If the US healthcare system is the best and socialism is the worst

[taichiliberal]

Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???


Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.


Success is self-evident CONZ.
Point to all the demonstrations in socialist coutries DEMANDING they change to our system.
Point to the cost savings of the U.S. system.
Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?

If socialist countries have a more copacetic form of healthcare....what's keeping you here?

Typical right wing dodge....you can't answer the man's questions because you'd have to admit defeat of your ideology...so you personally attack him.

 

[taichiliberal]

Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance?

Probably because they're socialists. The real question is their system sustainable. Based on the recent flurry of socialist country bailouts, it would appear there is a fundamental problem with a socialist approach to government, including healthcare. You see, they've run out of other people's money.

The "bailouts" can be tied directly to the chicanery of the likes of Goldman Sachs & company (who do you think sold Greece's viability to the EU?). You see, it's all in the details.

 

[taichiliberal]

You can't be this stupid....

Statistically speaking, the US pays more per person for Health Care than any other country in the world and with the exception of cancer ( If you have cancer, your chances of survival is higher in the US than anywhere else ) we receive less benefit.

So we pay more for less.

Only an idiot would find that favorable.

Problem here is you address the symptoms not the cause. That's like saying the problem of poverty is lack of money.

That's idiotic.

And pray tell, what is the "cause" according to you?

 

[taichiliberal]

Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???


Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.


Success is self-evident CONZ.
Point to all the demonstrations in socialist coutries DEMANDING they change to our system.
Point to the cost savings of the U.S. system.
Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?

Britain is trying to overhaul its system... because its 'socialist' system is fucked. But please, don't let reality bite you in the ass.

I do wish you would do some honest, objective research before your fingers hit the keys, Cali girl. Observe and learn from a 2009 TIME article:

How Does Britain's National Health Service Work? - TIME


What's happened in England is that th Tory's (their version of conservative/new conservative) party has finally gotten it's way...for now. Whether the British people will stand for it remains to be seen in their next round of elections.

 

[taichiliberal]

Make a point.

all those countries are democracy's yet the provide health care as a public service. none of those democratic countries are making a move to the american system.

so it is not only socialist countries such as Cuba and China who have better state run health care, it is democratic nations as well.

if the american system was so grand, every country would adopt it..... so tell us why they arent.

First, stop hiding behind the Liberal "us" and simply say tell "me"....
....don't be afraid to stand on your own two feet.

We're the richest nation. We have the best heathcare in the world.
Their standard of living and medical expectations aren't as high as ours.
The spend huge amounts of money on cradle-to-grave styles and you see the results in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland.
Socialized medicine is fine for minor ailments, but if major and expensive, you don't get it.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): tells Brits if their life is worth living- in actual dollars and cents. As the NYTimes states, its job is to develop “a standard method of rationing. NICE has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about $22,750, to save six months of a citizen’s life.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html)

So, the average one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is worth way more than a Brits’ life!(New York City Real Estate | MNS is Real Impact Real Estate)
That the essence of your socialized medicine.

So, it has concluded that if you have breast cancer, the drug Tykerb, shown to delay the progression of the disease, is worth more than you are “despite Glaxo’s offer to pay for the first 12 weeks of treatment.”
U.K. Says Tykerb Isn’t Worth Cost, Even With 12 Free Weeks - Health Blog - WSJ

Socialism is based on the collective, the herd, whereas our system...until recently...honored the life and wellbeing of individuals.
Which do you want?

For those of you interested in a more objective view, check this out from a 2009 TIME article:

How Does Britain's National Health Service Work? - TIME

The "exception" and NOT the "rule" in some cases where rulings are made to curtail expensive drugs for elderly, critically ill patients.....as opposed to the STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE of many health insurance companies in America to DENY healthcare coverage to ANY age of critically ill folk. Just as Dr. Peelo or Wendell Potter.

 

[dblack]

clearly what we want is government controlling every aspect of our lives.

 

[Oddball]

#2 is a bold faced lie.
Americans Without Health Insurance Rise to 52 Million on Job Loss, Expense - Bloomberg

52 million americans is 1/6th of the population.

Speaking of bold faced lies...

How many of the uninsured qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but haven't applied for it?

How many of the uninsured are in America illegally?

How many of the uninsured are well off enough to pay for their medical costs out-of-pocket?

Your stale "52 million Americans" taking point is pure bullshit, s0n.

so now bloomberg is a liar?
guess you didnt even read the link. but then again you wing nuts are big on facts these days.
The U.S. Census Bureau said in September that the number of people without coverage rose to 50.7 million in 2009 from 46.3 million in 2008. Forty-nine million Americans reported spending 10 percent or more of their income on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs last year, according to the Commonwealth Fund study. The research was based on telephone interviews conducted from July 14 to Nov. 30 with more than 4,000 adults aged 19 or older.

what 25 year old making $35k annually can afford 300-400 a month for health insurance? what family of 4 making $50k annually can afford 700-1000 a month for insurance.

Not even a good try at diverting from the questions...

How many of the uninsured qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but haven't applied for it?

How many of the uninsured are in America illegally?

How many of the uninsured are well off enough to pay for their medical costs out-of-pocket?

 

[taichiliberal]

No there are a dozen countries with higher GDP per capital, and the rest of the 1st world has higher living standards then America


Only if you ignore all the data and statistics

Their expectations might not be has high as our but their standards of living and health outcomes are higher then ours

Of which two of those having higher standards of living, and of 3 are hindered by not having their own country, and 1 isn't a first world country but is experiencing GDP growth of 5% plus.

It would be nice if when you posted next you posted something that wasn't a complete lie.

Your ignorance prevents you from realizing the truth.

Im not sure how me pointing out you making half a dozen lies and stupid comments makes me ignorant. Perhaps it is because you have an overactive ego and cant accept that you were wrong and brainwashed. Iot is very telling of the person you are that you reject reality just because it doesn't fit with your incorrect view of how reality should be

Amusing how you Leftists will do cartwheels to prevent having to deal with the truth....for example, to contend that 'everything you say is a lie,' you have to explain why my posts are linked, especially to sources like the NYTimes.....

Yep the whole world is liberal bias all the information on health care is just lies from the massive liberal media that controls everything. Every fact and statistics is incorrect because its liberal. /sarcasm How long do you plan to deny reality?

a. “One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values.

Lets look at those factors. 1) Europeans drink more alcohol, 2) Europeans are older, 3) Europeans smoke more tobacco. If we were to actually adjust health care systems for lifestyle choices we would find that Americans health care system is even shittier then we thought.

We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in not mentioning that race is the reason:

I see so its black peoples fault[/QUOTE]


I applaud your persistence and patience with the cornucopia of neocon/teabagger informational myopia that springs from this Chic's keyboard. Everytime you factually and logically disprove one of her talking points, she just moves the goal post....as the neocon/teabagger is often want to do. Keep up the good work.

 

[taichiliberal]

1. There was no groundswell to change healthcare until the Left decided that they could create a crisis, and certain dolts would fall for it....(if the shoe fits)...

Wrong again.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/10-29-07_IHPPressRelease.pdf?section=4056
==1) American's want their health care system changed more than two times the amount that people in "socialized medicine" countries do.
34% of Americans want health care system completely changed
48% what huge fundamental changes
Only 16% want minor changes

“…while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own health care than with the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receive…a mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive.”.(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

That is because they dont realize they are paying 2-3times more and getting worse health outcomes



Nope dumbass 15-19% lack health insurance, they cannot go in and get medicine, they can't go to a psych office and get counseling etc etc.

3. The small percentage of chronically uninsured could be taken care of via government. So, ask yourself why it was necessary to destroy a system that worked well for the large majority...
....c'mon....you can figure it out.

Because it costs 3 times more then other systems despite being shittier

4. The essential different is whether one believes in the free market, or, as you do, that bureaucrats will do a better job...think Motor Vehicle Department, or Post Office.

Heres how much the free market works when it takes over the DMV
2009 New Jersey Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
--^New Jerseys DMV privatization failed, socialization made it better Privatized DMV leads to poor service, under paid employees, a lack of anti-fraud policies, and long wait times/lines.

Heres more examples of the free market failing

http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
^Privatized SS in Chile and UK resulted in administration cost increasing by 13-20 times.

You’re in good hands with Social Security: But Privatization Proposals Would Unravel Its Ability to Insure Against Loss of Income, Disability, and Death | Economic Policy Institute
^SS keeps 39% of the elderly out of poverty
^SS returns are 26% higher than private alternatives

BBC News - Ken Clarke privatises Birmingham Prison amid union fury
^In UK privatized prisons cost 5% more even though private prisons don't provide workers with adequate benefits or pay.

http://insurance.mo.gov/reports/lossratio/index.htm
^National loss percentages for insurance.
Work comp/disaster (unemployment) has a loss percentage of 33%
Home owners insurance has a loss percentage of 40%
(Has around a dozen different types of insurances and their loss ratios.)
^
http://www.coffi.org/pubs/Summaries/NFIP Summary revised Sept 26 2005-1.pdf
^The federal flood insurance (home insurance) program runs administrative costs at around
7%.
^
Budget
^Administrative costs for government unemployment insurance (workers comp) is less than 5%.

http://mainstreetalliance.org/wordp...of-CAA-literature-review-final-10-04-2010.pdf
^The Clean air act amendments of 1990 saved the country a net of 510 billion dollars over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year). The act used regulations to reduce 5 pollutants by 41%. The benefit cost ration is 4-1.
^The stratospheric Ozone protection act saved the country a net of 510 billion over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year). The act reduced emissions of CFC's. And its benefit cost ratio is 20-1
^The original Clean air act from 1970 saves a net of 600 billion a year having a benift cost ratio of 42-1
^Major new regulations starting in 1992-2002 saved the economy a total of 150 billion dollars in ten years.
^Environmental regulations lead to the creation 1.3million jobs over ten years.
^Costs of regulations were exaggerated estimates for Acid and rain cap and trade said that the costs would be between 2-4 billion when in reality it was 800 million or 60-120% less.

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/green_economics/CERES_PERI_Feb11.pdf
^2010 EPA air regulations are estimated to create 300,000 jobs a year for the next 5 years.
^Since 1970 for every dollar spent on clean air regulation compliances $4-$8 dollars are created in economic benefits.

Electric deregulation fails to live up to promises as bills soar - USATODAY.com
^States that deregulated their energy sectors saw costs increase 30% more than states that regulated their energy sectors.
Economic Failures of Private Water Systems | Food & Water Watch
^In America privately owned water utilities cost on average 27% more than their government owned counterparts.

 

[taichiliberal]

Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???


Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.


Success is self-evident CONZ.
Point to all the demonstrations in socialist coutries DEMANDING they change to our system.
Point to the cost savings of the U.S. system.
Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?

Most of Europe and Greece have a kind of socialist or quasi socialist healthcare system that pays for pretty much everything getting people to give something like that up is next to impossible. The problem as Europe and Greece has shown is they are not sustainable sooner or later the people paying into the system are out paced by those collecting from it and it goes deeper and deeper into the red until it has to be bailed out or collaspes.

Wrong. What screwed Greece's economy was having the likes of Goldman Sach's fudge the books for it's admittance into the EU....and let's not forget all those American banks that mixed toxic packages of housing loans with their stable loans and then sold them on the international market.

 

[taichiliberal]

clearly what we want is government controlling every aspect of our lives.

Clearly YOU are the ONLY one declaring such an absurd notion.

 

[dblack]

clearly what we want is government controlling every aspect of our lives.

Clearly YOU are the ONLY one declaring such an absurd notion.

I'm just trying to go with the flow. Clearly, whatever the question, government is the answer. At least according to government.

Go team!

 

[taichiliberal]

Speaking of bold faced lies...

How many of the uninsured qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but haven't applied for it?

How many of the uninsured are in America illegally?

How many of the uninsured are well off enough to pay for their medical costs out-of-pocket?

Your stale "52 million Americans" taking point is pure bullshit, s0n.

so now bloomberg is a liar?
guess you didnt even read the link. but then again you wing nuts are big on facts these days.
The U.S. Census Bureau said in September that the number of people without coverage rose to 50.7 million in 2009 from 46.3 million in 2008. Forty-nine million Americans reported spending 10 percent or more of their income on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs last year, according to the Commonwealth Fund study. The research was based on telephone interviews conducted from July 14 to Nov. 30 with more than 4,000 adults aged 19 or older.

what 25 year old making $35k annually can afford 300-400 a month for health insurance? what family of 4 making $50k annually can afford 700-1000 a month for insurance.

Not even a good try at diverting from the questions...

How many of the uninsured qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but haven't applied for it?

How many of the uninsured are in America illegally?

How many of the uninsured are well off enough to pay for their medical costs out-of-pocket?

There was no "diversion", YOU just don't like the FACTS, so now you try to distort the information:

1) Are you implying that there are hoards of people who qualify for Medicare/Medicaid but haven't applied? Where's your proof of such an allegation? And are you aware of the qualifications for application, and how those qualifications are measured in actual applications and acceptances?

2) WTF does undocumented and illegal aliens have to do with health insurance with regards to those who are legal/born citizens who are WORKING but CANNOT afford decent healthcare?

3) Are you implying that there are hoards of people who can pay for their own healthcare but "game" the system? Where's your proof of such an allegation?

 

[taichiliberal]

clearly what we want is government controlling every aspect of our lives.

Clearly YOU are the ONLY one declaring such an absurd notion.

I'm just trying to go with the flow. Clearly, whatever the question, government is the answer. At least according to government.

Go team!

No, you're just being an ass for the hell of it....either that or you crave attention but do not have the guts or the brains to engage in an honest debate on the issue. So you'll be ignored for the irritant you attempt to be. Adios.

 

[Mr.Nick]

[/b]Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???[/b]


Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.


Success is self-evident CONZ.
Point to all the demonstrations in socialist coutries DEMANDING they change to our system.
Point to the cost savings of the U.S. system.
Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?

Because those authoritarian nations are dictated by lunatic politicians ignorant to history or still living in the communist past.

I don't see US citizens running to socialist nations for their healthcare (unless they've been abducted by Michael Moore headed to Cuba on a banana boat) do you??

No, I see individuals from socialist nations (and third-world nations) come to the United States for healthcare...

Socialism doesn't provide the environment required to drive an individual to succeed. There is no "reward" for the doctor who is far better than the quack.... So why spend the time going the extra mile???

 

[sealybobo]

In Germany they won't deny you coverage or not treat you just because you have a pre existing condition.

Health Insurers: We'll Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions If Health Mandate Is Repealed | ThinkProgress

 

[frazzledgear]

Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???


Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.


Success is self-evident CONZ.
Point to all the demonstrations in socialist coutries DEMANDING they change to our system.
Point to the cost savings of the U.S. system.
Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?

It is hard to go back once you breed the population to be dependent on government. Just look at Greece -bankrupt, keeps getting bailed out by the EU -passes a budget to try and get their unsustainable debt and out of control spending under control -but then doesn't stick to it. And all because of the whiny ass, dependent thugs they deliberately bred who take to the streets vandalizing and torching public and private property apparently convinced this is how money is created.

Going socialist means moving way to the left -and towards a far more totalitarian / authoritarian state. One thing about that is it requires the very real loss of individual rights. You can't have a more powerful government -which is required in the socialist state in order to carry out its socialist functions -without laying claim to the power and rights that belong to the individual. It is easier to do in some countries where the population is or never was particularly free. But once you make that move to the left -those wielding the power don't like the idea of giving it up and make sure there is no going back. At least not peacefully.

What people like you insist on ignoring is the fact the outcome of the socialist is a foregone conclusion. It will fail. It always fails, it will always fail because it has a built-in fatal flaw and the only way to avoid that fatal flaw is to avoid socialism and communism entirely. And all along the way it increases the level of human misery -it doesn't reduce it.

There is ONE major difference between a government run health care system and one in the private sector - and that is their primary goal and concern. In the private sector, the primary concern is restoring the individual to as near normal as possible and improving the quality of life. Your doctor doesn't consult some formula that calculates your likely remaining years, co-existing medical conditions and ability to return to contributing to society again. Your doctor will only be concerned with whether what he/she can offer you in the form of treatment will HELP YOU or not. Avoiding ending up in a wheelchair with the loss of independence is preventing a major downgrade in the quality of life and becoming wheelchair bound takes years off life expectancy which in the private sector system is considered a BAD THING.

But under a government run system, the primary goal and concern becomes CUTTING COSTS. Bean counters look where most of the money is going -and no surprise, treating sick people is more costly than treating healthy people -so they look to cut costs with the very people who NEED the system the most. Whether the sickest will receive treatment that can possibly restore the individual to a more normal level or at least improve the quality of life -will depend on an actuarial table that takes into consideration age, co-existing conditions and the monetary value government assigns to that individual's life. Even if denying the individual treatment that would improve the quality of their life shortens their life expectancy -it is tough shit. Because the primary goal is COST -not quality of life. So if the bean counter realizes even with treatment you aren't going to be going back to work and you are pretty close to the average life expectancy -you won't get that hip replacement. Even if it turns out that guess at life expectancy was way off and you end up living for another 15 years entirely in a wheelchair, dependent on others fighting bedsores, muscle atrophy, increased risk of pneumonia. And even if it means you would have lived another 20 years but instead only got to live another 15. Because if you ain't contributing to the system anymore, you are just a waste of space. Turning it over to government means government no longer approaches or treats every citizen as EQUALS -because under a government run system -THEY AREN'T EQUAL EVER AGAIN.

Switching from a private sector health care system to a government run one is not only NOT painless, it becomes an unrecognizable system that is over utilized by the healthy because government quickly considers treating young, income earning healthy people a better bargain than treating old, retired sick people. The young and healthy who actually don't NEED it end up clogging the system, forcing the sick to wait even longer to be seen -during which they become even sicker and their illness more resistant to treatment. Morbidity and mortality rates start rising in diseases that were the TARGETS of early treatment under a private sector system -things like high blood pressure, stroke, all sorts of cancers, diabetes etc? You know, the stuff that used to kill people at an earlier age -but the private sector system made an effort to detect and treat vigorously at an earlier stage -and the mortality rates started dropping and have been dropping in this country since? They aren't dropping in the UK anymore -they are RISING again. For high blood pressure, stroke, breast and prostate cancers, complications of diabetes -all because their system has become one that exists primarily for those who need it the least -because it is CHEAPER that way. As a result, they are going untreated for longer periods of time, they are further along in the disease process when finally treated and much less likely to respond -so they die earlier. In addition -people are being denied curative treatment -treatment that would actually CURE them of the disease -if the actuarial tables show their age plus co-existing conditions just aren't worth the value government has placed on their life. The average wait to see a doctor in this country is a matter of weeks -in government run ones, it is approaching TWO YEARS.

Why do you think the left is constantly going on and ON and ON about COSTS? It is because when it comes to QUALITY -there is no issue and there is NO ONE even bothering to pretend that a government run system will somehow improve quality -because it provably will not. So the left tries to keep the debate on cost -and pretending that having insurance equals quality health care -as if people are actually not receiving quality care now when that is provably bullshit. Insurance doesn't affect QUALITY -and insurance isn't HEALTH CARE -it is insurance. Insurance only tells you who is going to foot the bill for it -you or them. If they won't pay for it and you can't afford it -you won't get it unless a doctor does it pro bono. But the notion that under government run system you WOULD get it -is BULLSHIT. The left is LYING when it says under government run everyone gets everything and they all get it for FREE! No you won't, and no you don't -and no it isn't.

We are talking about less than 15% -with the left demanding the only possible solution is to DESTROY this system entirely in order to satisfy that other 15%. You switch to government run -then you switch the ENTIRE purpose of the system from one that exists to restore the individual to as near normal as possible and to improve the quality of life when it can't. To one concerned about cutting costs and it doesn't take long before people start realize these are not compatible goals for the very people who NEED the system THE MOST -and they will be the ones forced to sacrifice their health, their quality of life and even their life expectancy. So those who don't NEED it but have been encouraged to over utilize it because they were indoctrinated to believe it is "free" -won't.

Government run health care will no longer view or treat all citizens equally -but will place a monetary value on their LIFE and then force the individual to accept it. In the private sector system, the only concern my doctor would have about my age and being treated is whether I am physically able to withstand it and that the downside to treatment is worth the increase to the quality of my life. That's it. NOT how much my life is worth, and not whether some government bean counter decides they would save a hell of a lot more money if I just hurried up and kicked the bucket. The most valuable life to government becomes those who WORK because they pay for the system. But the irony is that our health care system became responsible for 95% of all medical advancements by seeking cures and treatments in order to both extend and improve the quality of life - in other words, by trying to improve the quality of life for the elderly. But with a government run system -old people are nothing but a real burden because they are no longer contributing to society in the form of income taxes and increasingly viewed as just not worth the "investment". While getting a young, otherwise healthy person back to work as soon as possible is a much better "investment".

What did you think Obama meant when he said he wanted to change OUR health care system from one that treated the ill -to one that existed primary to keep healthy people healthy? IT IS THE REQUIRED first step in altering the primary purpose of a health care system from one that exists for the benefit of the ill to one that exists for the benefit of the healthy who are a hell of a lot CHEAPER TO TREAT. Except for one problem -seeing a doctor when you are healthy -doesn't keep you healthy. Which is why under government run systems the population is NOT healthier and sure as hell does not live longer and with a higher quality of life than exists in a private sector system.

Decide which you value most. A system that exists for the primary purpose of restoring someone to as near normal as possible, curing them of their illness and when that isn't possible, providing the care and treatment that will improve the quality of their life. Or one that exists for the purpose of cutting costs.

There is a reason it is OUR system that is responsible for 95% of all medical advancements in the world. And not a socialist, government run one. DUH. In spite of the left trying to pretend some socialized system does it better than we do -they aren't the one making 95% of all medical advancements in the world.

 

[California Girl]

Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?

Britain is trying to overhaul its system... because its 'socialist' system is fucked. But please, don't let reality bite you in the ass.

They aren't changing the socialist nature of the system (which costs 2 times less then Americans despite having higher health outcomes)[/QUOTE]

Why did you reword my post? That is against the rules of this board.

 

[Vidi]

Frazzled gear,

Sorry but while you certainly seem to have a lot to say, your entire argument is based on the false premise that it's private funds paying for those American medical advances. That is simply not the case.

NIH is the largest single funder of basic medical research in the United States; the research it supports provides the foundation of knowledge that drives innovation and improves health.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/nih-funds-help-lead-to-medical-advances-sl3up1t-138235984.html

NIH is the largest source of funding for medical research in the world, creating hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs by funding thousands of scientists in universities and research institutions in every state across America and around the globe.

http://nih.gov/about/

They determined that, although the research and development of a subset of pharmaceutical drugs that qualify for the FDA's "priority review" process receives direct government money, the research and development of most drugs is mostly funded by the private sector. The basic biomedical research behind the development of these drugs, however, is largely supported by public funding, especially through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

http://thedebtweowe.com/taxpayers-indirectly-help-develop-most-new-drugs

What this means is:

Taxpayer money finds the breakthroughs, then the private sector changes around a molecule or two, adds a new name and patents it.

So if it's taxpayers dollars that is funding the research, therefore, it's technically "socialism" that is driving those medical advances

ETA:

When Obama said he wanted to change our health system to keep people healthy, he meant that it's cheaper and more efficient to treat people with preventative medicine rather than corrective medicine.

Keeping someone from getting sick is always cheaper than treating them once they're sick. Therefore, we need a system that helps keep people healthy.

 

[Vidi]

Untrue.

Judging by life span, the United States is number one.

"Critics of the U.S. health care system frequently maintain that other countries have superior health care we should use as models for U.S. reform. They argue that many countries spend far less on health care than the United States yet seem to enjoy better health outcomes.

However, these claims fall apart upon careful examination. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. has top-tier survival rates, choice of providers, and very short wait times. It turns out that the statistics critics cite either are incomplete or compare apples to oranges.


Life Expectancy. Another frequently cited statistic is that according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. ranks 18th among 30 world democracies in life expectancy. However, health care is not the only factor in life expectancy. If you correct for two causes of death not directly related to health care—homicides and automobile accidents—the U.S. actually rises to the top of the list for life expectancy."
Inaccurate Grounds for Calling U.S. Health Care Inferior

Just one more example of Alexander Pope's rule...

"A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."

Absolutely false.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on life expectancy alone, the US ranks 36th.

If you correct for homicides and car accidents? Really? Because Japan ( the real #1, though the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear incident will most likely knock them out of that spot ) does have homicide or car accidents?

Or are you saying Americans are just far more reckless driving and far more murderous than the rest of the world do lets not count those deaths?

Either way, it doesnt paint a very good picture of us, does it?

What I am saying is that you have fallen victim to the anti-American propaganda.

Have you queried the sources for the link you provided?

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.

1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.
This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.
And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone.

Grow up.
Wise up.

Facts that show blind patriotism is based on false premises is not anti American. In fact, showing that we are falling behind and demanding that we fulfill the potential that this great country has is true patriotism.

Your entire post is filled with inaccurate nonsense.

Americans are the most likely to go without health care because of the cost and to have trouble paying medical bills even when insured, a survey of 11 wealthy countries found on Thursday.

US at bottom of health care survey of 11 rich countries - Economic Times


The fact is that we simply spend more on health care than anyone else, twice as much as other industrialized nations. What we get for that large expenditure is very nearly the worst health care in the world. We pay more and get less. Why?

The present health care system suffers from high costs, poor delivery of services for many, lack of insurance for many, and denial of claims for many who have insurance. It suffers from highs costs for drugs, drugs that cost many times more here than in other countries. In the present system, insurance and pharmaceutical company executives bring down obscene salaries and incentives. They spent a million dollars a day trying to defeat health care reform, millions for ads filled with lies and millions to bribe congress.

Health care battle may be an economic dispute between rich and poor - by Bob Trowbridge - Helium


Despite the wide gaps, higher spending on health care does not necessarily prolong lives. In 2000, theUnited States spent more on health care than any other country in the world: an average of $ 4,500 per person. Switzerland was second highest, at $3,300 or 71% of the US. Nevertheless, average US life expectancy ranks 27th in the world, at 77 years. Many countries achieve higher life expectancy rates with significantly lower spending

Health Care Spending

It's like you added 2 and 2 and got starfish.

You can't really believe they couldn't find data...in the US...

And it's the rich people that make us great LOL

Wow, they really saw you coming didn't they?