Replace the ACA with single payer

[francoHFW]

Yup, only 25% unemployment and 11,000 banks closed- no problem. Will you PLEASE read something, dupe?

What were the immediate challenges facing Franklin Roosevelt in March 1933? | eNotes

Yeah me and the 20 million left uninsured after ObamaCare's repeal.

one of the reasons that obamacare is failing is because so far the majority of those that signed up are the ones that get subsidies, those that would not get subsidies, and in fact would be paying more to cover those with subsidies, have not signed up in great enough numbers to cover the losses.
obamacare needs to be shut down before it becomes too much of a loss. Those that signed up for it can go and get insurance in the same places the rest of us do, there are no laws that stop them from doing this.
Insurance has always been out there, all people have to do is buy a policy that fits their needs.

Um no. You have no idea what it means. If you did, then this interpretation of yours would make you like the term. Socialism refers to the people's ownership - not those exclusively in government. Meaning, anything paid for with tax revenue belongs to citizens. That means any government program is an example of socialism including the military. The key word is "social" as in "people". "Social" doesn't mean "government".

Um ... no ... socialism is central economic planning, control over the economy. The military is in no way socialism. Basically you're making it an irrelevant word, it's bull shit

Cons always use a definition in which socialism is where industry is owned or regulated by the community. Today REGULATED is the key word, and socialism is also defined as always democratic, while communism is NEVER democratic. Breaking for cold war dinosaur dupes...

Except its not, because it's defined by Social Ownership, hence the name, which encompasses Government Ownership. The Nordic Nations implement a type of "Democratic" Socialism, but surprise, they don't define the word. You can't find a single source that defines it that way. On the other hand, the Communist Manifesto, and Wikipedia, and all of its sources for the page, follow my definition.

I'm fairly certain Kaz is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

Communism isn't Democratic, because they have no government, you dense Fopdoodle.

BULLLSHYTTE!!! Forget the communist Manifesto- totally moot. Let's see that wiki definition then. Socialism is always democratic, communism NEVER. Get that through your head and cut the cold war dinosaur bs.

The Communist Manifesto created the movement in the first place, and defined the system for everyone for the following years. Everyone who advocated the systems had read the Communist Manifesto, and understood what they were and how they (didn't) work. One doesn't talk about Light Bulbs and say "Thomas Edison is irrelevant", one doesn't talk about electricity and say "Ben Franklin is irrelevant", as they invented those. The Communist Manifesto has everything to do with this.

Communism - Wikipedia
The USSR, therefor, was not Communist.

As I said.

Socialism- "DEMOCRATIC control" of production. = REGULATION in the real world, Cold War dinosaur/dupe. Ok, duh, true communism never existed- but what the USSR etc was, it wasn't what is called socialism now. NOT DEMOCRATIC. You're terminally brainwashed/ignorant/confused.

 

[WillReadmore]

Your idea is proven nonsensical by comparing to what other industrialized nations have accomplished in terms of quality of service and cost.

There are many such systems to choose from. I would propose to pick one of the best ones as a root system for the US, along with modifications we might prefer.

BTW: I didn't say anything about "economic systems". So, please don't make up garbage and attribute it to me.

Your idea is proven nonsensical because of the actual examples we have on hand, which I have already pointed out only to have you ignore them.

But THIS TIME the total government takeover and monopoly will work!

Fool.

Nobody on this entire thread has talked about "total government takeover".

And, as several have pointed out, there are numerous examples of successful health care payment systems that have proven to be successful AND have been clearly less expensive than is ours.

You haven't figured out how to discuss this topic yet. There ARE issues. But, you haven't found them yet.

You should hold off on your ad hom AT LEAST until you have made some sort of progress on this topic.

 

[Andylusion]

There's a problem with that. Most European countries simply don't have access to the latest drugs. If the government puts a cap on drug prices, so that companies can't recoup the money they invested creating that drug, then they simply don't sell drugs there. As many as half of all new drugs are simply not available to patients in France and many others.

That's why survival rates in those countries are lower than here in the US.

So yes, average drug prices are lower in Europe... because you just die without drugs. How is that a better system?

Why do you think in the UK, they routinely, ever other year, sue their government to try and force them to pay for a new drug, that they can't get?

Patients sue NHS for denying them new £120,000 treatment

Why do they have to do this all the time? Because the NHS simply doesn't pay for expensive treatments, thus...... it's cheaper.

Well crap dude... yeah if you don't get treatment, then the treatment is cheaper.

The whole reason we have the absolute best possible care in the world, is because we pay for it. People don't work for free. Companies don't work for free. Doctors don't work for free.

There was this lady I worked with at my last job. She had to quit working because her hands were all screwed up. She decided to get treatment through workers compensation. I told her to her face, she should forget that, and pay for treatment at a private clinic. Well of course she looked at me, and was shocked... why should I pay for it, if the state will pay for it?

My brother in law, came back from Iraq. He had the exact same hand problem. He could have gotten free care through the VA, but he heard so many bad stories, and saw how poorly free care was run, that he said forget it, and went to a private clinic, and paid to have his hands fixed.

Today, he's regularly fixes cars, and does home repairs, and is almost certified to be an EMT.

That lady, who went to the 'free' gov-care doctor? She never came back to work. She's permanently retired. That's your gov-care for you.

Are there cancer treatments the poor can't afford? Sure.
I would rather have expensive cancer treatments, than simply not have them available at all.

That's a better system, than in France, where doctors simply don't tell patients about treatments at all, because the state doesn't cover them. Living in ignorance, might be bliss... but it's not better.

Good god dude. Okay so your point is that there are drug shortages in those countries? I don't buy that without evidence but let's entertain that idea for a second. So granted in the US there is no shortage in SUPPLY of drugs but the problem is that the DEMAND isnt being met. 10s of millions of Americans can't afford basic cancer treatment. They can't afford many prescription cost. Now, no healthcare system on the planet is perfect, but when it comes to a large percentage of the population not being able to afford health services to begin with, America is the worst in the developed world. The World Health Organization rates the US's healthcare system well below many developed nations on the planet.

Oh and your acedotal stories mean jack shit.

It's not a drug shortage. It's a flat out unavailability. We know this because people from Europe will come to the US seeking treatment they simply can't get there.

A shortage implies they can get it, but there just isn't enough to go around. No no.... they simply.... are not allowed to get it.

You claim people can't afford basic cancer treatment.... and yet we have the highest survival rates of any country in the world. You have a better chance of being cured of cancer here, than anywhere else. That's a fact. Been that way for decades.

And additionally, everyone gets treatment. Everyone does. Yes, you get a big massive bill, and you'll be paying on it for years. But you still get treated. I went to the hospital years ago, when I didn't have health insurance, or money. They treated me. I got a bill. I paid on that bill for years, until I paid it off.

You keep making up these BS mindless claims that people can't get care.... yet I dare you to show me proof of one person that went to the hospital, was told to leave because they were poor, and died without getting any care. Where is that person? Name one. You can't. You just make it up.

You claim I say things without proof, yet you say stuff all the time without proof. Practice what you preach baptist preacher! You live up to your own standards first.

Lastly, the World Health Organization's report was entirely 100% crap. You want me to walk you through how stupid and irrelevant that report was? Did you ever wonder why they never came out with a report ranking health systems since 2000? Because every single country said their report was total BS, including France which was ranked number 1. That's why they never made another ranking for the last 16 years. I bet you never even read the ranking. If you did, you'd be smart enough not to mention it.

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

 

[Andylusion]

Your idea is proven nonsensical by comparing to what other industrialized nations have accomplished in terms of quality of service and cost.

There are many such systems to choose from. I would propose to pick one of the best ones as a root system for the US, along with modifications we might prefer.

BTW: I didn't say anything about "economic systems". So, please don't make up garbage and attribute it to me.

Your idea is proven nonsensical because of the actual examples we have on hand, which I have already pointed out only to have you ignore them.

But THIS TIME the total government takeover and monopoly will work!

Fool.

You haven't proposed ANY examples that compare apples to apples.

St. Judes, for example, is not a for-profit agency - it is not capitalist.

First, do you know what the difference is between a for-profit and non-profit firm?

I'm not asking you what the text book definition difference is, or even what the tax code difference is.

Do you know what the practical every-day operational difference is, between a for-profit and non-profit firm is?

Answer: Nothing. Both operate by selling services or goods, and both have to sell those services and goods at a higher price to consumers, than the cost of providing them. Both have to make a profit. Both have to create revenue to fund future growth.

Operationally, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between for-profit and non-profit.

None.

Second:

Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy).​

Now let me ask you.... is St. Judes run by the government? Planned by the Government? Distributed by the government? Owned by the government?

No... no... no... and no.

Therefore, this is a capitalist system. All privately run, privately funded charities are Capitalist charities. I support a charity that helps abused women. It receives zero government funding. It has zero government oversight. It has zero government ownership.

That's a capitalist based charity.

 

[WillReadmore]

Your idea is proven nonsensical by comparing to what other industrialized nations have accomplished in terms of quality of service and cost.

There are many such systems to choose from. I would propose to pick one of the best ones as a root system for the US, along with modifications we might prefer.

BTW: I didn't say anything about "economic systems". So, please don't make up garbage and attribute it to me.

Your idea is proven nonsensical because of the actual examples we have on hand, which I have already pointed out only to have you ignore them.

But THIS TIME the total government takeover and monopoly will work!

Fool.

You haven't proposed ANY examples that compare apples to apples.

St. Judes, for example, is not a for-profit agency - it is not capitalist.

First, do you know what the difference is between a for-profit and non-profit firm?

I'm not asking you what the text book definition difference is, or even what the tax code difference is.

Do you know what the practical every-day operational difference is, between a for-profit and non-profit firm is?

Answer: Nothing. Both operate by selling services or goods, and both have to sell those services and goods at a higher price to consumers, than the cost of providing them. Both have to make a profit. Both have to create revenue to fund future growth.

Operationally, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between for-profit and non-profit.

None.

Second:

Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy).​

Now let me ask you.... is St. Judes run by the government? Planned by the Government? Distributed by the government? Owned by the government?

No... no... no... and no.

Therefore, this is a capitalist system. All privately run, privately funded charities are Capitalist charities. I support a charity that helps abused women. It receives zero government funding. It has zero government oversight. It has zero government ownership.

That's a capitalist based charity.

The ACA is not owned by the government - it is a collection of regulations that define a platform upon which health care coverage companies may compete - setting their own prices, designing their own products, etc.

If St. Judes may receive tax deductible donations then it is not the same as Premera and the rest of those which are for-profit corporations. Fiduciary duty to share holders is not the same.

 

[francoHFW]

Good god dude. Okay so your point is that there are drug shortages in those countries? I don't buy that without evidence but let's entertain that idea for a second. So granted in the US there is no shortage in SUPPLY of drugs but the problem is that the DEMAND isnt being met. 10s of millions of Americans can't afford basic cancer treatment. They can't afford many prescription cost. Now, no healthcare system on the planet is perfect, but when it comes to a large percentage of the population not being able to afford health services to begin with, America is the worst in the developed world. The World Health Organization rates the US's healthcare system well below many developed nations on the planet.

Oh and your acedotal stories mean jack shit.

It's not a drug shortage. It's a flat out unavailability. We know this because people from Europe will come to the US seeking treatment they simply can't get there.

A shortage implies they can get it, but there just isn't enough to go around. No no.... they simply.... are not allowed to get it.

You claim people can't afford basic cancer treatment.... and yet we have the highest survival rates of any country in the world. You have a better chance of being cured of cancer here, than anywhere else. That's a fact. Been that way for decades.

And additionally, everyone gets treatment. Everyone does. Yes, you get a big massive bill, and you'll be paying on it for years. But you still get treated. I went to the hospital years ago, when I didn't have health insurance, or money. They treated me. I got a bill. I paid on that bill for years, until I paid it off.

You keep making up these BS mindless claims that people can't get care.... yet I dare you to show me proof of one person that went to the hospital, was told to leave because they were poor, and died without getting any care. Where is that person? Name one. You can't. You just make it up.

You claim I say things without proof, yet you say stuff all the time without proof. Practice what you preach baptist preacher! You live up to your own standards first.

Lastly, the World Health Organization's report was entirely 100% crap. You want me to walk you through how stupid and irrelevant that report was? Did you ever wonder why they never came out with a report ranking health systems since 2000? Because every single country said their report was total BS, including France which was ranked number 1. That's why they never made another ranking for the last 16 years. I bet you never even read the ranking. If you did, you'd be smart enough not to mention it.

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Of course in other countries you don't lose everything when you go bankrupt under the old GOP scam system...brilliant. Not much diff in cancer cures either...probably just the rich doing better here...

 

[imawhosure]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

Excuse Matthew folks, really! He is the quintessential leftist; AKA DEGROWTHER! He knows how to fix everything, just ask him, he will tell you. Need a consensus? Nope, not...........he is brilliant, will tell you how to run your life, because he is soooo smart...........he knew how to wipe his ass when he was 2-)

Listen to Matty people-) He is sooooooo smart, he should be in charge of everything...........at least everything that goes against what he thinks should be done. Never fear, he knows EXACTLY what he is doing, don't believe me? ASK him, he will tell you!

He and his COMPADRES, and who are they? You do not know! Let me inform you of the GENIUS behind the mighty Matthew----->

1. The Mighty genius himself........Matthew! Take a bow there chump change-)

2. His right hand person, the one, the only, LACOOTER! You also take a bow while we do a rain dance!

3. His left hand person, none other than the charming and delightful, ASTRO TURFER EXTRODINAIRE, Rightwinger.

4. When the charming one, RIGHTWINGER forgets to take his meds and transforms into HE....WHO MUST BE OBEYED.............we have to introduce the most brilliant phony on this board; yes you guessed it, JAKE THE USELESS SNAKE!

Yep, the wonderful MATTHEW has significant ties to these CHARMING and DELIGHTFUL people. They are his soulmates, they are his ying, to his yang, they are CASTRO incarnate-)

So let us all cheer Matthew, HE WHO MUST BE OBEYED, Lacooter, and the biggest ASTRO TURFER on this site as long as you take JAKE into account, RIGHTWINGER-) You people are really screwed, and we helped! Now that is an accomplishment, unlike the cent or 2 you get for lying to the people on here by post.

See folks, sometimes, the side that tells the truth does win..........and those that sell their SOULS for a few sheckels, get their rearends handed to them.

HEY WINGER, I want my 2500 buck discount on healthcare, want my deductible to go back to 1000, from 5000, and I want YOU to explain why YOU and OBYSMAL lied-)

 

[P@triot]

Of course in other countries you don't lose everything when you go bankrupt

So go live in those other countries. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound constantly crying about the United States and constantly raving about "other" nations when you refuse to leave the U.S. and go live in these other places?

Not to mention how stupid you sound when one considers that people come from all over the world to get their healthcare here in the U.S. because it is the best healthcare on the planet. Although, to your credit, the left is quickly destroying that.

 

[imawhosure]

It's not a drug shortage. It's a flat out unavailability. We know this because people from Europe will come to the US seeking treatment they simply can't get there.

A shortage implies they can get it, but there just isn't enough to go around. No no.... they simply.... are not allowed to get it.

You claim people can't afford basic cancer treatment.... and yet we have the highest survival rates of any country in the world. You have a better chance of being cured of cancer here, than anywhere else. That's a fact. Been that way for decades.

And additionally, everyone gets treatment. Everyone does. Yes, you get a big massive bill, and you'll be paying on it for years. But you still get treated. I went to the hospital years ago, when I didn't have health insurance, or money. They treated me. I got a bill. I paid on that bill for years, until I paid it off.

You keep making up these BS mindless claims that people can't get care.... yet I dare you to show me proof of one person that went to the hospital, was told to leave because they were poor, and died without getting any care. Where is that person? Name one. You can't. You just make it up.

You claim I say things without proof, yet you say stuff all the time without proof. Practice what you preach baptist preacher! You live up to your own standards first.

Lastly, the World Health Organization's report was entirely 100% crap. You want me to walk you through how stupid and irrelevant that report was? Did you ever wonder why they never came out with a report ranking health systems since 2000? Because every single country said their report was total BS, including France which was ranked number 1. That's why they never made another ranking for the last 16 years. I bet you never even read the ranking. If you did, you'd be smart enough not to mention it.

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Of course in other countries you don't lose everything when you go bankrupt under the old GOP scam system...brilliant. Not much diff in cancer cures either...probably just the rich doing better here...

Oh my----> here you have FRANKENSTEIN trying to misdirect all of you about what happens in other countries. We are NOT interested in what happens in other countries, we are interested in what happens HERE FRANKY!

You want to make it like somewhere else? Fine! Hows about this------------>we give you and your chumps a little power that you have lost, lolol. And in return, we get the prices of gas in the Middle East, which you seem to love-) 50 cents a gallon anyone? Or has it risen to 75 cents there Franky!

 

[Billy000]

Good god dude. Okay so your point is that there are drug shortages in those countries? I don't buy that without evidence but let's entertain that idea for a second. So granted in the US there is no shortage in SUPPLY of drugs but the problem is that the DEMAND isnt being met. 10s of millions of Americans can't afford basic cancer treatment. They can't afford many prescription cost. Now, no healthcare system on the planet is perfect, but when it comes to a large percentage of the population not being able to afford health services to begin with, America is the worst in the developed world. The World Health Organization rates the US's healthcare system well below many developed nations on the planet.

Oh and your acedotal stories mean jack shit.

It's not a drug shortage. It's a flat out unavailability. We know this because people from Europe will come to the US seeking treatment they simply can't get there.

A shortage implies they can get it, but there just isn't enough to go around. No no.... they simply.... are not allowed to get it.

You claim people can't afford basic cancer treatment.... and yet we have the highest survival rates of any country in the world. You have a better chance of being cured of cancer here, than anywhere else. That's a fact. Been that way for decades.

And additionally, everyone gets treatment. Everyone does. Yes, you get a big massive bill, and you'll be paying on it for years. But you still get treated. I went to the hospital years ago, when I didn't have health insurance, or money. They treated me. I got a bill. I paid on that bill for years, until I paid it off.

You keep making up these BS mindless claims that people can't get care.... yet I dare you to show me proof of one person that went to the hospital, was told to leave because they were poor, and died without getting any care. Where is that person? Name one. You can't. You just make it up.

You claim I say things without proof, yet you say stuff all the time without proof. Practice what you preach baptist preacher! You live up to your own standards first.

Lastly, the World Health Organization's report was entirely 100% crap. You want me to walk you through how stupid and irrelevant that report was? Did you ever wonder why they never came out with a report ranking health systems since 2000? Because every single country said their report was total BS, including France which was ranked number 1. That's why they never made another ranking for the last 16 years. I bet you never even read the ranking. If you did, you'd be smart enough not to mention it.

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Uhh no I don't buy that in the least. The graph clearly only covers those that undergo long term cancer treatment over the span of time. lol and hospitals would only treat complications from cancer treatment that result in emergencies to save their lives in the immediate future. It's not like they could just stay in the hospital for months on end to get rid of the tumor.

And you quoting the report means jack shit if all you are doing is cherry picking information and then make broad conclusions about the report. Its completely absurd. You aren't an expert. Quit pretending you are.

 

[P@triot]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

Excuse Matthew folks, really! He is the quintessential leftist; AKA DEGROWTHER! He knows how to fix everything, just ask him, he will tell you. Need a consensus? Nope, not...........he is brilliant, will tell you how to run your life, because he is soooo smart...........he knew how to wipe his ass when he was 2-)

Listen to Matty people-) He is sooooooo smart, he should be in charge of everything...........at least everything that goes against what he thinks should be done. Never fear, he knows EXACTLY what he is doing, don't believe me? ASK him, he will tell you!

He and his COMPADRES, and who are they? You do not know! Let me inform you of the GENIUS behind the mighty Matthew----->

1. The Mighty genius himself........Matthew! Take a bow there chump change-)

2. His right hand person, the one, the only, LACOOTER! You also take a bow while we do a rain dance!

3. His left hand person, none other than the charming and delightful, ASTRO TURFER EXTRODINAIRE, Rightwinger.

4. When the charming one, RIGHTWINGER forgets to take his meds and transforms into HE....WHO MUST BE OBEYED.............we have to introduce the most brilliant phony on this board; yes you guessed it, JAKE THE USELESS SNAKE!

Yep, the wonderful MATTHEW has significant ties to these CHARMING and DELIGHTFUL people. They are his soulmates, they are his ying, to his yang, they are CASTRO incarnate-)

So let us all cheer Matthew, HE WHO MUST BE OBEYED, Lacooter, and the biggest ASTRO TURFER on this site as long as you take JAKE into account, RIGHTWINGER-) You people are really screwed, and we helped! Now that is an accomplishment, unlike the cent or 2 you get for lying to the people on here by post.

See folks, sometimes, the side that tells the truth does win..........and those that sell their SOULS for a few sheckels, get their rearends handed to them.

HEY WINGER, I want my 2500 buck discount on healthcare, want my deductible to go back to 1000, from 5000, and I want YOU to explain why YOU and OBYSMAL lied-)

Matthew is the quintessential progressive. He wants to mooch off of society and he is emotionally immature. I've seen him have complete meltdowns when he couldn't defend his marxist ideology against logic and reason - and he stated calling everyone (and I quote) "Taliban terrorists".

 

[imawhosure]

It's not a drug shortage. It's a flat out unavailability. We know this because people from Europe will come to the US seeking treatment they simply can't get there.

A shortage implies they can get it, but there just isn't enough to go around. No no.... they simply.... are not allowed to get it.

You claim people can't afford basic cancer treatment.... and yet we have the highest survival rates of any country in the world. You have a better chance of being cured of cancer here, than anywhere else. That's a fact. Been that way for decades.

And additionally, everyone gets treatment. Everyone does. Yes, you get a big massive bill, and you'll be paying on it for years. But you still get treated. I went to the hospital years ago, when I didn't have health insurance, or money. They treated me. I got a bill. I paid on that bill for years, until I paid it off.

You keep making up these BS mindless claims that people can't get care.... yet I dare you to show me proof of one person that went to the hospital, was told to leave because they were poor, and died without getting any care. Where is that person? Name one. You can't. You just make it up.

You claim I say things without proof, yet you say stuff all the time without proof. Practice what you preach baptist preacher! You live up to your own standards first.

Lastly, the World Health Organization's report was entirely 100% crap. You want me to walk you through how stupid and irrelevant that report was? Did you ever wonder why they never came out with a report ranking health systems since 2000? Because every single country said their report was total BS, including France which was ranked number 1. That's why they never made another ranking for the last 16 years. I bet you never even read the ranking. If you did, you'd be smart enough not to mention it.

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Uhh no I don't buy that in the least. The graph clearly only covers those that undergo long term cancer treatment over the span of time. lol and hospitals would only treat complications from cancer treatment that result in emergencies to save their lives in the immediate future. It's not like they could just stay in the hospital for months on end to get rid of the tumor.

And you quoting the report means jack shit if all you are doing is cherry picking information and then make broad conclusions about the report. Its completely absurd. You aren't an expert. Quit pretending you are.

PHONY Billie baloney! You are pulling in from MSM, which has been proven to be for the DNC. No credibility, try again!

 

[imawhosure]

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Uhh no I don't buy that in the least. The graph clearly only covers those that undergo long term cancer treatment over the span of time. lol and hospitals would only treat complications from cancer treatment that result in emergencies to save their lives in the immediate future. It's not like they could just stay in the hospital for months on end to get rid of the tumor.

And you quoting the report means jack shit if all you are doing is cherry picking information and then make broad conclusions about the report. Its completely absurd. You aren't an expert. Quit pretending you are.

PHONY Billie baloney! You are pulling in from MSM, which has been proven to be for the DNC. No credibility, try again!

WikiLeaks there stud muffin. You need more, and if you can't produce it, go back to your safe space because we are not amused-)

 

[WillReadmore]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

Excuse Matthew folks, really! He is the quintessential leftist; AKA DEGROWTHER! He knows how to fix everything, just ask him, he will tell you. Need a consensus? Nope, not...........he is brilliant, will tell you how to run your life, because he is soooo smart...........he knew how to wipe his ass when he was 2-)

Listen to Matty people-) He is sooooooo smart, he should be in charge of everything...........at least everything that goes against what he thinks should be done. Never fear, he knows EXACTLY what he is doing, don't believe me? ASK him, he will tell you!

He and his COMPADRES, and who are they? You do not know! Let me inform you of the GENIUS behind the mighty Matthew----->

1. The Mighty genius himself........Matthew! Take a bow there chump change-)

2. His right hand person, the one, the only, LACOOTER! You also take a bow while we do a rain dance!

3. His left hand person, none other than the charming and delightful, ASTRO TURFER EXTRODINAIRE, Rightwinger.

4. When the charming one, RIGHTWINGER forgets to take his meds and transforms into HE....WHO MUST BE OBEYED.............we have to introduce the most brilliant phony on this board; yes you guessed it, JAKE THE USELESS SNAKE!

Yep, the wonderful MATTHEW has significant ties to these CHARMING and DELIGHTFUL people. They are his soulmates, they are his ying, to his yang, they are CASTRO incarnate-)

So let us all cheer Matthew, HE WHO MUST BE OBEYED, Lacooter, and the biggest ASTRO TURFER on this site as long as you take JAKE into account, RIGHTWINGER-) You people are really screwed, and we helped! Now that is an accomplishment, unlike the cent or 2 you get for lying to the people on here by post.

See folks, sometimes, the side that tells the truth does win..........and those that sell their SOULS for a few sheckels, get their rearends handed to them.

HEY WINGER, I want my 2500 buck discount on healthcare, want my deductible to go back to 1000, from 5000, and I want YOU to explain why YOU and OBYSMAL lied-)

Matthew is the quintessential progressive. He wants to mooch off of society and he is emotionally immature. I've seen him have complete meltdowns when he couldn't defend his marxist ideology against logic and reason - and he stated calling everyone (and I quote) "Taliban terrorists".

So, that's what you have to offer on the topic of single payer?

 

[imawhosure]

Replace the ACA with single payer the rest of the civilized world enjoys. Lets not be left out in the cold!!!!

-It would be cheaper
-Moral

Only rich can afford what the ryans of this world want. That is wrong.

Excuse Matthew folks, really! He is the quintessential leftist; AKA DEGROWTHER! He knows how to fix everything, just ask him, he will tell you. Need a consensus? Nope, not...........he is brilliant, will tell you how to run your life, because he is soooo smart...........he knew how to wipe his ass when he was 2-)

Listen to Matty people-) He is sooooooo smart, he should be in charge of everything...........at least everything that goes against what he thinks should be done. Never fear, he knows EXACTLY what he is doing, don't believe me? ASK him, he will tell you!

He and his COMPADRES, and who are they? You do not know! Let me inform you of the GENIUS behind the mighty Matthew----->

1. The Mighty genius himself........Matthew! Take a bow there chump change-)

2. His right hand person, the one, the only, LACOOTER! You also take a bow while we do a rain dance!

3. His left hand person, none other than the charming and delightful, ASTRO TURFER EXTRODINAIRE, Rightwinger.

4. When the charming one, RIGHTWINGER forgets to take his meds and transforms into HE....WHO MUST BE OBEYED.............we have to introduce the most brilliant phony on this board; yes you guessed it, JAKE THE USELESS SNAKE!

Yep, the wonderful MATTHEW has significant ties to these CHARMING and DELIGHTFUL people. They are his soulmates, they are his ying, to his yang, they are CASTRO incarnate-)

So let us all cheer Matthew, HE WHO MUST BE OBEYED, Lacooter, and the biggest ASTRO TURFER on this site as long as you take JAKE into account, RIGHTWINGER-) You people are really screwed, and we helped! Now that is an accomplishment, unlike the cent or 2 you get for lying to the people on here by post.

See folks, sometimes, the side that tells the truth does win..........and those that sell their SOULS for a few sheckels, get their rearends handed to them.

HEY WINGER, I want my 2500 buck discount on healthcare, want my deductible to go back to 1000, from 5000, and I want YOU to explain why YOU and OBYSMAL lied-)

Matthew is the quintessential progressive. He wants to mooch off of society and he is emotionally immature. I've seen him have complete meltdowns when he couldn't defend his marxist ideology against logic and reason - and he stated calling everyone (and I quote) "Taliban terrorists".

So, that's what you have to offer on the topic of single payer?

No there oh brilliant one------------> what we are saying is...............you have screwed the pooch, and whatever we decide to do is now what is going to happen. And yes, single payer is dead, forget about it, over, wake up, you leftist turd-)

 

[francoHFW]

Of course in other countries you don't lose everything when you go bankrupt

So go live in those other countries. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound constantly crying about the United States and constantly raving about "other" nations when you refuse to leave the U.S. and go live in these other places?

Not to mention how stupid you sound when one considers that people come from all over the world to get their healthcare here in the U.S. because it is the best healthcare on the planet. Although, to your credit, the left is quickly destroying that.

I had a bar in Spain but guess what, nobody wants us unless you're rich, in the EU, REALLY RICH. Our health care is GREAT if you're rich, that's who comes here. And many fewer than you believe. I love NY- not your bs red state, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

I'm sorry what exactly are our cancer survivor statistics? You didn't make that clear. Are you saying that among people who actually get treatment, the cancer survivor rate is high? Yeah that's not hard to believe. Of course, this stat refers to people who actually get the full treatment. As in people are able to AFFORD it. I don't deny that American healthcare is state of the art. The obvious problem is that very few people can actually afford adequate treatment.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess.

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Of course in other countries you don't lose everything when you go bankrupt under the old GOP scam system...brilliant. Not much diff in cancer cures either...probably just the rich doing better here...

Oh my----> here you have FRANKENSTEIN trying to misdirect all of you about what happens in other countries. We are NOT interested in what happens in other countries, we are interested in what happens HERE FRANKY!

You want to make it like somewhere else? Fine! Hows about this------------>we give you and your chumps a little power that you have lost, lolol. And in return, we get the prices of gas in the Middle East, which you seem to love-) 50 cents a gallon anyone? Or has it risen to 75 cents there Franky!

TY, ugly American ignoramus/fool. It's pretty simple here- going to ruin under pander to the rich GOP idiocy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!!

 

[imawhosure]

This is one of those strange questions that I've never understood.

Cancer survival is pretty straight forward. A 5-year-survival rate is, when you get cancer, in five years, are you alive? Does it matter if you get treated? No. If you get cancer, and you don't get any treatment, after five years... are you alive? If no, then that lowers the 5-year cancer survival rate.

The survival statistic cover everyone. Poor, or rich, medicaid, or private insurance, from the swamps of Louisiana, to the towers of New York city.

View attachment 102442
Of course this is before Obama Care, which proves that before Obama Care we had the highest survival rates in the world.

I have about 6 or 7 different graphs from various research, all showing the same.

You have a better chance of surviving in the US, rich or poor, than anywhere else in the world.

Also, how could their be drug unavailability in these nations if American drug companies sell their products in those companies? You're just making shit up.

What are you talking about? This is the simplest concept possible..... how are you not getting this.

In France... the government run health care system, negotiates with companies on drugs. You admitted this yourself. Right? You said they place price caps on drugs.... right? You said this.

Well what happens if the price cap on the drug is too law, for the drug company to make a profit?

They simply.... don't..... sell.... the.... drug....! *gasp*..... What part of this concept are you not able to grasp? The French public simply doesn't have access to the drug. They simply don't get it. It's not a shortage... they simply are not able to get that drug at all.

The report I was reading pointed to a medication for arthritis, that in the US was obsolete and replaced by a more effective medication that had far fewer side effects. The elderly in France simply used the less effective older pill that had all the side effects. ..... but it's cheaper! Yay!

Most of the elderly in France didn't even know the newer and better medication existed, because doctors didn't even tell them. Why tell them about a drug they can't get? But remember... it's cheaper.

You also don't know jack shit about the WHO report. You are calling it "100% crap" based on no information whatsoever. You just like the idea of me taking your word for it I guess

No, I know EVERYTHING about the WHO report. I have the report saved on my computer, and I have read nearly every single page. Have you even read ONE page of it?

The WHO report doesn't look at the quality of care.

They look at nearly everything else, but not the quality of the care.

Page 54, section "Weighting the achievements that go into overall attainment"
Countries were graded on Three main aspects

Health

Overall Average- 25%
Equality- 25%

Responsiveness was divided into:

Overall Average- 12.5%
Equality- 12.5%

Fairness in Contribution

Distribution- 25%

Now..... notice a pattern here? Equality in health.... was 25% of the score. Equality in responsiveness..... was 12.5% of the score. Fairness in payment.... was 25% of the score.

Hello? Before we do ANYTHING.... right at face value, 62.5% of the entire score..... is simply how socialized it was! 62.5% of the score had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE.

I could rent a basket ball stadium, and give all the patients equal care of a wet wipe, and puke bucket, and charge them an equal price of $10 a day, and give them equal responsiveness and accomodation of a TV to watch.... as long as it's equal and fair, and everyone gets the same treatment and pays the same price, and has the same quality bed.......

Even if half of them die.... according to the standards of evaluation by the WHO......... IS IT EQUAL AND FAIR AND THUS I GET 62.5% OF THE SCORE YOU TOTAL AND COMPLETE IDIOT!

How dumb do you have to be?!?

But wait sparky.... there's more!

Let's look at how they rated Responsiveness.

Page 47.... let's see.....

Respect for dignity.... As long as I get respect.... my health care scores high.... even if I die. Or spend the rest of my incapacitated life in a bed.... but I have respect! That's not as important has treatment and healing.

Confidentiality..... because as long as no one knows what I'm dying of.... it doesn't matter if I die.... I score big on the WHO ranking.

Autonomy.... because when I die without treatment... I want to do it autonomously.

Quality of amenities.... because having a new TV set to watch is more important than being healed.

Access to social support networks.... As long as someone holds my hand while I die... WHO gives my country a big score.

Choice of provider.... because choosing where I die, is more important than.... you know... GETTING HEALED?

Which of these aspects of "Responsiveness" has anything at all to do with the quality of the care? You know, actually being diagnosed, treated, and healed?

Nothing.

Let's look at what they used to come up with the Health score....
Page 27.

Let's look at how they look at the quality of treatment, the ability to diagnose problems, the level of care, the percentage who are healed and cured........

Nope..... no.... they look at one thing.... life expectancy. That's it.
Life expectancy at birth
Life expectancy between 15 and 59
and Life expectancy under age 5.

That's it.

First, infant death.
Cuba doctors have already admitted that they simply don't record if an infant dies, because they know if they record too many, the government will fire them from one of the few good jobs there is.

Moreover, unlike the US, other countries, notably the UK, simply don't count a child as even being born, if it dies too early. In fact, by law, doctors are not even allowed to help a child born too early.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

We have better care than either one. But according to WHO, the countries that don't record a child dying, have better care.

The other two, have the exact same problem. Life expectancy doesn't tell you jack about the quality of care.

If you shoot me dead.... is that proof that health care in America is bad? According to this idiotic WHO report, it is.

If you drive down the highway, and get hit by a truck and killed, or you are living streaming on facebook like that idiot in the other thread was, and crash into a truck..... is that proof US care is bad? According to WHO it is.

View attachment 102473

Unless you believe that doctors should run out on the highway to prevent auto fatalities, and doctors should run at criminals and steal their guns so they can't shoot anyone..... clearly life expectancy isn't a reflection on the health care system.

In summary.... Absolutely nothing in the WHO report actually looked at the ability of the health care system to diagnose a patient, then treat that patient, and then heal, cure, and release that patient.

They didn't look at survival rates for anything. The entire report is utter trash. If you doubt that, simply look at Cuba. The average Cuban at the time of this ranking, couldn't even get Aspirin. Let alone any real health care. Yet it was ranked 39th. A country, where the average Cuban hospital doesn't even have sheets for the hospital beds, is ranked 39th?

The entire thing, from beginning to end, was 100% crap. Even the biggest dimwitted fool on this forum, should be able to grasp this report is trash.

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Of course in other countries you don't lose everything when you go bankrupt under the old GOP scam system...brilliant. Not much diff in cancer cures either...probably just the rich doing better here...

Oh my----> here you have FRANKENSTEIN trying to misdirect all of you about what happens in other countries. We are NOT interested in what happens in other countries, we are interested in what happens HERE FRANKY!

You want to make it like somewhere else? Fine! Hows about this------------>we give you and your chumps a little power that you have lost, lolol. And in return, we get the prices of gas in the Middle East, which you seem to love-) 50 cents a gallon anyone? Or has it risen to 75 cents there Franky!

TY, ugly American ignoramus/fool. It's pretty simple here- going to ruin under pander to the rich GOP idiocy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!!

Franky enstein, I got a buck 3.80 that says your own people will listen to me, long before they listen to an incompetent boob like you. It is not that I am so brilliant, but rather just like Hilly, you are that incompetent!

Everyone can post, and I would never try to stop someone from doing it. BUT! You people are done for the next 2 to 12 years. You can cry, whine, moan, and groan, it won't get you anywhere. You have ZERO power in the federal government, and I personally hope they hose you.........in fact, I am going to PUSH that they hose all public sector unions. The American people negotiating against themselves is ridiculous.

As far as private sector unions--------->they can demand, and get EVERYTHING they want, and I am behind them 100%. It is they who reap the rewards, or the loss when others undercut them. We as humans either buy their products, or ignore their products.

You, FRANKENSTEIN, are done-) The theory you have lived your life on is over. Our job is to PROVE that your theory no longer works, and now how are we going to deal with it! Doesn't mean our solution delivers more money or benefits, but what it does do is deliver a job. Of course, at 4.6% unemployment, your side is in the catbird seat, isn't it! LOLOLOLOL, let us see how all your propaganda works out for you in the end!

 

[WillReadmore]

There is no context to your graph. It doesn't say anything about whether or not those people received treatment or not. It makes no comparison between the people who get treatment vs survivors that don't. Obviously the survival rate is high among people who get it. Again, i don't deny the quality of our nation's healthcare.

Also, you still haven't provided any proof there is little drug availability in those European nations. And again, you aren't taking into account the egregious profit that these drug companies make. So yeah, the prices for these drugs is sky high in this country because of greed. These companies still make plenty of profit from their drugs when they sell in other countries. Think about it, why would they bother trying to sell those drugs if no one was buying them?

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

The graph doesn't need to make a comparison.

The graph covers everyone entirely. Every single person in the country, rich or poor, treated or not treated.... the 5-year-survival rate for Breast Cancer is 84%. That is higher than any other country in the world. The UK, has a 70% survival rate.

So rich or poor.... you have a better chance of surviving cancer in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

Even the poorest people in this country, still have a better chance of surviving cancer here, than in the UK.

Additionally, there's a reason why you don't see a comparison between untreated, and treated cancer patients...... because it's illegal to not treat someone who shows up at a hospital.

What you are talking about, is impossible. I worked at a dealership back in 2002. The cleaning guy, was this hourly worker. He got cancer, likely because he drank alcohol all the time, and smoked 5 packs a day. He didn't insurance, because he would blow all his money gambling. You'd see him out in the back, smoking and scratching off those lottery cards, 20 a day.

Regardless, this guy got cancer, and went to the hospital. I went and visited him. No money, no insurance, and he was getting treated with Chemo.

This mythology that you people make up, that all the ill poor people of this country, are sitting on street corners dying, is not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest. You all are just a bunch of liars.

And...once again you have provided no independent evidence that the WHO report is flawed. You're just making shit up. You're cherry picking certain information in and pretending you some expert on the subject. Don't be ridiculous. How about you let actual medical experts decide if the report is flawed.

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. I posted directly from the text of the WHO report, with page numbers as citation.

If you are so stupid.... so mentally challenged, that you can't think logically and rationally for yourself without someone somewhere telling you what is true....

Then you are too stupid of a ideological idiot for an intelligent person like me to talk to you.

You obviously have nothing of any value to add to this conversation, because you have in this one paragraph, admitted that you are nothing more than a parrot that can only mindlessly repeat what other people have said.

I've give you the facts. You have responded with ignorance, hearsay, and arrogance. You are hereby discredited as a rational thinking person.

Of course in other countries you don't lose everything when you go bankrupt under the old GOP scam system...brilliant. Not much diff in cancer cures either...probably just the rich doing better here...

Oh my----> here you have FRANKENSTEIN trying to misdirect all of you about what happens in other countries. We are NOT interested in what happens in other countries, we are interested in what happens HERE FRANKY!

You want to make it like somewhere else? Fine! Hows about this------------>we give you and your chumps a little power that you have lost, lolol. And in return, we get the prices of gas in the Middle East, which you seem to love-) 50 cents a gallon anyone? Or has it risen to 75 cents there Franky!

TY, ugly American ignoramus/fool. It's pretty simple here- going to ruin under pander to the rich GOP idiocy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!!

Franky enstein, I got a buck 3.80 that says your own people will listen to me, long before they listen to an incompetent boob like you. It is not that I am so brilliant, but rather just like Hilly, you are that incompetent!

Everyone can post, and I would never try to stop someone from doing it. BUT! You people are done for the next 2 to 12 years. You can cry, whine, moan, and groan, it won't get you anywhere. You have ZERO power in the federal government, and I personally hope they hose you.........in fact, I am going to PUSH that they hose all public sector unions. The American people negotiating against themselves is ridiculous.

As far as private sector unions--------->they can demand, and get EVERYTHING they want, and I am behind them 100%. It is they who reap the rewards, or the loss when others undercut them. We as humans either buy their products, or ignore their products.

You, FRANKENSTEIN, are done-) The theory you have lived your life on is over. Our job is to PROVE that your theory no longer works, and now how are we going to deal with it! Doesn't mean our solution delivers more money or benefits, but what it does do is deliver a job. Of course, at 4.6% unemployment, your side is in the catbird seat, isn't it! LOLOLOLOL, let us see how all your propaganda works out for you in the end!

For someone who has no idea what to do about health care and who backs a political party that has no idea what to do about health care, and undoubtedly voted for Trump who CLEARLY has no ideas, all I see from you in the end is ad hom.

 

[Andylusion]

Your idea is proven nonsensical by comparing to what other industrialized nations have accomplished in terms of quality of service and cost.

There are many such systems to choose from. I would propose to pick one of the best ones as a root system for the US, along with modifications we might prefer.

BTW: I didn't say anything about "economic systems". So, please don't make up garbage and attribute it to me.

Your idea is proven nonsensical because of the actual examples we have on hand, which I have already pointed out only to have you ignore them.

But THIS TIME the total government takeover and monopoly will work!

Fool.

You haven't proposed ANY examples that compare apples to apples.

St. Judes, for example, is not a for-profit agency - it is not capitalist.

First, do you know what the difference is between a for-profit and non-profit firm?

I'm not asking you what the text book definition difference is, or even what the tax code difference is.

Do you know what the practical every-day operational difference is, between a for-profit and non-profit firm is?

Answer: Nothing. Both operate by selling services or goods, and both have to sell those services and goods at a higher price to consumers, than the cost of providing them. Both have to make a profit. Both have to create revenue to fund future growth.

Operationally, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between for-profit and non-profit.

None.

Second:

Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy or command economy).​

Now let me ask you.... is St. Judes run by the government? Planned by the Government? Distributed by the government? Owned by the government?

No... no... no... and no.

Therefore, this is a capitalist system. All privately run, privately funded charities are Capitalist charities. I support a charity that helps abused women. It receives zero government funding. It has zero government oversight. It has zero government ownership.

That's a capitalist based charity.

The ACA is not owned by the government - it is a collection of regulations that define a platform upon which health care coverage companies may compete - setting their own prices, designing their own products, etc.

If St. Judes may receive tax deductible donations then it is not the same as Premera and the rest of those which are for-profit corporations. Fiduciary duty to share holders is not the same.

If I come to your home, and give you $10, and I tell you how you can spend that $10, and how you can't spend that $10, and what you MUST BUY with that $10, and who you must buy from....

Do you really own that $10? Is it really "yours"?

There was a book about an interview with Hitler from decades ago. At one point they ask Hitler how socialism works if the companies are privately owned. Remember Nazi, means National Socialist.

Hitler responded, it doesn't matter if I own the cow or not, if I own YOU. Yeah, it's your cow.... but you better take care of it, and you better give me the milk.... but it's "your cow".

The point is, the ACA may not directly own the insurance companies. But it dictates what insurance must cover, and what prices it must charge, and what spending the insurance companies must make.

This is why the lowest price for insurance now, is $250. They forced all the competition out of the market by controlling every aspect of insurance.

Yeah, you can 'design your own insurance product'.... sure.... as long as it meets all of our regulations, and our controls, and meets our criteria, and covers everything we want, and has no pre-existing condition clauses, and has no maximum payout, and so on.

As long as you do everything we require you to do with "your product", you can design "your product" any way you want. Stop being ridiculous. It's social control. This is the very definition of social control. This is what socialism is all about.

If St. Judes may receive tax deductible donations then it is not the same as Premera and the rest of those which are for-profit corporations. Fiduciary duty to share holders is not the same

I would disagree completely. I know of hospitals where profits fell, the finances were thus in trouble, and the CEO was fired by the hospital commission. Nearly all commissions, have a stake in the hospital.

Now, stake doesn't mean equity ownership like it would in an investor owned company. But non-profit oversight members are paid a yearly fee, that strikingly correlates directly with hospital profitability.

And non-profit CEOs are always paid with massive benefits, in directly correlation to hospital profitability. For example, CEO of St Louis based non-profit hospital group, was paid $7.1 Million.... that's cash. Not including $1.3 Million in retirement benefits, and several other non-taxed benefits, for a total of $8.5 Million.

Now he can't be paid with stock, or shares of the company... because there are no stocks or shares in the company. But when you look at how he was paid, and what his pay correlates to.... it is exactly the same.

Obviously the stake holders thought he did well, and rewarded him lavishly.

They operated completely identically, from a practical perspective. There are some differences like, non-profits have a difficult time raising revenue for an expansion, because people can't buy an actual equity position in the hospital obviously.

But beyond that, they are absolutely 100% identical in their practical operations. There is no difference.