Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
And that's really all you have, isn't it, neutron brain?
I try to keep it simple for you... don't want you to have angst...
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.
And that's really all you have, isn't it, neutron brain?
I merely disagree to degrees.There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart". Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.
Krugman is an incredidbly intelligent man, to the point that he really believes that his intellect tanscends commom sense....Which is also a measure of his tremendous arrogance.
Unlike overall life expectancy and infant mortality, survival rates of life-threatening illnesses is a valid indicator of quality of healthcare.
ONE ILLNESS. Not "Illnesses". There are many illnesses in the world. Heart disease is in fact the leading cause of death in the United States, for instance.
Here are just a few examples:
Circulatory disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 219
United States: 265
Original Source: OECD Health Data 2003 and Health Data 2002. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's Health 2002
Digestive disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 17.4
United States: 20.5
Original Source: World Health Organization
Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births
Canada: 5.08
United States: 6.3
Original Source: CIA World Factbooks
Intestinal diseases death rate
Canada: 0.3%
United States: 7.3%
Original Source: World Health Organization
Respiratory disease child death rate per 100,000
Canada: 0.62
United States: 40.43
Original Source: World Health Organization
Heart disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 94.9
United States: 106.5
Original Source: World Health Organization
HIV deaths per million people:
Canada: 47.423
United States: 48.141
Original Source: CIA World Factbooks
And here's an interesting fact:
Proability of not reaching age 60:
Canada: 9.5%
United States: 12.8%
Original Source: CIA World Factbooks
Now I imagine your response will be something along the lines of "They're all lying because the World Health Organization, Australia, and the CIA are clearly all out to destroy America", right?
Yeah, and the way to lower costs is to give control to the government.
Well, since Medicare and Medicaid are in fact more cost effective that for profit Health Insurance, yeah, I'd say that was correct.
Per Capita, national health expenditures are as follows, as of 2007:
Private: $3,991.00
Public: $3,429.00
As can be seen here
Source: Dpt of Health and Human Services
That's a cost savings of what, around 15% or so? Yep, that seems about right.
Quote: Originally Posted by Vast LWC
In total, our care is just not as good.
No matter how many times you shout this canard while sticking your fingers in your ears so you won't hear any of the refutations, it still won't make it true.
I guess, the above post supports my "canard".
Perhaps you'd also like to show us some data to support your claim?
What's strange is that you thought you were thinking at all.
So you hurl an insult...
as often as people who can get someone else to foot the bill? No, but that's okay
And then back up my claim.
Interesting.
I've actually read the turkey plan the administration is peddling, and everything you just said is a baldfaced lie.
Reeeeally?
But I notice that you don't link or post any actual part of the plan that refutes what I said. You just state that you "read" it, and naturally we should take your word on that.
I can't do that and remain intellectually honest.
Krugman is a pretty smart guy, who is using his intelligence to be a willing neo-Marxist tool.
There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart". Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.
Hmm, let's see...
Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner, and an award winning columnist for what is arguably the world's most prestigious newspaper.
But some random poster on a message board has named him an "idiot".
Guess I'll have to take the poster's word for it.
LOL.
He strikes me the same way.I merely disagree to degrees.There's a big difference between "intellectual" and "smart". Krugman probably does have some academic intelligence, but when it comes to everyday common sense, he's a purblind fool.
Krugman is an incredidbly intelligent man, to the point that he really believes that his intellect tanscends commom sense....Which is also a measure of his tremendous arrogance.
Having worked at a university, surrounded by professors with PhDs, I lost all awe and wonder concerning IQ when it became apparent how many of these intellectual lights needed a diagram posted on the stall door in order to wipe their own asses.
This is not to say that I dislike intellectual people. But it "transcends" nothing, and especially not common sense. Krugman strikes me as very similar to professors who have to have a secretary just to make sure they find their way back to the office after lunch.
He strikes me the same way.I merely disagree to degrees.
Krugman is an incredidbly intelligent man, to the point that he really believes that his intellect tanscends commom sense....Which is also a measure of his tremendous arrogance.
Having worked at a university, surrounded by professors with PhDs, I lost all awe and wonder concerning IQ when it became apparent how many of these intellectual lights needed a diagram posted on the stall door in order to wipe their own asses.
This is not to say that I dislike intellectual people. But it "transcends" nothing, and especially not common sense. Krugman strikes me as very similar to professors who have to have a secretary just to make sure they find their way back to the office after lunch.
Krugman would be at least marginally more interesting and intellectually stimulating if his op-ed "work" (for lack of a better term) stuck to possible economic consequences and externalities of the policies he opposes, rather than the ad homenims and imputation of motivations upon those with whom he disagrees.
Just sayin'.
If that is indeed the case, why can't we compare the abysmally flawed Medicare/Medicaid debacles to what's being proposed??This
You can not compare medicare/medicaid to the proposed function of a national plan... (which is what it would be. We can all agree that that "optional" BS is just that... it would be optional in the sense that you would be limited through affordability of anything else)
If that is indeed the case, why can't we compare the abysmally flawed Medicare/Medicaid debacles to what's being proposed??This
You can not compare medicare/medicaid to the proposed function of a national plan... (which is what it would be. We can all agree that that "optional" BS is just that... it would be optional in the sense that you would be limited through affordability of anything else)
Or maybe you have an example of a federal program that is an unqualified and unambiguous success to go with??
C'mon.....Dazzle us.
Aren't they also going bankrupt?
Yeah, okay. I put up lengthy posts full of facts and data, and you choose ONE LINE out of all of them to respond to, and then snottily ask for data?
We also have better survival rates when it comes to premature babies, children with spina bifida and people with heart disease and chronic renal failure. This would be according to the Commonwealth Fund and Health Statistics Quarterly.
Detach your lips from Krugman's left butt cheek long enough to contemplate the fact that Yassir Arafat is also a Nobel Prize winner.