Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.
I already said that. How about YOU?
First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.
The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.
And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?
Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.
But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.
So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?
We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.
Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?
The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.
the last i read from the GAO or CBO is if the ACA were repealed it would ADD 300 billion to the National debt...over 10 years...
What are the Federal Health Care ProgramS, with an 's', as in more than one federal health care program, as in more or other programs, in addition to the ACA, that is in your charts figures and how does it break down....what federal health care program is adding the most to this number in the chart, do you know or have a link on where the numbers came from Andy?How many people did you let die today?
I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.
I already said that. How about YOU?
You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?
I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.
Well... yeah, the ACA is fiscally irresponsible. I don't understand your dumber than forest gump comment.
We are trying to repeal a bad fiscally irresponsible law... and then you say 'so much for fiscal responsibility conservatism? Are you so oblivious that you don't even realize what danger you have placed the future fiscal state of the country?
View attachment 48815
You have screwed us. We have to undo this. There is no other option. You people made the country worse off. Not better off.
I'm thinking the fed healthcare programS could be:
the ACA?
the VA?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Childrens healthcare CHIP?
TRICARE for retired Military?
Yeah, you're literally wrong. I'll trust me European friends and experts on healthcare, not a self proclaimed Christian capitalist.Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.
The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.
And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?
Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.
But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.
So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?
We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.
Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?
The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.
No, the World Health Organization, was dead on correct. You read up the methodology of the ranking system, and they were absolutely right.
They didn't look at the quality of the care. They looked at how socialized it was. How "equal" it was. How "fair" it was. Not survival rates.... not quality of care.... no no. That wasn't a factor.
Cuba is very socialized, very equal, and very fair. When that is the standard you are ranking countries by, that makes perfect sense.
It was completely logical.
That said... the ranking was crap. You can have a system like Cuba, where people couldn't even get Aspirin.... and that was good.... as long as it's Equal.... Fair... and Socialized.....
When I go to the hospital.... I don't give crap if it is fair. I want quality care. If I have to pay for it.... great. Rather pay and live, than have it 'equal', 'fair', and 'socialized' and die because its terrible care.
I wager none of you people on the left, ever bothered to download the data, look up the methodology, and read it for yourself....... have you? Nope. You have not. Don't even try to lie to me.
To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.
How many people did you let die today?
I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.
I already said that. How about YOU?
You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?
I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.
What? Can you just answer the question?I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?
Farmers are subsidized by the government so they can survive.
To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.
In case you didn't realize it, this is not Greece.
How many people did you let die today?
I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.
I already said that. How about YOU?
First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.
The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.
And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?
Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.
But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.
So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?
You & I & the smuck down the street already were paying (thru higher premiums) for people who were not insured. All those trips to the ER people have made, for silly things like a cold all help drive the costs up. It's common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run. Something the status quo was not mandated to do. A covered yearly mammogram now that might catch an early cancer now & treatment is less costly with a better outcome is a lot better than it not being a covered expense.... so it's ignored ( because a mammogram is expensive enough & may not be affordable) by a low income woman until that cancer spreads & costs a lot more to the taxpayer. I really don't give a God damn whether *you* believe me or not & I say exactly what I think with no worries about the opinions of posters such as yourself. 'Moral superiority'? LOL. naw... just being humane. Try it sometime.
First off, preventative medicine is more widely used in America, than anywhere else in the world. You go to Canada, UK, and elsewhere, preventative medicine is a fraction of what it is here.
Second, preventative medicine is not an automatic win. In fact, it's generally a money loser. When you add up the costs to provide preventive medicine to 310 Million people, compared to the cost of simply giving care to the people who get sick, the cost for preventative medicine is billions of dollars more expensive.
If *YOU* are paying for preventative care, then yes, it makes sense. Take the average flu season. The cost for a flu shot is $30. Compare that to the cost of being treated by a severe flu illness, it makes sense.
But the cost of providing flu shots to the entire country, would be over $9 Billion dollars. The cost of treating flu patients every years, is only about $300 Million dollars.
Spending $9 Billion, to save $300 Million, is not a wise or "common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run". It's not. It does not save money in the long run.
Same is true of breast cancer. To provide every single female of age, with breast cancer screening, would cost more than $30 Billion dollars. We only spend $16 Billion on treatment for Breast Cancer now.
Over and over, there are actually very few "preventative care" treatments that are cost effective.
Which goes back to my first point. The whole reason preventative care is uncommon in the UK and Canada, is because..... the government knows it's not cost effective, and can't afford it. Here in the US, the majority of preventative care is paid for by private individuals.
What was the first thing that happened after Obama care was passed?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html?_r=0
See, when government pushed to expand Medicare and Medicaid, knowing they'd have to foot the bill for more of these preventative care expenses...... they suddenly "oh, you only need to screen at age 50".
Oddly I fully expected the move, and wasn't surprised at all. All the media leftists were screaming "how could they possibly recommend less care?!?".... um... because when you have someone else pay for your services, they tend to say you don't need as much? You know, like all the other gov-care countries in the world?
And lastly, you are not being more humane.
You think you are. You pretend you are. But your system has failed every single time it's tried. Tell those people in Greece, that your ideology is more "humane".
Greek Socialized Health Care is Pushing Amputations for Diabetics to Cut Costs
Greece has had a socialized medical system since the early 1980's, and it is likewise struggling in the current economic depression. Thus, it is going to use a similar tactic. It is denying diabetic shoes to patients, a service that would allow patients to keep their legs for several more years at least, and perhaps even avoid amputations completely. The Greek Department of Social Security maintains that diabetic patients will eventually lose their limbs anyway, and it is a waste of money to delay the inevitable."... not avoid amputation of the leg, just delayed for a couple years and the expected benefit would be less than the estimated cost."
— Benefits Division of the Greek Department of Social Security
That's your "Humane" system. Tax the hell out of people, so they are impoverished, and then deny them health care because it's too expensive. Let the rest of society suffer to cover the cost.
Brilliant move. That's the future of America, if you have your "humane" way here.
Hey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.
Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.
As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.
Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.
American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.How many people did you let die today?
I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.
I already said that. How about YOU?
First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.
The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.
And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?
Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.
But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.
So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?
We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.
Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?
The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.
LOL. Reduction in prices of 886 drugs from India | MedindiaHey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.
Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.
As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.
Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
India expands drug pricing with caps for two antibiotics
I was unaware of this. So I really didn't know.
That said, as soon as I read through the articles you posted, I imagined that price controls would likely cause drug companies to stop, or reduce roll-outs of new drugs.
Why invest the money to produce a drug for a market, if you can't make enough money off of that drug, to make it worth the effort?
Second, I predicted that the use of price controlled drugs would see a decline, because companies would naturally not have an incentive to keep up supplies of price controlled drugs, when they can't make as much profit as other drugs.
So I decided to determine if my theory was true, and started searching for "effects of India drug price controls".
Price Controls for Drugs in India Fail to Improve Access for Patients: Report
What do you know..... it's almost like I'm clairvoyant.
There was also a drop in R&D resulting in fewer new introductions of generic drugs and there has been reduced competition since India expanded its list of priced-controlled medicines two years ago. These trends can strengthen “oligopolistic behavior, which will result in reduced set of choices for the doctors and patients,” according to the report, which was conducted by IMS Health, the market research firm.
So the regulation drove out competition, leading to oligopolies. Sounds like regulations on hospitals leading to only 3 major chains in Ohio. Fewer new drugs coming to market, because why invest money in new drugs, when profits will be reduced by price controls?
Oddly.... similar regulations, have similar effects. What a shock. Who thunk it?
Moreover, there was no significant penetration of price-controlled medicines in various markets.
For instance, usage of drugs with price controls declined 7% since 2013, when the Department of Pharmaceuticals published its Drug Price Control Order and boosted to more than 650 the number of drugs that are subject to a price ceiling. Similarly, there was “muted” growth for price-controlled medicines outside metropolitan areas compared with 5% growth for drugs not subject to price controls.
Well fancy that.... while the price controls were supposed to lead to more people having access to those drugs, the result was that usage of price controlled drugs fell by 7%, while usage of non-price-controlled drugs increased by 5%.
Really? The companies spent their money investing in drugs that were not price controlled, instead of those that were, resulting in fewer people using them, as opposed to more people using the non-price-controlled drugs?
Wow... what a shock! This has been such a shocking discovered. How could I be more shocked without using wires, is beyond me!
Like I said before.... the Fundamentals of economics do not change, because you are a leftists, and you demand such and such.
Nor do they change because "it's health care! It's different!".
If you introduce price controls in the US, you will have the same effect here. It will reduce health care, not improve it.
By the way.... Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, tried price controls. The drug companies started closing down shop under Mass Health. Funny how the fundamentals of economics are universal. Every time, Republican or Democrat, you try deny how the market works, you are the one who fails. Not the market.
the last i read from the GAO or CBO is if the ACA were repealed it would ADD 300 billion to the National debt...over 10 years...
Yeah, you're literally wrong. I'll trust me European friends and experts on healthcare, not a self proclaimed Christian capitalist.Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.
We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.
Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?
The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.
No, the World Health Organization, was dead on correct. You read up the methodology of the ranking system, and they were absolutely right.
They didn't look at the quality of the care. They looked at how socialized it was. How "equal" it was. How "fair" it was. Not survival rates.... not quality of care.... no no. That wasn't a factor.
Cuba is very socialized, very equal, and very fair. When that is the standard you are ranking countries by, that makes perfect sense.
It was completely logical.
That said... the ranking was crap. You can have a system like Cuba, where people couldn't even get Aspirin.... and that was good.... as long as it's Equal.... Fair... and Socialized.....
When I go to the hospital.... I don't give crap if it is fair. I want quality care. If I have to pay for it.... great. Rather pay and live, than have it 'equal', 'fair', and 'socialized' and die because its terrible care.
I wager none of you people on the left, ever bothered to download the data, look up the methodology, and read it for yourself....... have you? Nope. You have not. Don't even try to lie to me.
To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.
How many people did you let die today?
I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.
I already said that. How about YOU?
You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?
I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.
That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the question. How is not helping someone immoral? How do you deal with the fact that you're not helping people, people you could be helping, right now?
What? Can you just answer the question?I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?
Farmers are subsidized by the government so they can survive.
LOL. Reduction in prices of 886 drugs from India | MedindiaHey, genius, that was satire, the government in india makes sure drug prices are low. LOL.Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.
As far as I know, they do not subsidize drug prices. The reason drugs are cheaper there, is simply free-market capitalism at work.
Again, people do not go to India's government run hospitals. Those suck terribly. They go to the pay-for-service, free-market Capitalist based hospitals.... which are fantastic.
National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority
India expands drug pricing with caps for two antibiotics
I was unaware of this. So I really didn't know.
That said, as soon as I read through the articles you posted, I imagined that price controls would likely cause drug companies to stop, or reduce roll-outs of new drugs.
Why invest the money to produce a drug for a market, if you can't make enough money off of that drug, to make it worth the effort?
Second, I predicted that the use of price controlled drugs would see a decline, because companies would naturally not have an incentive to keep up supplies of price controlled drugs, when they can't make as much profit as other drugs.
So I decided to determine if my theory was true, and started searching for "effects of India drug price controls".
Price Controls for Drugs in India Fail to Improve Access for Patients: Report
What do you know..... it's almost like I'm clairvoyant.
There was also a drop in R&D resulting in fewer new introductions of generic drugs and there has been reduced competition since India expanded its list of priced-controlled medicines two years ago. These trends can strengthen “oligopolistic behavior, which will result in reduced set of choices for the doctors and patients,” according to the report, which was conducted by IMS Health, the market research firm.
So the regulation drove out competition, leading to oligopolies. Sounds like regulations on hospitals leading to only 3 major chains in Ohio. Fewer new drugs coming to market, because why invest money in new drugs, when profits will be reduced by price controls?
Oddly.... similar regulations, have similar effects. What a shock. Who thunk it?
Moreover, there was no significant penetration of price-controlled medicines in various markets.
For instance, usage of drugs with price controls declined 7% since 2013, when the Department of Pharmaceuticals published its Drug Price Control Order and boosted to more than 650 the number of drugs that are subject to a price ceiling. Similarly, there was “muted” growth for price-controlled medicines outside metropolitan areas compared with 5% growth for drugs not subject to price controls.
Well fancy that.... while the price controls were supposed to lead to more people having access to those drugs, the result was that usage of price controlled drugs fell by 7%, while usage of non-price-controlled drugs increased by 5%.
Really? The companies spent their money investing in drugs that were not price controlled, instead of those that were, resulting in fewer people using them, as opposed to more people using the non-price-controlled drugs?
Wow... what a shock! This has been such a shocking discovered. How could I be more shocked without using wires, is beyond me!
Like I said before.... the Fundamentals of economics do not change, because you are a leftists, and you demand such and such.
Nor do they change because "it's health care! It's different!".
If you introduce price controls in the US, you will have the same effect here. It will reduce health care, not improve it.
By the way.... Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, tried price controls. The drug companies started closing down shop under Mass Health. Funny how the fundamentals of economics are universal. Every time, Republican or Democrat, you try deny how the market works, you are the one who fails. Not the market.
Americans flock to Canada or get them via the internet for the same exact drugs they otherwise cannot afford. I remember Bush saying that it was 'dangerous' to do that because of the lack of 'quality control' blah blah blah & soon after, we as the almighty USA, had flu shot vaccination shortages, & were rationed to just include children, seniors & the physically compromised. Guess where we got them shipped in from so more than just the vulnerable were able to get one? Yaaaaaaaaaaa......... that's right.... Canada.
How many people did you let die today?
I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.
I already said that. How about YOU?
You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?
I voted for Obama. I personally would have liked a public option. The status quo would have kept millions uninsured. The attempt by the right to repeal the ACA some 50+ times cost the taxpayer how many millions of $$$ ? And it's STILL the law. So much for fiscal responsibility & compassionate conservatism.
That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the question. How is not helping someone immoral? How do you deal with the fact that you're not helping people, people you could be helping, right now?
I don't think people should remain ill, or eventually die because they could not afford medical help. To me, having the attitude of 'oh well, tough shit' is immoral.
Obama ran on the ACA as part of his platform, which was one reason why I voted for him.
What? Can you just answer the question?I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?
Farmers are subsidized by the government so they can survive.
Because I never said that doctors shouldn't make a profit ... a living. But certain things shouldn't go completely unchecked in the way of cost- things that are necessary to sustain life. Farmers are subsidized, because the ratio between cost of raising crops or animals versus what people could afford to buy versus the hard work put into it would not be worthwhile to them to be farmers... so they are subsidized to ensure they remain doing vital work & they can make a profit. Does that satisfy you? If not too bad I answered the way I did.
Yeah, you're literally wrong. I'll trust me European friends and experts on healthcare, not a self proclaimed Christian capitalist.Regardless, we have a self proclaimed "rational" capitalist who believes he knows more then the world health organization.American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.
We ranked below many countries 'socialized' heathcare systems & our birth mortality rate is higher than Costa Rica. Costa Rica is in the middle of the friggin rain forest.
Ranked by who exactly, and on what grounds? Tell me you are not citing the World Health Organization again? That whole ranking was absolute trash. They had Cuba on the list. Cuba.... where people can't even get Aspirin from their "free" gov-care system?
The fact Cuba was even on the list, proves that the whole ranking was invalid.
No, the World Health Organization, was dead on correct. You read up the methodology of the ranking system, and they were absolutely right.
They didn't look at the quality of the care. They looked at how socialized it was. How "equal" it was. How "fair" it was. Not survival rates.... not quality of care.... no no. That wasn't a factor.
Cuba is very socialized, very equal, and very fair. When that is the standard you are ranking countries by, that makes perfect sense.
It was completely logical.
That said... the ranking was crap. You can have a system like Cuba, where people couldn't even get Aspirin.... and that was good.... as long as it's Equal.... Fair... and Socialized.....
When I go to the hospital.... I don't give crap if it is fair. I want quality care. If I have to pay for it.... great. Rather pay and live, than have it 'equal', 'fair', and 'socialized' and die because its terrible care.
I wager none of you people on the left, ever bothered to download the data, look up the methodology, and read it for yourself....... have you? Nope. You have not. Don't even try to lie to me.
In case you didn't realize it, this is not Greece.
How many people did you let die today?
I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.
I already said that. How about YOU?
First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.
The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.
And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?
Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.
But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.
So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?
You & I & the smuck down the street already were paying (thru higher premiums) for people who were not insured. All those trips to the ER people have made, for silly things like a cold all help drive the costs up. It's common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run. Something the status quo was not mandated to do. A covered yearly mammogram now that might catch an early cancer now & treatment is less costly with a better outcome is a lot better than it not being a covered expense.... so it's ignored ( because a mammogram is expensive enough & may not be affordable) by a low income woman until that cancer spreads & costs a lot more to the taxpayer. I really don't give a God damn whether *you* believe me or not & I say exactly what I think with no worries about the opinions of posters such as yourself. 'Moral superiority'? LOL. naw... just being humane. Try it sometime.
First off, preventative medicine is more widely used in America, than anywhere else in the world. You go to Canada, UK, and elsewhere, preventative medicine is a fraction of what it is here.
Second, preventative medicine is not an automatic win. In fact, it's generally a money loser. When you add up the costs to provide preventive medicine to 310 Million people, compared to the cost of simply giving care to the people who get sick, the cost for preventative medicine is billions of dollars more expensive.
If *YOU* are paying for preventative care, then yes, it makes sense. Take the average flu season. The cost for a flu shot is $30. Compare that to the cost of being treated by a severe flu illness, it makes sense.
But the cost of providing flu shots to the entire country, would be over $9 Billion dollars. The cost of treating flu patients every years, is only about $300 Million dollars.
Spending $9 Billion, to save $300 Million, is not a wise or "common sense that preventative medicine now saves a whole lot of dollars in the long run". It's not. It does not save money in the long run.
Same is true of breast cancer. To provide every single female of age, with breast cancer screening, would cost more than $30 Billion dollars. We only spend $16 Billion on treatment for Breast Cancer now.
Over and over, there are actually very few "preventative care" treatments that are cost effective.
Which goes back to my first point. The whole reason preventative care is uncommon in the UK and Canada, is because..... the government knows it's not cost effective, and can't afford it. Here in the US, the majority of preventative care is paid for by private individuals.
What was the first thing that happened after Obama care was passed?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html?_r=0
See, when government pushed to expand Medicare and Medicaid, knowing they'd have to foot the bill for more of these preventative care expenses...... they suddenly "oh, you only need to screen at age 50".
Oddly I fully expected the move, and wasn't surprised at all. All the media leftists were screaming "how could they possibly recommend less care?!?".... um... because when you have someone else pay for your services, they tend to say you don't need as much? You know, like all the other gov-care countries in the world?
And lastly, you are not being more humane.
You think you are. You pretend you are. But your system has failed every single time it's tried. Tell those people in Greece, that your ideology is more "humane".
Greek Socialized Health Care is Pushing Amputations for Diabetics to Cut Costs
Greece has had a socialized medical system since the early 1980's, and it is likewise struggling in the current economic depression. Thus, it is going to use a similar tactic. It is denying diabetic shoes to patients, a service that would allow patients to keep their legs for several more years at least, and perhaps even avoid amputations completely. The Greek Department of Social Security maintains that diabetic patients will eventually lose their limbs anyway, and it is a waste of money to delay the inevitable."... not avoid amputation of the leg, just delayed for a couple years and the expected benefit would be less than the estimated cost."
— Benefits Division of the Greek Department of Social Security
That's your "Humane" system. Tax the hell out of people, so they are impoverished, and then deny them health care because it's too expensive. Let the rest of society suffer to cover the cost.
Brilliant move. That's the future of America, if you have your "humane" way here.
In case you didn't realize it, this isn't Greece. The VA has problems because of fraud & abuse. So does Medicare.
Do you also think Sharia law is coming to America?