Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,865
- 2,040
who give a rats ass what Madcows education is. she is as big as dingbat as Hannity can be.
Rachel Maddow is happy
- Thread starter Rambunctious
- Start date
who give a rats ass what Madcows education is. she is as big as dingbat as Hannity can be.
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,865
- 2,040
You do Stephanie...you do.
LOL!!
mummmmk
I care about her education as much as I care for her. None
President George Bush has a Masters in Business from the Harvard Business School.
jillian
Princess
poor, dear, demented sitty... out of my last 20 reps, grump repped me once and 11 of the others were from conservatives.
again, stop projecting...
Last edited:
jillian
Princess
*yawn*
Sure...... and John MCain is a conservative.
jillian
Princess
damn, you're dumb... feel free to pm gunny and ask him to look, genius.
Get some sleep, you sound like that dimwit Springsteen.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,993
- 280
Why wouldn't she want others to have good health care like she does?Rachel seems to be real happy that the Democrats want to use reconciliation to ram a health bill on America. I find this very strange that she would support a national public option, after all she must have great health care at NBC (state run media) so why?
Maybe she wants tax payers to pay for her addadictome.
Liberals care about others, as opposed to Cons, who say "I got mine, screw you", as you suggest in your post.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,993
- 280
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4]YouTube - "We're Number 37" - Paul Hipp[/ame]
It should be noted that the WHO rankings are weighted most heavily on "access". Because America does not have a nationalized healthcare system, it is penalized in the rankings.
The WHO ranking has much less to do with overal QUALITY of healthcare, which the United States is among the best in the world due to its competition-innovation based system.
That is why the world's wealthy so often come to America for medical treatment.
___
Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.
The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.
Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
The WHO ranking has much less to do with overal QUALITY of healthcare, which the United States is among the best in the world due to its competition-innovation based system.
That is why the world's wealthy so often come to America for medical treatment.
___
Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.
The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.
Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,993
- 280
Of course it's based on access. Did you read the hundreds of Liberal posts who said that?
If you're rich in the US you get the best health care, but God help you if you're middle class.
If you're rich in the US you get the best health care, but God help you if you're middle class.
&
☭proletarian☭
Guest
How is paying to help the poor via taxers any different than using the tithe collected from the people to help the poor?LOL, liberals care for others. by using the Federal Government to FORCE others to pay for their CARE for others.
how big of em, eh.
Did it ever occur to you that if private charity was enough, these programs wouldn't exist? Private charity wasn't enough because only a small minority ever really put forth an effort to aid those not as well off as themselves. That's why there was a need for social aid programs in the first place.
jillian
Princess
☭proletarian☭;2040899 said:
Social Security Lifts 13 Million Seniors Above the Poverty Line — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Typically unable to distinguish between "low income" and "poor."
Someone who owns his $250k house outright with no other debt and $150k in the bank but collecting only Social Security is "low income" in anybody's book. But I would hardly call them poor.
&
☭proletarian☭
Guest
So all or most seniors own a $250k home outright?
Source?
Source?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Why did Tommy Tuberville vote in Florida if he lived in Alabama?- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Navarro and Musk fight in public while Democrats complain ironically complain about Authoritarian administration- Started by Mr. Friscus
- Replies: 1
-
