Sanders: Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are ‘Human Rights’

[Cecilie1200]

The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is 2 times more expensive on a per capita basis than that of Sweeden or U.K developed country.So yea, Bernie is actually right.

You might want to investigate the difference between "expensive" and "spending". See, expensive is how much each procedure costs. Spending, on the other hand, is how much is spent in total on anything healthcare-related. This includes all the non-essential spending on things like Lasik, hearing aids, cosmetic surgery, frequent diagnostics by hypochondriacs, orthodontia, vitamins . . .

Part of the reason that the US spends so much on health care every year is because we can. We are a wealthy nation, with people who are more than willing to use their discretionary funds to improve their quality of life. That's not a bad thing.

That still makes US hospitals the most expensive in the world.

And so you simply assume it's because what? People arbitrarily decided to jack up the prices for the fun of it? Gotta love simplistic "logic". I guess it saves time over the messy, complicated reality.

Forbes magazine, for example, provides a number of reasons why medical prices in the US are high. Heading the list is government healthcare: Medicare and Medicaid, which sets its compensation rates higher than other countries, which in turn raises the prices charged to private insurers, since doctors certainly can't charge patients differently for the same procedure based on payment method.

.

Didnt you mean to say the opposite here? Medicaid/Medicare have low reimbursements, often below cost. Hospitals and doctors can only make it up by charging private insured patients more.

Nope. I should be more specific, though, I guess. Forbes states that Medicare and Medicaid compensate more for specialist care versus primary care than do other countries.

I also forgot to include the link. My bad. I'm a bit distracted.

Why Are U.S. Health Care Costs So High?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problems aren't caused by the capitalism that's present in our medical system. They're caused by too little capitalism, both here and abroad.

exactly, imagine if everyone was shopping for health care with their own money and if providers were competing on basis of price and quality. We could cut prices in half in one year.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone who thinks FREE COLLEGE is a 'human right' is mentally disturbed or insane.

That seems a bit extreme. More likely they just don't have a clear understanding of what rights are. People claiming things like health care or education as "rights" are defining rights broadly as "something good government ought to provide". It's sloppy, and can be deliberate obfuscation, but it's not insane.

Insanity and stupidity often resemble each other.

 

[The Rabbi]

And you're basing this assertion on what?

Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.

People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.

Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies? You think the government is going to set up a separate department to handle that, and that it would be cheaper and more efficient if they did? Hell no. They'd be more likely to farm it out to some private entity who specialized in that field. And then there'd be no competition at all to bring down prices.

And you're basing this assertion on what?
Which assertion ? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world ? Just look at the OCED stats.
That insurance dampens competition ? Well, just tell me how many insured people you know before or after obamacare did medical shopping ?

Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I do have one such arrangement. I go south to get medical attention ( which is not very often), just as nearly 90,000 US retirees do.
Mexico's health care lures Americans - USATODAY.com

People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.
I am talking about shopping for medical attention not for medical insurance.
One of the few points I do like about Obamacera is that insurance must cover pre-existing conditions.

Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies?
If insurances worked as a "saving account" people would do medical shopping, and that would encourage competition.
Of course it is not as easy as that, what about someone who gets cancer at an early age? In that case the government should step in and pay part of the fee ( never all the fee, because it would discourage competition ).

Another alternative would be to have community owned hospitals ( gather , 10,000 people to invest in a hospital and make them the owners ). That way you take out the middle man out of the way.

Oy.
The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.

You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare. That's typucally why people do what you do.
Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return? In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices. Profit is a positive in healthcare, as elsewhere, not a negative. Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes. Socialism does the opposite.

The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.
Well then , which stats do you want to use to compare different countries ? WHO ?
It is very easy to disregard stats, but then you should provide a better source.
Other sources point towards the same direction.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare.
Indeed. I've never said the opposite. A Beetle is far cheaper than a BMW, but hey , if the Beetle suits your needs ..

Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return?
Those were different alternatives. In community owned hospitals you would get a return AND if the hospital charges you sky high prices you also get a return .

In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices.
No , not really

Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes.
Indeed , but you need profit AND competition , and current insurance schemes damp competition.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

I've been to Mexico. Sure, they can provide quality care . . . to rich foreigners and their own wealthy elite. If you think the vast majority of Mexicans are getting that care, you're delusional. I wouldn't take my dog to the kind of medical care most Mexican citizens get.

Who are you addressing here?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Best health care system in the world. Nope,
It might be the best for some very specialized procedures, but not for general medicine required by the 99% of the population.

We spend more money on preventive care.
??? WTF? If it was so the US would have the highest life expenctancy in the world. It doesn't.
Just look at the chart and how the US costs started to take-off after the 80's.

The general increase in cost is in part due to better procedures and an aging population, but going as far as telling it is two times better than Sweeden's makes no sense.

Insurance companies are damping competition. People don't do medical shopping ( unless they are uninsured or live abroad). You either make healthcare a public service or take insurance companies out of the equation.

And you're basing this assertion on what?

Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.

People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.

Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies? You think the government is going to set up a separate department to handle that, and that it would be cheaper and more efficient if they did? Hell no. They'd be more likely to farm it out to some private entity who specialized in that field. And then there'd be no competition at all to bring down prices.

And you're basing this assertion on what?
Which assertion ? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world ? Just look at the OCED stats.
That insurance dampens competition ? Well, just tell me how many insured people you know before or after obamacare did medical shopping ?

Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I do have one such arrangement. I go south to get medical attention ( which is not very often), just as nearly 90,000 US retirees do.
Mexico's health care lures Americans - USATODAY.com

Most of our northern border hospitals are loaded with Canadian patients. They come here to get help they can't get in Canada. Last I read (which was some time ago) Canada spends over a billion dollars a year in the US to take care of citizens they can't care for.

As a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can tell you that when you walk into the place, you're the one that feels like a foreigner. It's like going to the UN.

My sister is a long time employee at the clinic. She can tell you stories of VIP's from all over the world that come here for our outstanding care and technology. They don't go to Mexico and they don't go to Cuba. We have some of the most advanced medical care in the world.

She told us of stories where a middle-east VIP's would rent an entire hospital floor. It's closed off to everybody due to security reasons. Whatever services the clinic provided, they would pay cash daily. They used to have a scheduled Brink's truck come in every day to transfer the funds.

Socialized medical care is great for a broken arm, the flu, X-rays and so forth. But in situations that are life and death, you don't want to be treated in a country with socialized medicine.

You've certainly bought into the Right's arguments.
Why is it that most of Europe has longer life expectancy than in the US. They also have lower infant mortality than we do.

Different countries measure infant mortality rate differently.

In some countries, if the child has a defect and dies in a few weeks, they don't consider that a life. In the US, if a child takes one breath, it's considered a living human being regardless of it's survival ability.

In the US we are a multicultural people. Some of our cultures are more violent than others thus a much higher murder rate. We also have more citizens driving in the US than any other country. I believe we average about 40,000 deaths per year just on the road alone. Many people in Europe use public transportation.

These deaths are frequently younger people which brings our mortality rate down. The statistics would fool some into believing that it must all be because of our healthcare when there are so many other factors involved.

Furthermore, we will make much more of an effort to save the life of an at-risk newborn than will other countries. We have an excellent rate of success in those cases, but the fact that the odds are so against their survival in the first case means that the times when we lose the battle increase our mortality rate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And you're basing this assertion on what?
Which assertion ? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world ? Just look at the OCED stats.
That insurance dampens competition ? Well, just tell me how many insured people you know before or after obamacare did medical shopping ?

Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I do have one such arrangement. I go south to get medical attention ( which is not very often), just as nearly 90,000 US retirees do.
Mexico's health care lures Americans - USATODAY.com

People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.
I am talking about shopping for medical attention not for medical insurance.
One of the few points I do like about Obamacera is that insurance must cover pre-existing conditions.

Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies?
If insurances worked as a "saving account" people would do medical shopping, and that would encourage competition.
Of course it is not as easy as that, what about someone who gets cancer at an early age? In that case the government should step in and pay part of the fee ( never all the fee, because it would discourage competition ).

Another alternative would be to have community owned hospitals ( gather , 10,000 people to invest in a hospital and make them the owners ). That way you take out the middle man out of the way.

Oy.
The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.

You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare. That's typucally why people do what you do.
Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return? In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices. Profit is a positive in healthcare, as elsewhere, not a negative. Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes. Socialism does the opposite.

The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.
Well then , which stats do you want to use to compare different countries ? WHO ?
It is very easy to disregard stats, but then you should provide a better source.
Other sources point towards the same direction.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare.
Indeed. I've never said the opposite. A Beetle is far cheaper than a BMW, but hey , if the Beetle suits your needs ..

Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return?
Those were different alternatives. In community owned hospitals you would get a return AND if the hospital charges you sky high prices you also get a return .

In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices.
No , not really

Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes.
Indeed , but you need profit AND competition , and current insurance schemes damp competition.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

I've been to Mexico. Sure, they can provide quality care . . . to rich foreigners and their own wealthy elite. If you think the vast majority of Mexicans are getting that care, you're delusional. I wouldn't take my dog to the kind of medical care most Mexican citizens get.

Who are you addressing here?

Kinda the room in general. Anyone who goes to Mexico for care, touting its superiority to the American system, is being an elitist and missing the fact that that level of care in Mexico is only available to the rich.

I didn't mean "you" in the specific sense of you, The Rabbi.

 

[The Rabbi]

The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is 2 times more expensive on a per capita basis than that of Sweeden or U.K developed country.So yea, Bernie is actually right.

You might want to investigate the difference between "expensive" and "spending". See, expensive is how much each procedure costs. Spending, on the other hand, is how much is spent in total on anything healthcare-related. This includes all the non-essential spending on things like Lasik, hearing aids, cosmetic surgery, frequent diagnostics by hypochondriacs, orthodontia, vitamins . . .

Part of the reason that the US spends so much on health care every year is because we can. We are a wealthy nation, with people who are more than willing to use their discretionary funds to improve their quality of life. That's not a bad thing.

That still makes US hospitals the most expensive in the world.

And so you simply assume it's because what? People arbitrarily decided to jack up the prices for the fun of it? Gotta love simplistic "logic". I guess it saves time over the messy, complicated reality.

Forbes magazine, for example, provides a number of reasons why medical prices in the US are high. Heading the list is government healthcare: Medicare and Medicaid, which sets its compensation rates higher than other countries, which in turn raises the prices charged to private insurers, since doctors certainly can't charge patients differently for the same procedure based on payment method.

.

Didnt you mean to say the opposite here? Medicaid/Medicare have low reimbursements, often below cost. Hospitals and doctors can only make it up by charging private insured patients more.

Nope. I should be more specific, though, I guess. Forbes states that Medicare and Medicaid compensate more for specialist care versus primary care than do other countries.

I also forgot to include the link. My bad. I'm a bit distracted.

Why Are U.S. Health Care Costs So High?

Yeah Im not persuaded by that argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oy.
The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.

You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare. That's typucally why people do what you do.
Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return? In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices. Profit is a positive in healthcare, as elsewhere, not a negative. Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes. Socialism does the opposite.

The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.
Well then , which stats do you want to use to compare different countries ? WHO ?
It is very easy to disregard stats, but then you should provide a better source.
Other sources point towards the same direction.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare.
Indeed. I've never said the opposite. A Beetle is far cheaper than a BMW, but hey , if the Beetle suits your needs ..

Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return?
Those were different alternatives. In community owned hospitals you would get a return AND if the hospital charges you sky high prices you also get a return .

In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices.
No , not really

Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes.
Indeed , but you need profit AND competition , and current insurance schemes damp competition.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

I've been to Mexico. Sure, they can provide quality care . . . to rich foreigners and their own wealthy elite. If you think the vast majority of Mexicans are getting that care, you're delusional. I wouldn't take my dog to the kind of medical care most Mexican citizens get.

Who are you addressing here?

Kinda the room in general. Anyone who goes to Mexico for care, touting its superiority to the American system, is being an elitist and missing the fact that that level of care in Mexico is only available to the rich.

I didn't mean "you" in the specific sense of you, The Rabbi.

His point was that he goes to Mexico for care,, impliying their system is better. I responded he goes to Mexico not because its better but because it's cheaper for an American. Quality for what he's doing is probably about equal. But his point is moot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most of our northern border hospitals are loaded with Canadian patients. They come here to get help they can't get in Canada. Last I read (which was some time ago) Canada spends over a billion dollars a year in the US to take care of citizens they can't care for.

As a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can tell you that when you walk into the place, you're the one that feels like a foreigner. It's like going to the UN.

My sister is a long time employee at the clinic. She can tell you stories of VIP's from all over the world that come here for our outstanding care and technology. They don't go to Mexico and they don't go to Cuba. We have some of the most advanced medical care in the world.

She told us of stories where a middle-east VIP's would rent an entire hospital floor. It's closed off to everybody due to security reasons. Whatever services the clinic provided, they would pay cash daily. They used to have a scheduled Brink's truck come in every day to transfer the funds.

Socialized medical care is great for a broken arm, the flu, X-rays and so forth. But in situations that are life and death, you don't want to be treated in a country with socialized medicine.

You've certainly bought into the Right's arguments.
Why is it that most of Europe has longer life expectancy than in the US. They also have lower infant mortality than we do.

They drink more wine. ANd they have no inner city ghetto blacks or Hispanics.

In france 15% of the population are from Africa or Asia.
France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And? That is meaningless and unresponsive to my post.

It does , they have immigrants and they are able to make them part of their society without creating ghettos.

Wikipedia. Jesus wept.

ethnic groups: French 92%; Arab/North African 4%; German 2%; Breton 1%; Catalan 1%

FRANCE : general data

About 94% of the population holds French citizenship. Most of these citizens are of French ancestry, but there are also small groups of Flemings, Catalans, Germans, Armenians, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, and others. The largest resident alien groups are Algerians, Portuguese, Moroccans, Italians, Spaniards, Tunisians, and Turks.

Read more: France

FYI, most of those people are Caucasian.

Of course, it's extremely hard to tell for certain, since French law prohibits their census agency from collecting data about race and ethnicity. Most data has to come from private-sector survey groups.

Still, the fact remains that France is overwhelmingly white European.

If you break down the life expectancy and health stats for the United States' population by racial and ethnic groups, you find that they are comparable to the same groups in other developed countries.

Oh, also, we have one group that other nations don't really have: Northe American aborigines, known in PC circles as "Native Americans". There aren't a lot of them, but they have extremely low ratings in life expectancy, infant mortality, and overall health.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most of our northern border hospitals are loaded with Canadian patients. They come here to get help they can't get in Canada. Last I read (which was some time ago) Canada spends over a billion dollars a year in the US to take care of citizens they can't care for.

As a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can tell you that when you walk into the place, you're the one that feels like a foreigner. It's like going to the UN.

My sister is a long time employee at the clinic. She can tell you stories of VIP's from all over the world that come here for our outstanding care and technology. They don't go to Mexico and they don't go to Cuba. We have some of the most advanced medical care in the world.

She told us of stories where a middle-east VIP's would rent an entire hospital floor. It's closed off to everybody due to security reasons. Whatever services the clinic provided, they would pay cash daily. They used to have a scheduled Brink's truck come in every day to transfer the funds.

Socialized medical care is great for a broken arm, the flu, X-rays and so forth. But in situations that are life and death, you don't want to be treated in a country with socialized medicine.

You've certainly bought into the Right's arguments.
Why is it that most of Europe has longer life expectancy than in the US. They also have lower infant mortality than we do.

They drink more wine. ANd they have no inner city ghetto blacks or Hispanics.

In france 15% of the population are from Africa or Asia.
France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And? That is meaningless and unresponsive to my post.

It does , they have immigrants and they are able to make them part of their society without creating ghettos.

And glitter-farting unicorns wander the streets of Paris.

 

[Londoner]

Vigilante doesn't get it. Sanders will never have the electoral momentum to overturn the socialism his party quietly provides to the wealthy.

Big Government is owned and operated by the large corporations who staff congress and the presidency through election funding and lobbying. In exchange for the money that say Eli Lilly pours on congress, they (Ely Lilly) get "no bid" contracts to service Bush's Medicare Part D (allowing them to charge above market rates to the taxpayer), and Halliburton gets to charge $48 per bottled water in Iraq (because they staffed the vice presidency).

And Wall Street bankers (because they pour money on both parties) get bailed out while the poor home owner gets foreclosed on.

(Everybody knows who benefits most from our current system, and it ain't the poor slob who can't afford a lobbyist)

The wealth in this country, since Reagan, flows primarily in one direction - into the large corporate pockets who fund the system. Your paranoid nightmare about how Sanders is going to roll back some of the ill-begotten gains of big business is ******* insane.

We live in a world where the Koch brothers quietly draw massive subsidies from Uncle Sucker, but then - somehow - turn around and pay talk radio to distract the sheeple about food stamps to homeless people.

Your story is getting old. If you want to know who owns Washington and who benefits from it, follow the ******* money. Research the campaign donations of the largest corporations to BOTH parties (who play the same game). Sanders doesn't have a shot in hell at reversing this corruption and you know it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.
Well then , which stats do you want to use to compare different countries ? WHO ?
It is very easy to disregard stats, but then you should provide a better source.
Other sources point towards the same direction.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare.
Indeed. I've never said the opposite. A Beetle is far cheaper than a BMW, but hey , if the Beetle suits your needs ..

Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return?
Those were different alternatives. In community owned hospitals you would get a return AND if the hospital charges you sky high prices you also get a return .

In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices.
No , not really

Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes.
Indeed , but you need profit AND competition , and current insurance schemes damp competition.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

I've been to Mexico. Sure, they can provide quality care . . . to rich foreigners and their own wealthy elite. If you think the vast majority of Mexicans are getting that care, you're delusional. I wouldn't take my dog to the kind of medical care most Mexican citizens get.

Who are you addressing here?

Kinda the room in general. Anyone who goes to Mexico for care, touting its superiority to the American system, is being an elitist and missing the fact that that level of care in Mexico is only available to the rich.

I didn't mean "you" in the specific sense of you, The Rabbi.

His point was that he goes to Mexico for care,, impliying their system is better. I responded he goes to Mexico not because its better but because it's cheaper for an American. Quality for what he's doing is probably about equal. But his point is moot.

Yes, I know. And I agreed with you.

If you want to kneejerk to bunched panties and offense, that's your lookout.

 

[The Rabbi]

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

I've been to Mexico. Sure, they can provide quality care . . . to rich foreigners and their own wealthy elite. If you think the vast majority of Mexicans are getting that care, you're delusional. I wouldn't take my dog to the kind of medical care most Mexican citizens get.

Who are you addressing here?

Kinda the room in general. Anyone who goes to Mexico for care, touting its superiority to the American system, is being an elitist and missing the fact that that level of care in Mexico is only available to the rich.

I didn't mean "you" in the specific sense of you, The Rabbi.

His point was that he goes to Mexico for care,, impliying their system is better. I responded he goes to Mexico not because its better but because it's cheaper for an American. Quality for what he's doing is probably about equal. But his point is moot.

Yes, I know. And I agreed with you.

If you want to kneejerk to bunched panties and offense, that's your lookout.

OK we agree. All is good. Carry on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you're basing this assertion on what?

Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.

People aren't allowed by law to "shop around" for medical insurance. The regulations on medical insurance were ridiculous even before Obamacare.

Who, precisely, do you think is going to manage healthcare payment other than health insurance companies? You think the government is going to set up a separate department to handle that, and that it would be cheaper and more efficient if they did? Hell no. They'd be more likely to farm it out to some private entity who specialized in that field. And then there'd be no competition at all to bring down prices.

And you're basing this assertion on what?
Which assertion ? That healthcare in the US is not the best in the world ? Just look at the OCED stats.
That insurance dampens competition ? Well, just tell me how many insured people you know before or after obamacare did medical shopping ?

Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I do have one such arrangement. I go south to get medical attention ( which is not very often), just as nearly 90,000 US retirees do.
Mexico's health care lures Americans - USATODAY.com

Most of our northern border hospitals are loaded with Canadian patients. They come here to get help they can't get in Canada. Last I read (which was some time ago) Canada spends over a billion dollars a year in the US to take care of citizens they can't care for.

As a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can tell you that when you walk into the place, you're the one that feels like a foreigner. It's like going to the UN.

My sister is a long time employee at the clinic. She can tell you stories of VIP's from all over the world that come here for our outstanding care and technology. They don't go to Mexico and they don't go to Cuba. We have some of the most advanced medical care in the world.

She told us of stories where a middle-east VIP's would rent an entire hospital floor. It's closed off to everybody due to security reasons. Whatever services the clinic provided, they would pay cash daily. They used to have a scheduled Brink's truck come in every day to transfer the funds.

Socialized medical care is great for a broken arm, the flu, X-rays and so forth. But in situations that are life and death, you don't want to be treated in a country with socialized medicine.

You've certainly bought into the Right's arguments.
Why is it that most of Europe has longer life expectancy than in the US. They also have lower infant mortality than we do.

Different countries measure infant mortality rate differently.

In some countries, if the child has a defect and dies in a few weeks, they don't consider that a life. In the US, if a child takes one breath, it's considered a living human being regardless of it's survival ability.

In the US we are a multicultural people. Some of our cultures are more violent than others thus a much higher murder rate. We also have more citizens driving in the US than any other country. I believe we average about 40,000 deaths per year just on the road alone. Many people in Europe use public transportation.

These deaths are frequently younger people which brings our mortality rate down. The statistics would fool some into believing that it must all be because of our healthcare when there are so many other factors involved.

Furthermore, we will make much more of an effort to save the life of an at-risk newborn than will other countries. We have an excellent rate of success in those cases, but the fact that the odds are so against their survival in the first case means that the times when we lose the battle increase our mortality rate.

Not to mention we really don't take care of ourselves.

Many of us spend our time at McDonald's and we have a portion of our younger mothers who were on recreational narcotics, some who continued to use them during their pregnancy. Of course that brings down the infant mortality rate. But you can't blame it on our healthcare system like so many try to do. There are just too many other factors.

 

[jasonnfree]

The OECD stats are misleading and biased. This has been shown over and over again.
Well then , which stats do you want to use to compare different countries ? WHO ?
It is very easy to disregard stats, but then you should provide a better source.
Other sources point towards the same direction.
Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

You dont get better healthcare in Mexico. You get cheaper healthcare.
Indeed. I've never said the opposite. A Beetle is far cheaper than a BMW, but hey , if the Beetle suits your needs ..

Why would people invest in hospitals without getting any kind of return?
Those were different alternatives. In community owned hospitals you would get a return AND if the hospital charges you sky high prices you also get a return .

In any case, every example of "non-profit" medical insurance/medical care has failed to deliver lower prices.
No , not really

Profit drives lower costs and better outcomes.
Indeed , but you need profit AND competition , and current insurance schemes damp competition.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
Well , post the link.
If you are refering to Andylusion's post , then that is not valid. It's 25 years old.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
No point proven or disproven. Cecile stated :
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I simply gave an answer.

Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
No , it is not. If the hospitals get a profit, you as an owner get a profit.
If the hospital gets no profit you get no profit , but you get healthcare at the lowest price available.

Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference

The post was unrelated to medicare, I was simply giving ideas for the available options. There are many more. For example in Japan the patient covers only 30% of the cost , the government pays the rest. Then you have to do some shopping.

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

 

[The Rabbi]

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
Well , post the link.
If you are refering to Andylusion's post , then that is not valid. It's 25 years old.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
No point proven or disproven. Cecile stated :
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I simply gave an answer.

Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
No , it is not. If the hospitals get a profit, you as an owner get a profit.
If the hospital gets no profit you get no profit , but you get healthcare at the lowest price available.

Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference

The post was unrelated to medicare, I was simply giving ideas for the available options. There are many more. For example in Japan the patient covers only 30% of the cost , the government pays the rest. Then you have to do some shopping.

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Remind me what those labels accomplished. Right, nothing. We dont stick warning labels on steaks or cheese warning that heart disease could result from eating them, right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference.

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
Well , post the link.
If you are refering to Andylusion's post , then that is not valid. It's 25 years old.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
No point proven or disproven. Cecile stated :
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I simply gave an answer.

Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
No , it is not. If the hospitals get a profit, you as an owner get a profit.
If the hospital gets no profit you get no profit , but you get healthcare at the lowest price available.

Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference

The post was unrelated to medicare, I was simply giving ideas for the available options. There are many more. For example in Japan the patient covers only 30% of the cost , the government pays the rest. Then you have to do some shopping.

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

 

[Political Junky]

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
Well , post the link.
If you are refering to Andylusion's post , then that is not valid. It's 25 years old.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
No point proven or disproven. Cecile stated :
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I simply gave an answer.

Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
No , it is not. If the hospitals get a profit, you as an owner get a profit.
If the hospital gets no profit you get no profit , but you get healthcare at the lowest price available.

Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference

The post was unrelated to medicare, I was simply giving ideas for the available options. There are many more. For example in Japan the patient covers only 30% of the cost , the government pays the rest. Then you have to do some shopping.

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

The government helped get people off tobacco after supporting tobacco for years. I recall those tobacco executives lying to Congress and Congress believing them in return for their money.

 

[jasonnfree]

The correct metric has been supplied. If you get sick in America your ability to get seen early is greater and your health outcome is greater. This is a fact.
Well , post the link.
If you are refering to Andylusion's post , then that is not valid. It's 25 years old.

So the fact that you go to Mexico, like many others, is not proof the US system delivers worse care, which is what you contended. Point refuted.
No point proven or disproven. Cecile stated :
Hey, if you think another country will provide you with better-quality healthcare, head on over there. None of us will stop you.
I simply gave an answer.

Your point about communty hospitals is incoherent. If the purpose of them is to reduce medical costs then you've already admitted it wont do that.
No , it is not. If the hospitals get a profit, you as an owner get a profit.
If the hospital gets no profit you get no profit , but you get healthcare at the lowest price available.

Medicare dictates payments, private insurance negotiates payments. Thus the difference. In any case you are citing payments for medical services, not medical insurance premiums. Surely you know the difference

The post was unrelated to medicare, I was simply giving ideas for the available options. There are many more. For example in Japan the patient covers only 30% of the cost , the government pays the rest. Then you have to do some shopping.

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

Not everything, but some things. The warning label helped convince me to be a non smoker although I smoked on and off during my teen years. When the first labels came out I remember them saying that smoking may be harmful. That was a battle the tobacco companies won, may be harmful instead of is harmful. I think if government can warn us about the harmful effects of certain products, and we become a more healthy society, than goverment has done it's job in promoting the general welfare, which is in the preamble of the constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, Japan. And now that they control healthcare, they can also control you:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.

Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.

But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=0

I don't know if I'd be that thrilled with Mrs. Obama coming out to measure my waist line.

So , the NSA can access you e-mail , credit record , phone calls , web content , contact list ... ahh but they don't mess with my waistline. No sir !!!

It's just one example.

After all, what do we do in life that doesn't involve our health?

What we eat, how much television we watch, what kind of exercise we do, what kind of exercise we are not doing, what we drink, what we smoke if we do smoke, what kind of risky activities we involve ourselves in, how many hours we work and so on and so on.

Once government takes over healthcare, they will be able to dictate to us how we live our lives. Hell, they only partially took over healthcare and Moochelle is running around schools trying to dictate what kids eat. See all those calorie listings next to each item of food at your restaurant? Yep, government forced those places to post calorie counts.

I don't want government telling me what to eat or measuring my waistline. I want government as far out of my life as possible.

Just curious if you would have been against warning labels on cigarettes that started appearing on packs of cigarettes about 1959 or 1960? I was just a middle schooler around that time and I remember the tobacco companies screaming bloody murder about government infringing on their right to provide lung cancer and emphysema to millions.

Let me ask: do you think anybody back then started to smoke and say "this is okay for me?"

If you light something up and breathe it in, then cough like you're dying, chances are you know it's not good for you.

Do you need government to tell you everything in life?

The government helped get people off tobacco after supporting tobacco for years. I recall those tobacco executives lying to Congress and Congress believing them in return for their money.

kewl story, bro