Kill The Profit Motive And You Kill Modern Medical Advances And Prosperity

[RDD_1210]

Other countries contribute to advancements in medicine.
Back in 2001 I had an operation for a compressed spine. It had gotten to advanced stages due to the fact that my healthcare insurance company refused to let me have an MRI and wanted me to live with the misdiagnoses that I received.
Finally after getting a lawyer involved I got my MRI. Because of the advanced stage I was immediately scheduled for surgery. Again, because of the stage I was in the Orthopedic Surgeon decided to use a technique that was developed in Japan. Fortunately, the surgery prevented me from becoming paraplegic which I came very close to thanks to an insurance company that kept holding off in granting me the much needed MRI.
Japan's per capita cost for healthcare is about 25% of what the cost is in the US.
My question is why should people and businesses pay for the cost of medical advancements by paying the most outrageous cost for medicine in the entire world? Because we are suckers as the rest of the world benefits from the US catering too much to the healthcare industry.
For those who want to continue this bullshit, economist are telling us that the US economy can't these sustain this pattern of skyrocketing healthcare costs.
Health Care Costs Are Killing Us
Health Care Costs Are Killing Us | RAND

What point are you trying to make here?

The truth is that the vast majority of advances, esp drug development, happens in the US precisely because the innovators can get decently paid for their work. With no pay there is no incentive for improvement.
One would think this is so glaringly obvious only the most obtuse would get it. Then you read back through the thread.

Today I learned that no one gets paid in a socialized medicine system.

 

[The Rabbi]

When all else fails, play semantics games! Weeeeeee!!!!

You understand it is not "semantics" but there are crucial differences between what he wrote and what you think he wrote, right? A person who dismisses as 'semantics" important differences in meaning between two things does not understand the word "semantics' to begin with.

LOL, your favorite tactic is playing semantics games and then bailing on the thread. There is no difference in what he wrote and what I said in response. Feel free to point it out though.

But I know your move will be to play the whole "If you don't know why you're wrong, I'm certainly not going to do your work for you" routine.

Go ahead.....

Do you actually believe what you wrote and what he wrote were teh same thing? I ask because it is so incredibly obvious I want to make sure you really do think they were the same thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Other countries contribute to advancements in medicine.
Back in 2001 I had an operation for a compressed spine. It had gotten to advanced stages due to the fact that my healthcare insurance company refused to let me have an MRI and wanted me to live with the misdiagnoses that I received.
Finally after getting a lawyer involved I got my MRI. Because of the advanced stage I was immediately scheduled for surgery. Again, because of the stage I was in the Orthopedic Surgeon decided to use a technique that was developed in Japan. Fortunately, the surgery prevented me from becoming paraplegic which I came very close to thanks to an insurance company that kept holding off in granting me the much needed MRI.
Japan's per capita cost for healthcare is about 25% of what the cost is in the US.
My question is why should people and businesses pay for the cost of medical advancements by paying the most outrageous cost for medicine in the entire world? Because we are suckers as the rest of the world benefits from the US catering too much to the healthcare industry.
For those who want to continue this bullshit, economist are telling us that the US economy can't these sustain this pattern of skyrocketing healthcare costs.
Health Care Costs Are Killing Us
Health Care Costs Are Killing Us | RAND

What point are you trying to make here?

The truth is that the vast majority of advances, esp drug development, happens in the US precisely because the innovators can get decently paid for their work. With no pay there is no incentive for improvement.
One would think this is so glaringly obvious only the most obtuse would get it. Then you read back through the thread.

Today I learned that no one gets paid in a socialized medicine system.

You musdt have learned that in your 4th grade class.
You understand that getting paid and getting rewarded are not the same thing, right? Or is it all "just semantics" to you?

 

[kiwiman127]

What you are missing is the fact that this country can't sustain the rising cost of healthcare. That's a huge bottom line to this discussion.
The cost of healthcare in the US not only shrinks the consumer's expendable income that contributes to 70% of the US economy, the rising costs also limit US businesses and makes them less competitive on the world stage.
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness - Council on Foreign Relations
It's really not that hard to figure out.

 

[The Rabbi]

What you are missing is the fact that this country can't sustain the rising cost of healthcare. That's a huge bottom line to this discussion.
The cost of healthcare in the US not only shrinks the consumer's expendable income that contributes to 70% of the US economy, the rising costs also limit US businesses and makes them less competitive on the world stage.
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness - Council on Foreign Relations
It's really not that hard to figure out.

That isnt the topic of this thread. So you are offbase.
Rising costs are not due to corporate greed, as much as Dems would like you to believe that. They are due to a variety of complex causes, each of which deserves its own thread: medical liability, poor health among some populations, better quality of care and treatment leading to longer lives, third party payer system that reduces competition, etc etc.

 

[kiwiman127]

What you are missing is the fact that this country can't sustain the rising cost of healthcare. That's a huge bottom line to this discussion.
The cost of healthcare in the US not only shrinks the consumer's expendable income that contributes to 70% of the US economy, the rising costs also limit US businesses and makes them less competitive on the world stage.
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness - Council on Foreign Relations
It's really not that hard to figure out.

That isnt the topic of this thread. So you are offbase.
Rising costs are not due to corporate greed, as much as Dems would like you to believe that. They are due to a variety of complex causes, each of which deserves its own thread: medical liability, poor health among some populations, better quality of care and treatment leading to longer lives, third party payer system that reduces competition, etc etc.

The thread's OP wants to continue the current system so the US healthcare establishment continues to enjoy profits which a portion of will further develop medical advancements. These means keeping the status quo which is driving up healthcare. It's also a fact that that the US has the highest cost of healthcare in the world by quite a margin under the status quo and will continue to do so.
There is also a point that the US can't just keep on doing this. As a country we can't afford it.
I have stated probably over 100 times on these boards that I am no fan of Obamacare, just wanted to get that out of the way, for probably the 100th time.
So, as America can't continue going the direction it is as far as the ever-increasing cost of healthcare, where will the monies come from to continue the advancements in medicine/healthcare? The well is running dry. That's pretty much a fact. That's what I am addressing.

 

[RDD_1210]

You understand it is not "semantics" but there are crucial differences between what he wrote and what you think he wrote, right? A person who dismisses as 'semantics" important differences in meaning between two things does not understand the word "semantics' to begin with.

LOL, your favorite tactic is playing semantics games and then bailing on the thread. There is no difference in what he wrote and what I said in response. Feel free to point it out though.

But I know your move will be to play the whole "If you don't know why you're wrong, I'm certainly not going to do your work for you" routine.

Go ahead.....

Do you actually believe what you wrote and what he wrote were teh same thing? I ask because it is so incredibly obvious I want to make sure you really do think they were the same thing.

It should be easy to explain the difference then.

 

[RDD_1210]

What point are you trying to make here?

The truth is that the vast majority of advances, esp drug development, happens in the US precisely because the innovators can get decently paid for their work. With no pay there is no incentive for improvement.
One would think this is so glaringly obvious only the most obtuse would get it. Then you read back through the thread.

Today I learned that no one gets paid in a socialized medicine system.

You musdt have learned that in your 4th grade class.
You understand that getting paid and getting rewarded are not the same thing, right? Or is it all "just semantics" to you?

Who said anything about getting rewarded? You said, "With no pay". Did you not?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Here's what worries me the most about Obamacare. Socialized medicine means the end of all new wonder drugs and miracle medical treatments. No more breakthroughs like artificial joints, MRI machines, artificial hearts, artificial livers, Leukemia cures, etc.. The profit motive is what brought these innovations into existence. Obamacare will put an end to it.

Redirector

One of the hallmarks of socialism is its hostility toward and targeting for elimination of the “bourgeoisie”–the prosperous middle class, who pose an existential threat to the socialists/statists, in large part due to their relative economic autonomy. The fact that they are mostly capable of self-sufficiency and of running their own lives means they neither need nor want big-government central-planners micromanaging their every decision, and therefore the middle class must be decimated by the likes of Obama–even while Obama and his Democrat fellow-travelers hypocritically, falsely speak of “protecting the middle class,” “fighting for the middle class,” and “growing the middle class” in their cynical ploy to get middle class people to vote for more doomed Democrat policies.

Fortunately, some of the biggest lies of Obama and his party have now been realized by millions to be what they are–outright lies.

What is yet unfortunate is that the socialists have still largely succeeded in convincing so many that it is the profit motive of capitalism which is to blame for the alleged awfulness of income inequality, and the alleged awfulness of various other disparate outcomes upon which envy and class-conflict are based, that they think it is a viable campaign strategy for the upcoming mid-term elections.

And so, it is the same old badmouthing and attempt to eliminate the profit motive, which Obama and his fellow travelers have deployed in their destruction of our health care system–the abject economic horror known as Obamacare.

Yet that same profit motive is what has given modern medicine and pharmacology such marvelous breakthroughs over the last several decades, which is and has been in Obama’s cross hairs all along.

Socialized medicine regimes only barely limp along in other Western, developed economies such as Canada, Sweden, and Great Britain, with just enough marginally-satisfied customers to keep their populations from revolt (not to mention that numerous dead and dying recipients of inferior medical care delivery really can’t make much of a political peep, can they now?) only because the profit motive has still been somewhat alive in America in order to drive the innovations enjoyed by patients in the more socialist countries–countries which ride along on the coattails of our advances and revolutionary medical developments!

It is mainly due to the existence of the remnants of capitalism, and the research, development, and marketing activities of extremely competitive, profit-seeking enterprises (mostly here in the United States and wherever making a profit is still allowed), which have produced the miracle drugs and the space-age, mind-boggling medical technologies enjoyed by citizens throughout not only the developed world, but increasingly throughout the emerging economies and the third-world, even more and more.​

Obamacare is not socialized medicine.

You don't even know what socialized medicine is.

You are too ignorant to post about this topic.

Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden do have socialized medicine and they all have higher quality medical care than the U.S. according to the Journal of the American Medical Society--a group that is against socialized medicine.

Pure horseshit. Their cancer cure rates are significantly lower than for the United States, among other things.

Not horseshit.

Here are the facts: JAMA Network | JAMA | Is US Health Really the Best in the World?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Since this thread was DOA when it claimed Obamacare is socialized medicine, this list is overkill, but here's a list of medical inventions and their country of origin.

Adrenaline (epinephrine): Isolated and used to treat asthma by Jokichi Takamine (Japan)
Artificial heart: Paul Winchell (USA) holds the original patent for an implantable artificial heart. Oddly enough, he was also an accomplished ventriloquist who was the voice of Tigger in Disney’s Winnie the Pooh
Aspirin: Felix Hoffmann (Germany) – he also synthesized heroin
Beta blockers: Sir James Black (UK) made a number of contributions to understanding of cardiology for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1988. Among his inventions was the first of a class of beta blocker drugs which among other things offers cardioprotection after a heart attack and reduce high blood pressure.
Bone marrow compatibility test: Barbara Bain (Canada)
Cardiac pacemaker: The idea for the pacemaker came from J A McWilliam in 1889 (UK). The first external pacemaker was designed and built by John Hopps (Canada). Earl Bakken (USA) developed the first externally wearable pacemaker. The first implantable pacemaker was designed by Rune Elmqvist and Ake Senning (Sweden).
CAT scan: Godfrey Hounsfield (UK), Alban Cormac (USA, born in South Africa)
Clinical trials: Austin Bradford Hill (UK)
Contact lenses: Leonardo Da Vinci (Italy)
Electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG) – Justin Ho (UK). The first portable EKG was developed by Taro Takemi (Japan)
Fetal monitor: K. Hammacher (Germany), Hewlett-Packard Co (USA, Germany)
Heart lung machine: John Heysham Gibbon (USA)
Heart transplant: Christiaan Barnard (South Africa) successfully transplanted the first human heart from one person to another
Helicobacter pylori: Barry Marshall and Robin Warren (Australia) discovered this bacterium which causes stomach ulcers
Hepatitis B vaccine: Baruch Blumberg, Irving Millman (USA)
HIV: Luc Montagnier (France) is credited for discovering HIV as the cause for AIDS
In vitro fertilization: John Rock (USA) extracted the first intact fertilized human egg. Carl Wood (Australia) pioneered the use of frozen embryos. Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards (UK) carried out the first successful procedure resulting in the birth of a healthy infant, Louise Brown.
Insulin: Isolated by Frederick Banting, Charles Best, J.J.R. Macleod, James Collip (Canada). They also pioneered the process for using insulin to treat diabetes
Medical ultrasound: Karl Theodore Dussik (Austria), Ian Donald (Scotland)
Nuclear medicine: Taro Tekemi (Japan)
Pasteurization: Developed by Louis Pasteur (France) as a method to kill germs. Pasteur also developed the germ theory of infection
Penicillin: Alexander Fleming (Scotland)
Polio vaccine: Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin (USA)
Smallpox vaccine: Although Edward Jenner (UK) is credited with developing the vaccine, his work was based on an existing innoculation technique brought back from Turkey by Lady Mary Montague. It was Jenner, however, that invented the term “vaccination”
Spray-on-skin: Fiona Wood (Australia) developed this for burn victims
Structure of DNA: Rosalind Franklin (UK), Francis Crick (UK), James Watson (USA)
Surgery: Abu Al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Andalusia) is considered the father of modern surgery
Tuberculosis vaccine: Albert Calmette, Charles Guerin (France)
Viagra: Ian Osterloh (UK) – OK, not that significant, but interesting
Xray: Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen (Germany)

What a numskull. Most of these innovations/discoveries occure long before any of these nations adopted socialized medicine. When do you imagine the small pox vaccine was invented? Penicillin? the Xray?

You are truly stupid.

You are the one who is stupid.

Check the dates. Most of those things were invented AFTER those countries chose socialized medicine.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Obamacare is not socialized medicine.

You don't even know what socialized medicine is.

You are too ignorant to post about this topic.

Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden do have socialized medicine and they all have higher quality medical care than the U.S. according to the Journal of the American Medical Society--a group that is against socialized medicine.

Pure horseshit. Their cancer cure rates are significantly lower than for the United States, among other things.

Not horseshit.

Here are the facts: JAMA Network | JAMA | Is US Health Really the Best in the World?

You're half wrong about cancer cure rates too.

The U.S. has higher cancer survival rates for some kinds of cancer than other countries but lower cancer survival rates for other kinds of cancer.

Study Of 31 Countries Finds Wide Variations In Cancer Survival Rates - Medical News Today

 

[bripat9643]

Obamacare is not socialized medicine.

You don't even know what socialized medicine is.

You are too ignorant to post about this topic.

Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden do have socialized medicine and they all have higher quality medical care than the U.S. according to the Journal of the American Medical Society--a group that is against socialized medicine.

Pure horseshit. Their cancer cure rates are significantly lower than for the United States, among other things.

Not horseshit.

Here are the facts: JAMA Network | JAMA | Is US Health Really the Best in the World?

The article is horseshit. None of the statistics mentioned measure the quality of healthcare. They measure the health of Americans, who are the fattest people in the world. Diabetes in America is endemic because we are so overweight. That alone will result in a drastic decrease in health. Heart disease is also a result of being overweight.

All the other measures have to do with infant mortality, and the way we measure it doesn't compare with the way European countries measure it. The main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported — and how such babies are treated statistically — tells a different story than what the numbers reveal.

Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.

According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.

But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.

JAMA is a decidedly left-wing journal. It has an agenda to push. It doesn't care about the fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Since this thread was DOA when it claimed Obamacare is socialized medicine, this list is overkill, but here's a list of medical inventions and their country of origin.

Adrenaline (epinephrine): Isolated and used to treat asthma by Jokichi Takamine (Japan)
Artificial heart: Paul Winchell (USA) holds the original patent for an implantable artificial heart. Oddly enough, he was also an accomplished ventriloquist who was the voice of Tigger in Disney&#8217;s Winnie the Pooh
Aspirin: Felix Hoffmann (Germany) &#8211; he also synthesized heroin
Beta blockers: Sir James Black (UK) made a number of contributions to understanding of cardiology for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1988. Among his inventions was the first of a class of beta blocker drugs which among other things offers cardioprotection after a heart attack and reduce high blood pressure.
Bone marrow compatibility test: Barbara Bain (Canada)
Cardiac pacemaker: The idea for the pacemaker came from J A McWilliam in 1889 (UK). The first external pacemaker was designed and built by John Hopps (Canada). Earl Bakken (USA) developed the first externally wearable pacemaker. The first implantable pacemaker was designed by Rune Elmqvist and Ake Senning (Sweden).
CAT scan: Godfrey Hounsfield (UK), Alban Cormac (USA, born in South Africa)
Clinical trials: Austin Bradford Hill (UK)
Contact lenses: Leonardo Da Vinci (Italy)
Electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG) &#8211; Justin Ho (UK). The first portable EKG was developed by Taro Takemi (Japan)
Fetal monitor: K. Hammacher (Germany), Hewlett-Packard Co (USA, Germany)
Heart lung machine: John Heysham Gibbon (USA)
Heart transplant: Christiaan Barnard (South Africa) successfully transplanted the first human heart from one person to another
Helicobacter pylori: Barry Marshall and Robin Warren (Australia) discovered this bacterium which causes stomach ulcers
Hepatitis B vaccine: Baruch Blumberg, Irving Millman (USA)
HIV: Luc Montagnier (France) is credited for discovering HIV as the cause for AIDS
In vitro fertilization: John Rock (USA) extracted the first intact fertilized human egg. Carl Wood (Australia) pioneered the use of frozen embryos. Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards (UK) carried out the first successful procedure resulting in the birth of a healthy infant, Louise Brown.
Insulin: Isolated by Frederick Banting, Charles Best, J.J.R. Macleod, James Collip (Canada). They also pioneered the process for using insulin to treat diabetes
Medical ultrasound: Karl Theodore Dussik (Austria), Ian Donald (Scotland)
Nuclear medicine: Taro Tekemi (Japan)
Pasteurization: Developed by Louis Pasteur (France) as a method to kill germs. Pasteur also developed the germ theory of infection
Penicillin: Alexander Fleming (Scotland)
Polio vaccine: Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin (USA)
Smallpox vaccine: Although Edward Jenner (UK) is credited with developing the vaccine, his work was based on an existing innoculation technique brought back from Turkey by Lady Mary Montague. It was Jenner, however, that invented the term &#8220;vaccination&#8221;
Spray-on-skin: Fiona Wood (Australia) developed this for burn victims
Structure of DNA: Rosalind Franklin (UK), Francis Crick (UK), James Watson (USA)
Surgery: Abu Al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Andalusia) is considered the father of modern surgery
Tuberculosis vaccine: Albert Calmette, Charles Guerin (France)
Viagra: Ian Osterloh (UK) &#8211; OK, not that significant, but interesting
Xray: Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen (Germany)

What a numskull. Most of these innovations/discoveries occure long before any of these nations adopted socialized medicine. When do you imagine the small pox vaccine was invented? Penicillin? the Xray?

You are truly stupid.

You are the one who is stupid.

Check the dates. Most of those things were invented AFTER those countries chose socialized medicine.

Wrong, moron. In the first place, most of the claims about the origin of these inventions is not correct. Take Ultrasound. It was invented in the United States, not Austria or Scotland. Austria had nothing to do with it, and researchers in Scotland only made some improvements long after the original invention.

 

[bripat9643]

Pure horseshit. Their cancer cure rates are significantly lower than for the United States, among other things.

Not horseshit.

Here are the facts: JAMA Network | JAMA | Is US Health Really the Best in the World?

You're half wrong about cancer cure rates too.

The U.S. has higher cancer survival rates for some kinds of cancer than other countries but lower cancer survival rates for other kinds of cancer.

Study Of 31 Countries Finds Wide Variations In Cancer Survival Rates - Medical News Today

The only relevant measure is the survival rate based on the stage the cancer was in when the patient was diagnosed. This study doesn't measure that.

 

[Clementine]

Really? Do you think those who support breast cancer (or any kind of cancer cure for that matter) are motivated by greed?

I personally think (and maybe it's me being a Pollyanna), that those who are on the cutting edges of medical science are there because they want to better understand, or help their fellow human beings.

However.....................those who are motivated by greed are easy to see. How much does Cialis or Viagra do for humankind?

You are mostly correct.

It takes money to fund research. The ones doing the actual research are looking for ways to improve the quality of life, but to keep that money rolling in, there has to be profit for those risking millions in investments.

Socialist and communist leaders have virtually no understanding of human nature. I guess they don't believe other people feel the way they do. No one wants to be a slave and devote their lives to other people with nothing in return. Mother Theresa was the last one of that breed.

There is a reason why other world leaders, including those who come from countries with socialized medicine, come to our research hospitals for treatment. It's because the level of treatment isn't available in their own countries. They want to live, so they are able to obtain the quality of care not available to the people in their countries.

Many of our research hospitals will not accept Obamacare patients. It's not because they are greedy, but because they want to stay in business. Receiving payments that are less than the actual cost of care will bankrupt them.

Hospitals shouldn't be ashamed of making money any more than liberal actors should be ashamed of making millions per film. Making money is okay and not a crime.

 

[The Rabbi]

What you are missing is the fact that this country can't sustain the rising cost of healthcare. That's a huge bottom line to this discussion.
The cost of healthcare in the US not only shrinks the consumer's expendable income that contributes to 70% of the US economy, the rising costs also limit US businesses and makes them less competitive on the world stage.
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness - Council on Foreign Relations
It's really not that hard to figure out.

That isnt the topic of this thread. So you are offbase.
Rising costs are not due to corporate greed, as much as Dems would like you to believe that. They are due to a variety of complex causes, each of which deserves its own thread: medical liability, poor health among some populations, better quality of care and treatment leading to longer lives, third party payer system that reduces competition, etc etc.

The thread's OP wants to continue the current system so the US healthcare establishment continues to enjoy profits which a portion of will further develop medical advancements. These means keeping the status quo which is driving up healthcare. It's also a fact that that the US has the highest cost of healthcare in the world by quite a margin under the status quo and will continue to do so.
There is also a point that the US can't just keep on doing this. As a country we can't afford it.
I have stated probably over 100 times on these boards that I am no fan of Obamacare, just wanted to get that out of the way, for probably the 100th time.
So, as America can't continue going the direction it is as far as the ever-increasing cost of healthcare, where will the monies come from to continue the advancements in medicine/healthcare? The well is running dry. That's pretty much a fact. That's what I am addressing.

You are assuming all rising costs of healthcare stem from profits for companies. That is simply not true. I outlined several other causes.
Besides, what is your alternative? Mandate research and advances that no one will pay for?

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL, your favorite tactic is playing semantics games and then bailing on the thread. There is no difference in what he wrote and what I said in response. Feel free to point it out though.

But I know your move will be to play the whole "If you don't know why you're wrong, I'm certainly not going to do your work for you" routine.

Go ahead.....

Do you actually believe what you wrote and what he wrote were teh same thing? I ask because it is so incredibly obvious I want to make sure you really do think they were the same thing.

It should be easy to explain the difference then.

Only to people with a modicum of intelligence. You've already shown you lack that.,

 

[The Rabbi]

Today I learned that no one gets paid in a socialized medicine system.

You musdt have learned that in your 4th grade class.
You understand that getting paid and getting rewarded are not the same thing, right? Or is it all "just semantics" to you?

Who said anything about getting rewarded? You said, "With no pay". Did you not?

I did.
In a socialized medicine system the pay is determined by the government. That usually results in lower than market salaries, driving out the most talented people to seek reward elsewhere. You dont mind that because you are one of the untalented so simply resent people who are better at their jobs.
When I wrote "no pay" it was somewhat exagerated. It is no pay compared to what a fair market would reward people for their accomplishments.
Clear now? Or do you need another adult to explain it to you?

 

[Indeependent]

I sure am glad no one told Nikola Tesla to only invent stuff out of a sense of greed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not horseshit.

Here are the facts: JAMA Network | JAMA | Is US Health Really the Best in the World?

You're half wrong about cancer cure rates too.

The U.S. has higher cancer survival rates for some kinds of cancer than other countries but lower cancer survival rates for other kinds of cancer.

Study Of 31 Countries Finds Wide Variations In Cancer Survival Rates - Medical News Today

The only relevant measure is the survival rate based on the stage the cancer was in when the patient was diagnosed. This study doesn't measure that.

You're dealing with people who cannot understand graphs, statistics, and figures. It's almost futile.