lower life expectency is somehow an indictiment of our health care system. The FACT is low life expectency is an indictment of the health choices each and every one of us make day in and day out. It is undeniable fact that if you factored out things like obesity and smoking, the life expectency of this country would go up. And the FACT is those two things are out of the control of our health care system. They are simply treating YOUR bad choices. They are not the cause of them.

No, the point is the lies wingnuts like you tell, but I understand why you would want to forget about those. For example:

I haven't focused on life expectancy. That would be your wingnut friend, Chistopher. He was the one who is obsessed with life extancy. But keep dishonestly pretending that I said anything about getting the govt involved in health care. Your pitifully transparent attempt to distract from wingnut lies is very entertaining

4) :Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less “out-of-pocket” spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"

Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means

He's a liar because you don't understand the difference between nothing and less?

No, he's a liar because he said out of pocket costs are "what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid", but thanks for demonstrating that Chris isn't the only wingnut who has to lie

 

[sangha]

1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.

The majority of the countries ranked in the top for life expectancy are OECD countries. It is a completely valid comparison.

Once again, the wingnut proves he is obsessed with life expectancy. I guess he believed his own lie about life expectancy being a "MAIN FACTOR", a lie he has yet to defend1

2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"

You really like that word wingnut. Sorry, just an observation.

If you would actually read in context what the CBO study says, you would get it. I think your biggest problem is that you do not want to accept it.

Read the CBO study; it proves that expansion of third-party payment systems has increased spending. There is no question. Yes, it says out-of-pocket spending decreased. That is where the Medicare and Medicaid came into play. When Medicare and Medicaid are spending the money, people’s out-of-pocket spending does decrease. It creates a situation where people are more apt to "spend" money on their health when it is not coming out of their own pocket.[/quote]

Thank you

Finally the wingnut admits that the quote does not support his claim that increased spending results in technology development. He just admitted that only increased spending OF A CERTAIN KIND, results in the development of technology.

And of course, since that "certain kind of spending" (out of pocket spending by people who are covered by Medicare and Medicaid) occurs because of how our health care system works, that means (in wingnut world) that the health care system has nothing to do with our low ranking

3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more

No, you did not ask me to provide a quote from the CBO study regarding US lifestyles being unhealthier. We were discussing the UPenn study which shows that US lifestyles are unhealthier. That study was backed up by other studies, just read it. I provided the quotes, and refuse to do your homework for you.

I meant the UPenn study. My bad.

HOwever, the UPenn does not show that US lifestyles are unhealtier than any other nations. It only compared the US to 20 OECD nations. Once again, you claim a study supports you, but when posting the quote, it's revealed that the study says something else

You claimed

1) The US healthcare system has nothing to do with our low ranking
2) US lifestyles are unhealtheir than any other nation
3) Increased spending causes the development of new technology

The truth

1) YOu haven't posted anything to support this
2) The study you cite doesn't compare the US to every other nation
3) The study you cite says only that increased OUT OF POCKET spending on by people who are on Medicare and Medicaid AND whose coverage is adminstered by a THIRD PARTY (ie non governmental insurance provider)

No, it is not just that Americans smoke more; the study also shows that we have more adverse obesity. There are a number of health issues which the study talks about. Again, just read it.

And no one is disputing that americans smoke more and are more obese. This is a straw man

Let me know when you're going to defend you're claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than every other nation

4) :Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less “out-of-pocket” spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"

Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means

Of course you spend money out of pocket since you are not on Medicare or Medicaid. I’m not saying any different. If you were on a Medicare or Medicaid you would spend less out of pocket. The CBO confirmed that third-party payment systems increased spending overall because they decreased what people who were on these systems had to pay out of pocket.

You defined "out of pocket spending" as something that only Medicare and Medicaid patients do.

And I have insurance. It pays %100 after co-pays. So I have out of pocket medical expenses (almost everyone does) and when I go on Medicare, my out of pocket costs will go up.

And those third party payers are part of our health care system. If they are driving up costs, then the blame lies with out health care system, which uses third party payers.

So basically, you have yet to provide any support for your arguments. You couldn't even post a proper definition of "out of pocket"

 

[Bern80]

1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.

This makes it invalid how exactly?

You're kidding, right?

Do you really not understand how a study that includes only 20 OECD nations cannot possibly show that the US lifestyles are more less healthy than all the other nations, including the third world nations?



The quote says nothing about what the govt spends on health care. If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say



Once again, the wingnuts prove unable to support their inane lies with any evidence.



No, the point is the lies wingnuts like you tell, but I understand why you would want to forget about those. For example:

I haven't focused on life expectancy. That would be your wingnut friend, Chistopher. He was the one who is obsessed with life extancy. But keep dishonestly pretending that I said anything about getting the govt involved in health care. Your pitifully transparent attempt to distract from wingnut lies is very entertaining

4) :Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less “out-of-pocket” spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"

Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means

He's a liar because you don't understand the difference between nothing and less?

No, he's a liar because he said out of pocket costs are "what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid", but thanks for demonstrating that Chris isn't the only wingnut who has to lie

What SPECIFICALLY am I lieing about? Obesity rates? I did a simple yahoo search. I have yet to find any statistics that show America in any position other than #1 in terms of obesity rates. Wanna call me a liar again?

 

[sangha]

This makes it invalid how exactly?

You're kidding, right?

Do you really not understand how a study that includes only 20 OECD nations cannot possibly show that the US lifestyles are more less healthy than all the other nations, including the third world nations?



The quote says nothing about what the govt spends on health care. If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say



Once again, the wingnuts prove unable to support their inane lies with any evidence.



No, the point is the lies wingnuts like you tell, but I understand why you would want to forget about those. For example:

I haven't focused on life expectancy. That would be your wingnut friend, Chistopher. He was the one who is obsessed with life extancy. But keep dishonestly pretending that I said anything about getting the govt involved in health care. Your pitifully transparent attempt to distract from wingnut lies is very entertaining

He's a liar because you don't understand the difference between nothing and less?

No, he's a liar because he said out of pocket costs are "what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid", but thanks for demonstrating that Chris isn't the only wingnut who has to lie

What SPECIFICALLY am I lieing about? Obesity rates? I did a simple yahoo search. I have yet to find any statistics that show America in any position other than #1 in terms of obesity rates. Wanna call me a liar again?

Here

"The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved."

I have never used life expectancy to argue anything, never mind argue that it is a reason for the govt to get invovled in health care. The poster who is using life expectancy to make a point is the wingnut, Christopher

Yes, you're a liar

 

[Bern80]

You're kidding, right?

Do you really not understand how a study that includes only 20 OECD nations cannot possibly show that the US lifestyles are more less healthy than all the other nations, including the third world nations?



The quote says nothing about what the govt spends on health care. If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say



Once again, the wingnuts prove unable to support their inane lies with any evidence.



No, the point is the lies wingnuts like you tell, but I understand why you would want to forget about those. For example:

I haven't focused on life expectancy. That would be your wingnut friend, Chistopher. He was the one who is obsessed with life extancy. But keep dishonestly pretending that I said anything about getting the govt involved in health care. Your pitifully transparent attempt to distract from wingnut lies is very entertaining





No, he's a liar because he said out of pocket costs are "what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid", but thanks for demonstrating that Chris isn't the only wingnut who has to lie

What SPECIFICALLY am I lieing about? Obesity rates? I did a simple yahoo search. I have yet to find any statistics that show America in any position other than #1 in terms of obesity rates. Wanna call me a liar again?

Here

"The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved."

I have never used life expectancy to argue anything, never mind argue that it is a reason for the govt to get invovled in health care. The poster who is using life expectancy to make a point is the wingnut, Christopher

Yes, you're a liar

Then you best check with some of your lib friends because they like to use it an awful lot.

 

[sangha]

What SPECIFICALLY am I lieing about? Obesity rates? I did a simple yahoo search. I have yet to find any statistics that show America in any position other than #1 in terms of obesity rates. Wanna call me a liar again?

Here

"The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved."

I have never used life expectancy to argue anything, never mind argue that it is a reason for the govt to get invovled in health care. The poster who is using life expectancy to make a point is the wingnut, Christopher

Yes, you're a liar

Then you best check with some of your lib friends because they like to use it an awful lot.

You lied and said I did it.

And another wingnut lies, and when he gets pwned, he can't admit he was wrong.

And now he's telling another lie

I don't suppose you have a link where some of my lib freinds are using life expectancy as you claim?

 

[Christopher]

You claimed

1) The US healthcare system has nothing to do with our low ranking
2) US lifestyles are unhealtheir than any other nation
3) Increased spending causes the development of new technology

The truth

1) YOu haven't posted anything to support this
2) The study you cite doesn't compare the US to every other nation
3) The study you cite says only that increased OUT OF POCKET spending on by people who are on Medicare and Medicaid AND whose coverage is adminstered by a THIRD PARTY (ie non governmental insurance provider)

I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond hope and for me to even continue discussing with you is pointless. I know you are not dumb. I just think your partisan/ideological blinders are too strongly connected to you.

 

[Bern80]

Here

"The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved."

I have never used life expectancy to argue anything, never mind argue that it is a reason for the govt to get invovled in health care. The poster who is using life expectancy to make a point is the wingnut, Christopher

Yes, you're a liar

Then you best check with some of your lib friends because they like to use it an awful lot.

You lied and said I did it.

And another wingnut lies, and when he gets pwned, he can't admit he was wrong.

And now he's telling another lie

I don't suppose you have a link where some of my lib freinds are using life expectancy as you claim?

Sure I can. I falsly atrributed the life expectency argument to you.

It is somewhat confusing however that you want evidence for something you claim to care little about.

 

[sangha]

You claimed

1) The US healthcare system has nothing to do with our low ranking
2) US lifestyles are unhealtheir than any other nation
3) Increased spending causes the development of new technology

The truth

1) YOu haven't posted anything to support this
2) The study you cite doesn't compare the US to every other nation
3) The study you cite says only that increased OUT OF POCKET spending on by people who are on Medicare and Medicaid AND whose coverage is adminstered by a THIRD PARTY (ie non governmental insurance provider)

I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond hope and for me to even continue discussing with you is pointless. I know you are not dumb. I just think your partisan/ideological blinders are too strongly connected to you.

I accept your surrender

 

[sangha]

Then you best check with some of your lib friends because they like to use it an awful lot.

You lied and said I did it.

And another wingnut lies, and when he gets pwned, he can't admit he was wrong.

And now he's telling another lie

I don't suppose you have a link where some of my lib freinds are using life expectancy as you claim?

Sure I can. I falsly atrributed the life expectency argument to you.

It is somewhat confusing however that you want evidence for something you claim to care little about.

As I suspected, you can't back up your lies with some quotes or links

 

[Christopher]

You claimed

1) The US healthcare system has nothing to do with our low ranking
2) US lifestyles are unhealtheir than any other nation
3) Increased spending causes the development of new technology

The truth

1) YOu haven't posted anything to support this
2) The study you cite doesn't compare the US to every other nation
3) The study you cite says only that increased OUT OF POCKET spending on by people who are on Medicare and Medicaid AND whose coverage is adminstered by a THIRD PARTY (ie non governmental insurance provider)

I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond hope and for me to even continue discussing with you is pointless. I know you are not dumb. I just think your partisan/ideological blinders are too strongly connected to you.

I accept your surrender

Yep, I just can't compete with your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[sangha]

I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond hope and for me to even continue discussing with you is pointless. I know you are not dumb. I just think your partisan/ideological blinders are too strongly connected to you.

I accept your surrender

Yep, I just can't compete with your intellectual dishonesty.

Says the man with no relevant quotes

care to explain how out of pocket means "that what happens when you go on medicare or medicaid"?

I thought not

 

[Bern80]

You lied and said I did it.

And another wingnut lies, and when he gets pwned, he can't admit he was wrong.

And now he's telling another lie

I don't suppose you have a link where some of my lib freinds are using life expectancy as you claim?

Sure I can. I falsly atrributed the life expectency argument to you.

It is somewhat confusing however that you want evidence for something you claim to care little about.

As I suspected, you can't back up your lies with some quotes or links

What is your point exactly? If you're going to say it ain't so every time someone won't cow tow to your demands while turning a blind eye to common sense, you're basically just intentionally shoving your head in the sand.

 

[sangha]

Sure I can. I falsly atrributed the life expectency argument to you.

It is somewhat confusing however that you want evidence for something you claim to care little about.

As I suspected, you can't back up your lies with some quotes or links

What is your point exactly? If you're going to say it ain't so every time someone won't cow tow to your demands while turning a blind eye to common sense, you're basically just intentionally shoving your head in the sand.

My point is that your point is a wingnut lie.

 

[Christopher]

I accept your surrender

Yep, I just can't compete with your intellectual dishonesty.

Says the man with no relevant quotes

care to explain how out of pocket means "that what happens when you go on medicare or medicaid"?

I thought not

Thanks for proving my point about your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[sangha]

Yep, I just can't compete with your intellectual dishonesty.

Says the man with no relevant quotes

care to explain how out of pocket means "that what happens when you go on medicare or medicaid"?

I thought not

Thanks for proving my point about your intellectual dishonesty.

As I said "I thought not"

Isn't this where you falsely claim (for about the third time) that you're done with me?