We're number 37 !!!!!!!!!!!

[CrusaderFrank]

So, Ted Kennedy, dying of cancer, choose the USA only because he was too lazy to fly where they could give him life saving care...gotcha

 

[Dr Grump]

So, Ted Kennedy, dying of cancer, choose the USA only because he was too lazy to fly where they could give him life saving care...gotcha

????
What does one person's choice have to do with the argument? As I said, do I trot out a European example? Your point is frivolous at best....

 

[Dr Grump]

You re missing the whole point of a healthcare system: it is supposed to take care of all the people that live in a nation. It s like the US army that is supposed to protect all americans, healthcare should be seen in the same category. A government should protect its people from harm and give them the means to protect themselves, a private healthcare industry does not do this: just like a private army wouldn't do it either.

And if you ve noticed: it is implemented in other sectors (the police, the fire department, justice system, the government itself: politicians have healthcare payed for by the taxpayers, ...)

Why do I always get cold chills every time one of you adolescents blithely trots out the phrase "should be"?

Demonstrate for me, please, the "should be" in healthcare being viewed as similar to the army, as opposed to a commodity similar to, say, food.

because healthcare belongs in the same "primitive human need category" as safety, as far as food is concerned: farmers in the US are being subsidized on a large scale by the government. Why? because it is not so safe to depend to much on foreign sources of food, imagine the price of food being as voilitale as the price of oil or another raw material that is being speculated on. By making sure the US has a large supply, it can prevent that from happening. The same could be done with healthcare, prices go down or up because of the suppy/demand equation => create a large supply side and prices will go down (that is why some liberals fancy state healthcare). Personally I do not believe in government healthcare on its own (because full government control is not the most efficient way to get results), but rather a mixed system that allows "decent" healthcare service (for the whole population) by letting the government pressure the private industry.

In the end healthcare, food (+ water) and the military are the most basic human needs, that is the reason that any civilized country has to take these issues seriously.

And btw I m not an adolescant (and neither are you I guess), maybe my english isn't so good as I wish it to be but that is because it is a foreign language to me (I m a european)).

Interesting you put military as part of a basic human need. Never thought of that before. I thought food, shelter and clothing were the three basics.

As for Cesspit's insult, don't let it worry you. ALL her posts are littered with such. She's on a higher mental plain than the rest of us mere plebs dontcha know?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.

Heart disease deaths statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

I don't think with real numbers reported instead of whatever WHo wants to use that the USA could be #37 when the 2 biggest death risks we are at 9 and 13.

I think it's interesting that the leftists never mention that in the category of responsiveness - which includes things like speed of service, protection of privacy, choice
of doctors, and quality of amenities - the US does extremely well even by the WHO standards. Is that because they don't think those things matter, or because they don't want to say anything good about the US healthcare system?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.

Heart disease deaths statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

I don't think with real numbers reported instead of whatever WHo wants to use that the USA could be #37 when the 2 biggest death risks we are at 9 and 13.

I think it's interesting that the leftists never mention that in the category of responsiveness - which includes things like speed of service, protection of privacy, choice
of doctors, and quality of amenities - the US does extremely well even by the WHO standards. Is that because they don't think those things matter, or because they don't want to say anything good about the US healthcare system?

Say anything good about the US health care system when we have a fearsome leader who says the entire system is broke and apologizes to the world for the entire country, for everything? You must be joking.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You re missing the whole point of a healthcare system: it is supposed to take care of all the people that live in a nation. It s like the US army that is supposed to protect all americans, healthcare should be seen in the same category. A government should protect its people from harm and give them the means to protect themselves, a private healthcare industry does not do this: just like a private army wouldn't do it either.

And if you ve noticed: it is implemented in other sectors (the police, the fire department, justice system, the government itself: politicians have healthcare payed for by the taxpayers, ...)

Why do I always get cold chills every time one of you adolescents blithely trots out the phrase "should be"?

Demonstrate for me, please, the "should be" in healthcare being viewed as similar to the army, as opposed to a commodity similar to, say, food.

because healthcare belongs in the same "primitive human need category" as safety,

Healthcare is a "primitive human need"? Then how come it only became available AFTER humans stopped being primitive?

And by the way, food ISN'T a "primitive human need"? Yet it's still a commodity, not a government-provided "right". Hmmm. More on this later.

as far as food is concerned: farmers in the US are being subsidized on a large scale by the government. Why? because it is not so safe to depend to much on foreign sources of food, imagine the price of food being as voilitale as the price of oil or another raw material that is being speculated on. By making sure the US has a large supply, it can prevent that from happening.

Wrong on all counts. First, none of this has anything to do with why the government interferes in food production in the US. Quite simply, the government interferes because it can, and because once a government program starts, there is always a politician somewhere who refuses to let it die. Simple as that.

The US is in no danger of being dependent on foreign sources of food to stave off starvation. We import food for the simple reason that we're rich and we can, but we still produce plenty of food for ourselves AND other countries, and would actually produce MORE if the government didn't interfere for its own purposes.

And none of this answers the question of why food is a more basic human need than healthcare - than anything other than water, in fact - and yet is still a commodity which people are expected to purchase for themselves.

The same could be done with healthcare, prices go down or up because of the suppy/demand equation => create a large supply side and prices will go down (that is why some liberals fancy state healthcare). Personally I do not believe in government healthcare on its own (because full government control is not the most efficient way to get results), but rather a mixed system that allows "decent" healthcare service (for the whole population) by letting the government pressure the private industry.

The government already interferes in and subsidizes healthcare more than it should, and the result has NOT been a drop in costs. The government does not bring costs down. It can't. The most it can do is transfer the costs to someone else and attempt to hide it. Sleight-of-hand and diversion might be good in a stage magician's show, but they're not helpful in healthcare debates.

In the end healthcare, food (+ water) and the military are the most basic human needs, that is the reason that any civilized country has to take these issues seriously.

And btw I m not an adolescant (and neither are you I guess), maybe my english isn't so good as I wish it to be but that is because it is a foreign language to me (I m a european)).

I wasn't referring to your physical age or your English mastery. I was referring to your mental and emotional development as evidenced by your posts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, yeah, I promised more on the idea of "human needs = provided by government", and then forgot.

The government doesn't provide things based on how important they are or how badly they're needed. That is not the standard of measurement used (or, at least, it isn't supposed to be). The government provides things which must be provided by the community as a whole, because they cannot be effectively provided by the individuals for themselves. This is why the military (or, on smaller levels, law enforcement) is provided by the government: they are things which must be done by the community at large.

Frankly, the more important something is, the more reason I would have to want to provide it for myself if at all possible, rather than looking to the government.

 

[Toronado3800]

Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.

Heart disease deaths statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

I don't think with real numbers reported instead of whatever WHo wants to use that the USA could be #37 when the 2 biggest death risks we are at 9 and 13.

I'll bite that death rates by any one item are an odd statistic. For example, if the U.S. is #1 in preventing deaths by cancer then more folks are likely to die from heart disease and it will look like we're bad on hearts. Also living past 50 greatly increases your chances of dying of old folks diseases.

So the argument of those who think our healthcare system is better than our life expectancy rate is two fold. 1. the stats are more skewed by different reporting techniques in other countries 2. our diets are so poor in the U.S. even very good doctors can't keep our big behinds alive.

I can't disagree with #2 at all. #1 I'll even give some credit to. I thus accept on the whole our medical care is better than #37. Folks with money do come here for treatment more than we go to other countries. Do I believe our medical care is #1? No. While our current system of socialized medicine does allow me life saving medical treatment even if I'm destitute it slacks a bit on quasi necessary treatment.

 

[rdean]

Libruls say the us health care system sucks, right up to the time they get sick, then they're pushing old ladies and illegals out of the way to be seen by a US doctor

If the system were good, you wouldn't have to push "SF".

Gawd, Republicans are dumb. You know that Republicans supported Iraq to include a "public option" in their constitution (Article 31 and 32).

 

[SFC Ollie]

Libruls say the us health care system sucks, right up to the time they get sick, then they're pushing old ladies and illegals out of the way to be seen by a US doctor

If the system were good, you wouldn't have to push "SF".

Gawd, Republicans are dumb. You know that Republicans supported Iraq to include a "public option" in their constitution (Article 31 and 32).

Gawd you're dumb, it's their constitution not ours.

 

[Toronado3800]

No way. Any documentation anyone helped include that in the Iraqi Constitution?

You'd think if folks supported socialized healthcare in Iraq it would be supported here.

No one is that dumb to say "it's good for you but not us" with our battle over publicly recognized socialized medicine coming up.

 

[Munin]

Why do I always get cold chills every time one of you adolescents blithely trots out the phrase "should be"?

Demonstrate for me, please, the "should be" in healthcare being viewed as similar to the army, as opposed to a commodity similar to, say, food.

because healthcare belongs in the same "primitive human need category" as safety, as far as food is concerned: farmers in the US are being subsidized on a large scale by the government. Why? because it is not so safe to depend to much on foreign sources of food, imagine the price of food being as voilitale as the price of oil or another raw material that is being speculated on. By making sure the US has a large supply, it can prevent that from happening. The same could be done with healthcare, prices go down or up because of the suppy/demand equation => create a large supply side and prices will go down (that is why some liberals fancy state healthcare). Personally I do not believe in government healthcare on its own (because full government control is not the most efficient way to get results), but rather a mixed system that allows "decent" healthcare service (for the whole population) by letting the government pressure the private industry.

In the end healthcare, food (+ water) and the military are the most basic human needs, that is the reason that any civilized country has to take these issues seriously.

And btw I m not an adolescant (and neither are you I guess), maybe my english isn't so good as I wish it to be but that is because it is a foreign language to me (I m a european)).

Interesting you put military as part of a basic human need. Never thought of that before. I thought food, shelter and clothing were the three basics.

maybe military isn't the right word: I should have used the word safety, but that wouldn't be as clear (it would be less obvious what I mean by "safety" in reality, because that would also include the CIA, the police and many other institutions). for example: If I were to survive on my own and just have food, shelter and clothing then I sure would like to have something that would allow me to keep those 3 things

 

[Munin]

because healthcare belongs in the same "primitive human need category" as safety,

Healthcare is a "primitive human need"? Then how come it only became available AFTER humans stopped being primitive?

And by the way, food ISN'T a "primitive human need"? Yet it's still a commodity, not a government-provided "right". Hmmm. More on this later.



Wrong on all counts. First, none of this has anything to do with why the government interferes in food production in the US. Quite simply, the government interferes because it can, and because once a government program starts, there is always a politician somewhere who refuses to let it die. Simple as that.

The US is in no danger of being dependent on foreign sources of food to stave off starvation. We import food for the simple reason that we're rich and we can, but we still produce plenty of food for ourselves AND other countries, and would actually produce MORE if the government didn't interfere for its own purposes.

And none of this answers the question of why food is a more basic human need than healthcare - than anything other than water, in fact - and yet is still a commodity which people are expected to purchase for themselves.

I never stated that food wasn't a "primitive human need", as far as healthcare is concerned: even the most primitive humans have used healthcare. This is not what we today have in the form of doctors and advanced medicines, but rather in the form of plants that were used for healing purposes. (And note that "primitive" does not mean that they were monkeys.)

In this age food is a commodity because there is so much provided to us (this is also because of government intervention, because normally the supply and demand curve fluctuate much more.), but it has never known the huge price increases that oil and other raw materials have endured during the last years. And when the food prices did get the incentive to rise (like during war or economic depression) the government has always acted to ensure that people got food.


"the government interferes because it can" That is a ridiculously weak argument, the government has been interfering in the food industry from the beginning of human history. And if that doesn't indicate to you how important it is then I m afraid nothing will.

I also never stated that the US is in danger of starvation (I even indicated the reasons why the opposite is true).We import because we are rich, because we can afford to diversify in food (like you said).
The US does not import because it is depending too much on food from foreign countries (as would be the case if we applied the rules of the free market on the US food industry: it would not be able to compete properly with the low wages in asia & africa) This is why only countries that can not produce enough food for themselfes are the ones who are technically not capable of doing so (and the ones living in a different century).

[/QUOTE]

The same could be done with healthcare, prices go down or up because of the suppy/demand equation => create a large supply side and prices will go down (that is why some liberals fancy state healthcare). Personally I do not believe in government healthcare on its own (because full government control is not the most efficient way to get results), but rather a mixed system that allows "decent" healthcare service (for the whole population) by letting the government pressure the private industry.

The government already interferes in and subsidizes healthcare more than it should, and the result has NOT been a drop in costs. The government does not bring costs down. It can't. The most it can do is transfer the costs to someone else and attempt to hide it. Sleight-of-hand and diversion might be good in a stage magician's show, but they're not helpful in healthcare debates.

Already your argument is proved wrong by the existence of this very thread we are posting in, "we re number 37". All countries that re ranked above the US don't seem to have had a problem with making less costs (in general) than what the private healthcare system of the US has been doing for decades. What the US government has been doing for the last decades by "interfering" was subsidizing the private healthcare industry, as such they have never really interfered with the private healthcare system (until now). And no this has nothing to do with a magician show, unless you are in a constant state of illusion and denial to accept reality.

As for Cesspit's insult, don't let it worry you. ALL her posts are littered with such. She's on a higher mental plain than the rest of us mere plebs dontcha know?

maybe it is as he said?

In the end healthcare, food (+ water) and the military are the most basic human needs, that is the reason that any civilized country has to take these issues seriously.

And btw I m not an adolescant (and neither are you I guess), maybe my english isn't so good as I wish it to be but that is because it is a foreign language to me (I m a european)).

I wasn't referring to your physical age or your English mastery. I was referring to your mental and emotional development as evidenced by your posts.

Maybe you should elaborate on what specifically made you jump to that conclusion (sentences and words)? Everyone can "insult" others, there are only a few who can argue that it isn't an insult but reality

 

[Alvin]

Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada.
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.

Heart disease deaths statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

I don't think with real numbers reported instead of whatever WHo wants to use that the USA could be #37 when the 2 biggest death risks we are at 9 and 13.

I think it's interesting that the leftists never mention that in the category of responsiveness - which includes things like speed of service, protection of privacy, choice
of doctors, and quality of amenities - the US does extremely well even by the WHO standards. Is that because they don't think those things matter, or because they don't want to say anything good about the US healthcare system?

Responsivness and effectivness are two different things?

 

[Alvin]

Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.

What country didn't cure him? - Just saying.

 

[California Girl]

Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.

What country didn't cure him? - Just saying.

Oh for goodness sake. Kennedy had terminal cancer. File it under 'death happens'. No country can save everyone.

This stupid fucking whining gets no one anywhere. Just sayin'.

 

[Alvin]

Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.

What country didn't cure him? - Just saying.

Oh for goodness sake. Kennedy had terminal cancer. File it under 'death happens'. No country can save everyone.

This stupid fucking whining gets no one anywhere. Just sayin'.

Which was my point pretty much. In the meantime he was still a sitting US Senitor and ellected to remain so until he was either cured or died.
- You can't do that from anywhere else but the US effectivly.

 

[California Girl]

What country didn't cure him? - Just saying.

Oh for goodness sake. Kennedy had terminal cancer. File it under 'death happens'. No country can save everyone.

This stupid fucking whining gets no one anywhere. Just sayin'.

Which was my point pretty much. In the meantime he was still a sitting US Senitor and ellected to remain so until he was either cured or died.
- You can't do that from anywhere else but the US effectivly.

I'm pretty confident that we are all aware of the way our government works. I suspect we don't need to be told by you.

 

[DiamondDave]

Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.

What country didn't cure him? - Just saying.

Cancer is a terminal illness in most cases...
Everyone will succumb to death

Just sayin'

 

[Alvin]

I'm pretty confident that we are all aware of the way our government works. I suspect we don't need to be told by you.

I was talking about the difficulty in communications if you are being treated for an illness a couple of timezones away.

What were you talking about?