Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[sangha]

Is it reasonable to assume that when a paper cites 'at least' whatever, that the the actual number will be significntly higher than that?

You're the one making assumptions, not me.

I'm not a wingnut, so I prefer facts. Too bad you're short on those

Then for the love of God stop being such a immature juvenile twit and pose a reasonable number. If you think the real number isn't even close to 10%, make your case. I certainly accept that 10% is not what the actual number is, it just isn't reasonable, I don't think, to assume it is twice that. Which is what it would have to be, to be greater than France. Being a fucking adult in this converstation for once and let's find out what the number actually is.

Without facts, there are no reasonable #'s.

Why wouldn't you assume it's 20%? or 30%? Or 59%?

In the last year of my mothers' life, her health care cost 1000% of her annual income.

 

[Bern80]

You're the one making assumptions, not me.

I'm not a wingnut, so I prefer facts. Too bad you're short on those

Then for the love of God stop being such a immature juvenile twit and pose a reasonable number. If you think the real number isn't even close to 10%, make your case. I certainly accept that 10% is not what the actual number is, it just isn't reasonable, I don't think, to assume it is twice that. Which is what it would have to be, to be greater than France. Being a fucking adult in this converstation for once and let's find out what the number actually is.

Without facts, there are no reasonable #'s.

Why wouldn't you assume it's 20%? or 30%? Or 59%?

In the last year of my mothers' life, her health care cost 1000% of her annual income.

Because common sense says when you cite 'at least 10%' the acutal number is going to be fairly close to that. If it isn't it renders the 10% that was cited meaningless. If it isn't even close why cite it in the first place if it's that misleading? Like I said before, a little common sense needs to enter the conversation at some point. And I'm even willing to entertain it could be more than France. Again, I just don't know what that proves about anything. I ask again, what would that be an idictment of, if we do spend a greater percentage of our income on health care than they do?

 

[sangha]

Then for the love of God stop being such a immature juvenile twit and pose a reasonable number. If you think the real number isn't even close to 10%, make your case. I certainly accept that 10% is not what the actual number is, it just isn't reasonable, I don't think, to assume it is twice that. Which is what it would have to be, to be greater than France. Being a fucking adult in this converstation for once and let's find out what the number actually is.

Without facts, there are no reasonable #'s.

Why wouldn't you assume it's 20%? or 30%? Or 59%?

In the last year of my mothers' life, her health care cost 1000% of her annual income.

Because common sense says when you cite 'at least 10%' the acutal number is going to be fairly close to that. If it isn't it renders the 10% that was cited meaningless. If it isn't even close why cite it in the first place if it's that misleading? Like I said before, a little common sense needs to enter the conversation at some point. And I'm even willing to entertain it could be more than France. Again, I just don't know what that proves about anything. I ask again, what would that be an idictment of, if we do spend a greater percentage of our income on health care than they do?

"Common sense"? Is that what you use when you have no facts?

If you want me to talk about % of income, then post the facts, not your "guestimates"

 

[Bern80]

Without facts, there are no reasonable #'s.

Why wouldn't you assume it's 20%? or 30%? Or 59%?

In the last year of my mothers' life, her health care cost 1000% of her annual income.

Because common sense says when you cite 'at least 10%' the acutal number is going to be fairly close to that. If it isn't it renders the 10% that was cited meaningless. If it isn't even close why cite it in the first place if it's that misleading? Like I said before, a little common sense needs to enter the conversation at some point. And I'm even willing to entertain it could be more than France. Again, I just don't know what that proves about anything. I ask again, what would that be an idictment of, if we do spend a greater percentage of our income on health care than they do?

"Common sense"? Is that what you use when you have no facts?

If you want me to talk about % of income, then post the facts, not your "guestimates"

Why is it so important to you? Why are you incapable of having an objective, adult discussion? I no longer see why this concept is relevent to the overall debate.

 

[sangha]

Because common sense says when you cite 'at least 10%' the acutal number is going to be fairly close to that. If it isn't it renders the 10% that was cited meaningless. If it isn't even close why cite it in the first place if it's that misleading? Like I said before, a little common sense needs to enter the conversation at some point. And I'm even willing to entertain it could be more than France. Again, I just don't know what that proves about anything. I ask again, what would that be an idictment of, if we do spend a greater percentage of our income on health care than they do?

"Common sense"? Is that what you use when you have no facts?

If you want me to talk about % of income, then post the facts, not your "guestimates"

Why is it so important to you?

Why is what so important to me? The facts?

 

[Bern80]

"Common sense"? Is that what you use when you have no facts?

If you want me to talk about % of income, then post the facts, not your "guestimates"

Why is it so important to you?

Why is what so important to me? The facts?

Yes. Say we get those numbers and say for what you think is the benefit of your argument, the French spend on avg. 20% of their income on health care and say America spends 30%. What's your argument? That it shows that government run health care puts more money in people's pockets?

 

[sangha]

Why is it so important to you?

Why is what so important to me? The facts?

Yes. Say we get those numbers and say for what you think is the benefit of your argument, the French spend on avg. 20% of their income on health care and say America spends 30%. What's your argument? That it shows that government run health care puts more money in people's pockets?

So you're actually asking me why the facts are important?

No wonder you lie so often.

 

[Bern80]

Why is what so important to me? The facts?

Yes. Say we get those numbers and say for what you think is the benefit of your argument, the French spend on avg. 20% of their income on health care and say America spends 30%. What's your argument? That it shows that government run health care puts more money in people's pockets?

So you're actually asking me why the facts are important?

No wonder you lie so often.

No. I'm curious as to why you think this particular fact is important. You've been hammering away on it for 3 pages or so now. You obviously feel that it does something for your argument. I'm curious to what that is.

And while you think you are so smug, lest not forget you do the same as you accuse me of and side step what you can not refute.

 

[sangha]

Yes. Say we get those numbers and say for what you think is the benefit of your argument, the French spend on avg. 20% of their income on health care and say America spends 30%. What's your argument? That it shows that government run health care puts more money in people's pockets?

So you're actually asking me why the facts are important?

No wonder you lie so often.

No. I'm curious as to why you think this particular fact is important. You've been hammering away on it for 3 pages or so now. You obviously feel that it does something for your argument. I'm curious to what that is.

And while you think you are so smug, lest not forget you do the same as you accuse me of and side step what you can not refute.

Another lie

It was YOU who brought up the issue of % of income spent on health care, and it was you who continue (even now) to try to discuss your guestimates, assumptions, and speculation on the matter. The moment you drop it, it will no longer be discussed in this thread.

So when are you going to back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care than americans do?

My guestimate = Never

 

[Bern80]

Another lie

For a guy who throws that word around a lot one would have thought you knew what it meant.

It was YOU who brought up the issue of % of income spent on health care, and it was you who continue (even now) to try to discuss your guestimates, assumptions, and speculation on the matter. The moment you drop it, it will no longer be discussed in this thread.

So when are you going to back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care than americans do?

My guestimate = Never

You are a colossal hypocrite sangha. I don't get how people with so little integrity look themselves in the mirror each day. You demand of me what you will not do yourself. You tell me it will be dropped when I stop discussing it and then ask me to keep discussing it? you truly are a joke. I am trying to have the adult conversation here. All you are obviously interested in is fucking juvenile game of gotcha.

I am going to stick with my 12-15% estimate based on what I read until you can come up with a rationale explanation as to why that isn't accurate and why the number is higher than the one cited for France. Period. If YOU can not answer those questions I will consider that aspect of the discussion dropped and YOU can perhaps find your integrity and answer the questions I have asked of YOU.

 

[Old Rocks]

The problems with socialized medicine is that it does not create millionaires like Rick Scott. Instead, it just covers all the citizens of a nation, and results in them having longer life spans, with much lower infant mortality than we do in the states.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]

 

[Revere]

Who cares what socalists like WHO think of the US?

 

[Revere]

The problems with socialized medicine is that it does not create millionaires like Rick Scott. Instead, it just covers all the citizens of a nation, and results in them having longer life spans, with much lower infant mortality than we do in the states.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4

More of your subterranean IQ, shit head. Americans lifespans are shortened by high accident rates, and the US saves babies other countries don't even try to.

 

[Bern80]

The problems with socialized medicine is that it does not create millionaires like Rick Scott. Instead, it just covers all the citizens of a nation, and results in them having longer life spans, with much lower infant mortality than we do in the states.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4

This stupid report AGAIN? That report has been debunked almost as much as AGW Old Fool.

 

[sangha]

Another lie

For a guy who throws that word around a lot one would have thought you knew what it meant.

It was YOU who brought up the issue of % of income spent on health care, and it was you who continue (even now) to try to discuss your guestimates, assumptions, and speculation on the matter. The moment you drop it, it will no longer be discussed in this thread.

So when are you going to back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care than americans do?

My guestimate = Never

You are a colossal hypocrite sangha. I don't get how people with so little integrity look themselves in the mirror each day. You demand of me what you will not do yourself. You tell me it will be dropped when I stop discussing it and then ask me to keep discussing it? you truly are a joke. I am trying to have the adult conversation here. All you are obviously interested in is fucking juvenile game of gotcha.

I am going to stick with my 12-15% estimate based on what I read until you can come up with a rationale explanation as to why that isn't accurate and why the number is higher than the one cited for France. Period. If YOU can not answer those questions I will consider that aspect of the discussion dropped and YOU can perhaps find your integrity and answer the questions I have asked of YOU.

Of course you will stick to your guestimate. It's not like you have any desire to stick to the facts. You're inability to recognize your intellectual dishonesty is proven by your sticking to made up # because it can't be proven wrong. Most people realize that facts are things you can prove are right.

 

[Bern80]

Of course you will stick to your guestimate. It's not like you have any desire to stick to the facts. You're inability to recognize your intellectual dishonesty is proven by your sticking to made up # because it can't be proven wrong. Most people realize that facts are things you can prove are right.

I repeat, when you can show that figure isn't even close to right I am more than willing to listen. Really I am. I would rather deal with accurate numbers as well. I'm not being dishonest here. That is my estimation based on the links I posted. Or if you want to drop that part of it we can drop it.

But don't pull this bullshit anymore about what I have to prove and ONLY I have to prove. I say the U.S. spends less than France on health care as percentage of income, you contest that we spend more than them. But only I have to prove that I'm right and you don't? Again when you can muster some integrity we can get back to it, otherwise I think it best to drop it.

You also claimed that French system, despite it's 9 billion dollar deficit and expected to increase, was sustainable by comparing to private sector borrowing. I explained why this is a false comparison. You are awfully loud about wanting exact figures on other things, but interestingly quiet about the actual sustainability of a system you think is so great.

 

[sangha]

Of course you will stick to your guestimate. It's not like you have any desire to stick to the facts. You're inability to recognize your intellectual dishonesty is proven by your sticking to made up # because it can't be proven wrong. Most people realize that facts are things you can prove are right.

I repeat, when you can show that figure isn't even close to right I am more than willing to listen. Really I am. I would rather deal with accurate numbers as well. I'm not being dishonest here. That is my estimation based on the links I posted. Or if you want to drop that part of it we can drop it.

But don't pull this bullshit anymore about what I have to prove and ONLY I have to prove. I say the U.S. spends less than France on health care as percentage of income, you contest that we spend more than them. But only I have to prove that I'm right and you don't? Again when you can muster some integrity we can get back to it, otherwise I think it best to drop it.

You also claimed that French system, despite it's 9 billion dollar deficit and expected to increase, was sustainable by comparing to private sector borrowing. I explained why this is a false comparison. You are awfully loud about wanting exact figures on other things, but interestingly quiet about the actual sustainability of a system you think is so great.

In wingnut world, something is right if someone else can't prove it wrong

I am God. Now let's see you prove me wrong, or admit that I am God.

And please don't lie. I never said the french spend less of their income on health care. I merely asked you to prove your dishonest claim.

 

[sangha]

Of course you will stick to your guestimate. It's not like you have any desire to stick to the facts. You're inability to recognize your intellectual dishonesty is proven by your sticking to made up # because it can't be proven wrong. Most people realize that facts are things you can prove are right.

I repeat, when you can show that figure isn't even close to right I am more than willing to listen. Really I am. I would rather deal with accurate numbers as well. I'm not being dishonest here. That is my estimation based on the links I posted. Or if you want to drop that part of it we can drop it.

But don't pull this bullshit anymore about what I have to prove and ONLY I have to prove. I say the U.S. spends less than France on health care as percentage of income, you contest that we spend more than them. But only I have to prove that I'm right and you don't? Again when you can muster some integrity we can get back to it, otherwise I think it best to drop it.

You also claimed that French system, despite it's 9 billion dollar deficit and expected to increase, was sustainable by comparing to private sector borrowing. I explained why this is a false comparison. You are awfully loud about wanting exact figures on other things, but interestingly quiet about the actual sustainability of a system you think is so great.

In wingnut world, something is right if someone else can't prove it wrong

I am God. Now let's see you prove me wrong, or admit that I am God.

And please don't lie. I never said the french spend less of their income on health care. I merely asked you to prove your dishonest claim.

It looks like a wingnut "got religion"

 

[Spoonman]

Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8

Yea we're fucked and getting more fucked by the day

 

[Bern80]

And please don't lie. I never said the french spend less of their income on health care. I merely asked you to prove your dishonest claim.

For the last time. I am willing to objectively discuss alternative numbers when some objective evidence shows they are significnalty incorrect. I can only tell you what I found. And article after article claims essentially that a percentage of this demographic or that demographic pays more than 10% of their income on health care. Now I ask you, if that is all the information we have what do you believe it is reasonable to estimate the avg. americans percent of income spent on health care is?

What I don't get about about a lot of discussions on this board is why people like you are incapable of an objective conversation. That's all I'm waiting for. If I'm just way off base on my estimate I am more than happy to objectively discuss alternatives. Again all you seem interested in is this immature game of gotcha.

P.S. You have yet to refute the argument that the French system is unsustainable.