The Alternative Plan That Obama Claims Doesn't Exist

[kiwiman127]

Here's a link to the debate, Does America have the best healthcare in the World. The source is the New England Journal of Medicine.
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error

 

[Redfish]

Here's a link to the debate, Does America have the best healthcare in the World. The source is the New England Journal of Medicine.
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error

from your link:

"The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. "


so they did a study using socialist criteria as the measuring stick, and you are surprised by the results ???

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's a link to the debate, Does America have the best healthcare in the World. The source is the New England Journal of Medicine.
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error

from your link:

"The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. "


so they did a study using socialist criteria as the measuring stick, and you are surprised by the results ???

You are questioning the most read and respected publication the healthcare industry? To political hacks, everything is one-sided that proves them wrong! If anyone is speaking the truth, it's the New England Journal of Medicine.

 

[Redfish]

Here's a link to the debate, Does America have the best healthcare in the World. The source is the New England Journal of Medicine.
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error

from your link:

"The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. "


so they did a study using socialist criteria as the measuring stick, and you are surprised by the results ???

You are questioning the most read and respected publication the healthcare industry? To political hacks, everything is one-sided that proves them wrong! If anyone is speaking the truth, it's the New England Journal of Medicine.

well thats your and their opinion, and as we all know, opinions are like asshole--everyone has one.

the fact remains, they used socialist criteria for their study. So, great, the USA is not on top as a socialist medical system. BFD.

 

[Darkwind]

??

The topic of the thread people is Democrats saying that the GOP did not have an alternative.

It is NOT "Does the alternative meet with our approval."

Clearly, the GOP does have alternatives and other ideas, and the President knew it.

Why would anyone defend another lie from the Presdient?

 

[Redfish]

??

The topic of the thread people is Democrats saying that the GOP did not have an alternative.

It is NOT "Does the alternative meet with our approval."

Clearly, the GOP does have alternatives and other ideas, and the President knew it.

Why would anyone defend another lie from the Presdient?

they defend him because they are unable to admit that he is a fraud and a liar, because to do so would be to admit that they were too stupid to see it before voting for him.

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's a link to the debate, Does America have the best healthcare in the World. The source is the New England Journal of Medicine.
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error

from your link:

"The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. "


so they did a study using socialist criteria as the measuring stick, and you are surprised by the results ???

I bet you stopped reading the article right there because in your mind it's "socialist criteria "!
With the far right wackos, everything is socialism when it uses the word "social". Now in detail explain why that statement translated to socialism. Investment in public health? Protecting households being driven into bankruptcy the cost of healthcare?
Why did you decided not to mention this:
"Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?"
or this:
"The current proposals for U.S. health care reform focus mostly on extending insurance coverage, decreasing the growth of costs through improved efficiency, and expanding prevention and wellness programs. The policy debate has been overwhelmingly centered on the first two of these elements. Achieving universal insurance coverage in the United States would protect households against undue financial burdens at the same time that it was saving an estimated 18,000 to 44,000 lives.4,5 However, narrowing the gap in health outcomes between the United States and other high-income countries or even slowing its descent in the rankings would require much more than insurance expansion. Given the vast number of preventable deaths associated with smoking (465,000 per year), hypertension (395,000), obesity (216,000), physical inactivity (191,000), high blood glucose levels (190,000), high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (113,000), and other dietary risk factors, there are huge opportunities to enact policies that could make a substantial difference in health system performance — and in the population's health.4 More investments that are targeted at promoting proven strategies — including tobacco taxation and smoking-cessation programs, screening and treatment for high cholesterol and blood pressure, banning of trans fat, creating incentives for people to engage in physical activity, and subsidizing the cost of consumption of n−3 fatty acids — could dramatically reduce mortality and enhance the performance of the U.S. health care system"
You appear to being intellectually dishonest with your response. You have to be one of the few who fail to recognize the huge, huge negative effect on the general populace by America's healthcare industry.

 

[Redfish]

Here's a link to the debate, Does America have the best healthcare in the World. The source is the New England Journal of Medicine.
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error

from your link:

"The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. "


so they did a study using socialist criteria as the measuring stick, and you are surprised by the results ???

I bet you stopped reading the article right there because in your mind it's "socialist criteria "!
With the far right wackos, everything is socialism when it uses the word "social". Now in detail explain why that statement translated to socialism. Investment in public health? Protecting households being driven into bankruptcy the cost of healthcare?
Why did you decided not to mention this:
"Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?"
or this:
"The current proposals for U.S. health care reform focus mostly on extending insurance coverage, decreasing the growth of costs through improved efficiency, and expanding prevention and wellness programs. The policy debate has been overwhelmingly centered on the first two of these elements. Achieving universal insurance coverage in the United States would protect households against undue financial burdens at the same time that it was saving an estimated 18,000 to 44,000 lives.4,5 However, narrowing the gap in health outcomes between the United States and other high-income countries or even slowing its descent in the rankings would require much more than insurance expansion. Given the vast number of preventable deaths associated with smoking (465,000 per year), hypertension (395,000), obesity (216,000), physical inactivity (191,000), high blood glucose levels (190,000), high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (113,000), and other dietary risk factors, there are huge opportunities to enact policies that could make a substantial difference in health system performance — and in the population's health.4 More investments that are targeted at promoting proven strategies — including tobacco taxation and smoking-cessation programs, screening and treatment for high cholesterol and blood pressure, banning of trans fat, creating incentives for people to engage in physical activity, and subsidizing the cost of consumption of n−3 fatty acids — could dramatically reduce mortality and enhance the performance of the U.S. health care system"
You appear to being intellectually dishonest with your response. You have to be one of the few who fail to recognize the huge, huge negative effect on the general populace by America's healthcare industry.

the whole study is based on false premises. If you buy into it, fine. Believe whatever you want, I could not care less what you believe.

 

[Seawytch]

[

single payer = free medical care for everyone! right, Joe?

you libs are so fricken stupid that you actually believe that only the evil rich will have to pay for this fiasco. Ask a Canadian or a Brit if thats the way it works for them. Ask a Canadian why they are moving back to private medicine and away from socialized medicine.

like all liberal ideas, socialized single payer medicine can never work.

Canadians aren't moving back to "private medicine", guy.

And the British and Canadians love their single payer systems and are very proud of them.

wrong again, joey boy

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times

Note the key word, option. Where are our options? Over 70% of Americans wanted a Public Option.

I'd be quite happy with a single-payer universal healthcare system that also allowed for people with the means to purchase more comprehensive supplemental plans. Let's do it!

 

[kiwiman127]

??

The topic of the thread people is Democrats saying that the GOP did not have an alternative.

It is NOT "Does the alternative meet with our approval."

Clearly, the GOP does have alternatives and other ideas, and the President knew it.

Why would anyone defend another lie from the Presdient?

they defend him because they are unable to admit that he is a fraud and a liar, because to do so would be to admit that they were too stupid to see it before voting for him.

I was one of the first out of the gate to post my objection to Obamacare, I hated the mandate. You can go back posts of mine prior to the legislation being passed and you'll find my consistent opposition.
BUT, I find the GOP's approach also very, very troubling, it's simple cowering to the healthcare industry, you know the folks who are bring us substandard healthcare with extraordinary costs. Many economist are warning that the cost of healthcare will cause a major economic downturn.
Basing one's opinion on one's ideology, no matter the ideology,limits objective thinking and thus warps the parameters of the subject.

 

[Seawytch]

from your link:

"The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. "


so they did a study using socialist criteria as the measuring stick, and you are surprised by the results ???

I bet you stopped reading the article right there because in your mind it's "socialist criteria "!
With the far right wackos, everything is socialism when it uses the word "social". Now in detail explain why that statement translated to socialism. Investment in public health? Protecting households being driven into bankruptcy the cost of healthcare?
Why did you decided not to mention this:
"Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?"
or this:
"The current proposals for U.S. health care reform focus mostly on extending insurance coverage, decreasing the growth of costs through improved efficiency, and expanding prevention and wellness programs. The policy debate has been overwhelmingly centered on the first two of these elements. Achieving universal insurance coverage in the United States would protect households against undue financial burdens at the same time that it was saving an estimated 18,000 to 44,000 lives.4,5 However, narrowing the gap in health outcomes between the United States and other high-income countries or even slowing its descent in the rankings would require much more than insurance expansion. Given the vast number of preventable deaths associated with smoking (465,000 per year), hypertension (395,000), obesity (216,000), physical inactivity (191,000), high blood glucose levels (190,000), high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (113,000), and other dietary risk factors, there are huge opportunities to enact policies that could make a substantial difference in health system performance — and in the population's health.4 More investments that are targeted at promoting proven strategies — including tobacco taxation and smoking-cessation programs, screening and treatment for high cholesterol and blood pressure, banning of trans fat, creating incentives for people to engage in physical activity, and subsidizing the cost of consumption of n−3 fatty acids — could dramatically reduce mortality and enhance the performance of the U.S. health care system"
You appear to being intellectually dishonest with your response. You have to be one of the few who fail to recognize the huge, huge negative effect on the general populace by America's healthcare industry.

the whole study is based on false premises. If you buy into it, fine. Believe whatever you want, I could not care less what you believe.

The "false" premise being that the health and welfare of a Nation is as, if not more, important than its defense? Um, yeah sure. Another notch in the belt of the "We're not a Christian Nation" folks.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Anything that does not have government control in it is not an alternative for anyone in the far left.

If the government had control those insurance companies that canceled policies would not have been able to do so. The problems with being a parrot is not that you repeat the talking points you received from the propaganda purveyors, it's that you don't think before posting.

 

[driveby]

How very interesting how the liberals are trying to run from Obamacare and somehow blame it on Republicans. So typical. What the democrats bought off their moderates for was not romneycare it could never be romneycare. Yes both romneycare and obamacare have similarities because what they deal with is the same thing.

You are getting the sequence wrong.

Democrats proposed Single Payer. Republicans opposed it.

Finally, Democrats said, "Meh, we'll try this program that Romney and the Heritage foundation proposed as long as we get a few extra things like a Public Option or a MediCare buy-in for those over 55 to cover the gaps."

And Republicans shot those things down.

So what we got was the market-based program Republicans always said they wanted, except the Market is revolting at the thought of having to follow some silly rules like not cutting off granny's cancer therapy.

Why do you idiots keep lying about Single Payer? ... (rhetorical)

Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote, so if Democrats had really proposed single payer, that could have passed it without any Republican support as well.

Single Payer was never even mentioned because if it had been, every fucking democrat in America would be voted out in a landslide and they know it. Nobody in America wants single payer except a small faction of freeloaders and commies like you...........

 

[driveby]

Canadians aren't moving back to "private medicine", guy.

And the British and Canadians love their single payer systems and are very proud of them.

wrong again, joey boy

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times

Note the key word, option. Where are our options? Over 70% of Americans wanted a Public Option.

I'd be quite happy with a single-payer universal healthcare system that also allowed for people with the means to purchase more comprehensive supplemental plans. Let's do it!

So lets see Democrats run on that and watch what happens.........

 

[driveby]

Anything that does not have government control in it is not an alternative for anyone in the far left.

If the government had control those insurance companies that canceled policies would not have been able to do so. The problems with being a parrot is not that you repeat the talking points you received from the propaganda purveyors, it's that you don't think before posting.

Are you totally ignorant or just that much of a liar? The government mandate forced those policies to be cancelled............

 

[NYcarbineer]

The last major action on healthcare by the Republicans was the unfunded Medicare expansion in 2003.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How very interesting how the liberals are trying to run from Obamacare and somehow blame it on Republicans. So typical. What the democrats bought off their moderates for was not romneycare it could never be romneycare. Yes both romneycare and obamacare have similarities because what they deal with is the same thing.

You are getting the sequence wrong.

Democrats proposed Single Payer. Republicans opposed it.

Finally, Democrats said, "Meh, we'll try this program that Romney and the Heritage foundation proposed as long as we get a few extra things like a Public Option or a MediCare buy-in for those over 55 to cover the gaps."

And Republicans shot those things down.

So what we got was the market-based program Republicans always said they wanted, except the Market is revolting at the thought of having to follow some silly rules like not cutting off granny's cancer therapy.

Why do you idiots keep lying about Single Payer? ... (rhetorical)

Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote, so if Democrats had really proposed single payer, that could have passed it without any Republican support as well.

Single Payer was never even mentioned because if it had been, every fucking democrat in America would be voted out in a landslide and they know it. Nobody in America wants single payer except a small faction of freeloaders and commies like you...........

The VHA is single payer. Are you saying no veterans want that? Or just the freeloading veterans?

 

[NYcarbineer]

??

The topic of the thread people is Democrats saying that the GOP did not have an alternative.

It is NOT "Does the alternative meet with our approval."

Clearly, the GOP does have alternatives and other ideas, and the President knew it.

Why would anyone defend another lie from the Presdient?

The Republicans promised repeal and replace. They've passed repeal in the House 40 some times;

how many times have they passed a replacement?

 

[driveby]

You are getting the sequence wrong.

Democrats proposed Single Payer. Republicans opposed it.

Finally, Democrats said, "Meh, we'll try this program that Romney and the Heritage foundation proposed as long as we get a few extra things like a Public Option or a MediCare buy-in for those over 55 to cover the gaps."

And Republicans shot those things down.

So what we got was the market-based program Republicans always said they wanted, except the Market is revolting at the thought of having to follow some silly rules like not cutting off granny's cancer therapy.

Why do you idiots keep lying about Single Payer? ... (rhetorical)

Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote, so if Democrats had really proposed single payer, that could have passed it without any Republican support as well.

Single Payer was never even mentioned because if it had been, every fucking democrat in America would be voted out in a landslide and they know it. Nobody in America wants single payer except a small faction of freeloaders and commies like you...........

The VHA is single payer. Are you saying no veterans want that? Or just the freeloading veterans?

Where did i say that veterans are freeloaders needle dick? Are you sure you want to go down this disingenuous road? I know a lot of vets that don't care for the VA hospitals, so maybe there are better alternatives for the great people that serve this nation? Maybe it's close minded assholes like you that want government control over theirs and everyone elses healthcare.

However, bouncing back from your little deflection, democrats won't even whipser the words single payer where anyone can hear them because they know it's political suicide.....

 

[driveby]

??

The topic of the thread people is Democrats saying that the GOP did not have an alternative.

It is NOT "Does the alternative meet with our approval."

Clearly, the GOP does have alternatives and other ideas, and the President knew it.

Why would anyone defend another lie from the Presdient?

The Republicans promised repeal and replace. They've passed repeal in the House 40 some times;

how many times have they passed a replacement?

How many of their plans are sitting on Harry Reid's desk?