My dads work screwed me in the butt with healthcare

since you have never lived in the US, how would you know yours is better? just sayin

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:U.S. 65%England 46%Canada 42%Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:U.S. 93%England 15%Canada 43%Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:U.S. 90%England 15%Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:U.S. 77%England 40%Canada 43%Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:U.S. 71England 14Canada 18Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":U.S. 12%England 2%Canada 6%
i would say our (The U.S.) care is better based on this
 
a) whered those come from

b) all of those are after diagnosis, etc. if you dont have insurance, you arent going to go to the doctor to be diagnosed in the first place, because you cant afford it.

you can make statistics say whatever you want.
 
My grandpa tore a shitload of ligaments in his shoulder..they won't fix it cause he's 'too old' so now he's got to live in pain for like...10-15 years.
 
a) Investor's Business Daily
b) not true. many of the homeless men i have talked to have had serious diseases (lung cancer, diabetes, heart disease, ect.), none of them paid anything. yes, it comes out of our tax dollars when someone cant pay, but i would take that over the pretty unbelievable amount of money a universal healthcare plan would cost.
The point i made in my first post can be proven by the people that come from canada and other places to the US to get healthcare, and people like the OP who want to move to canada because of the free insurance.
 
i'll come back for b in round 2, but to start. IBD is a business magazine, it says so in it's name. I point this obvious fact out, for one, because you cited the IBD as a source for medical fact. Second, along these similar lines, you've failed to acknowledge the fundamental bias that inevitably puts the IBD in favor of a for profit system and hence taints any claims they make against a non-profit or social medicine system.

Here's an example of IBD's finest editorial works:



On July 31, 2009, an editorial at IBD, criticizing Barack Obama's healthcare plans, claimed that Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

As Hawking was born and has always lived in the United Kingdom, and receives his medical care from the British National Health Service, the editorial was widely criticized for its inaccuracy. The online version of the editorial was later corrected to remove the argument. Hawking responded to the editorial by saying: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS... I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
 
Truth. The only real problem with our (Canadian) system is waiting in emergency rooms. I've had to wait upwards of 7 hours. But I am constantly getting hurt and therefore make frequent emergency room trips, so you get used to it over time.
 
because most americans don't want it, and the demographics of our country are different than europe/canada.
 
I wouldn't say most americans dont want it, id say a large majority of americans dont want it, and if it's enacted, it will benefit millions of people who really aren't americans. It won't be enacted though. Leiberman isn't going to vote for it, dumbass Harry Reid lacks the 60 votes necessary.
 
do you want to take the 'why paying for everyone to have insurance is actually cheaper than waiting for the uninsured to develop chronic conditions and treat them via emergency room'

i'm busy trying to figure out the difference between the most of a group and the majority of a group.

 
Majority KINDA implies over 2/3 of the people. Most just means more than 50% so it could be 50%+1 person.
 
gnartron, if you want to play anecdotal evidence hour. ill see your evidence and raise you.

my grandma's neighbor who is in no way rich. has dual citizenship (Canada and USOFA) and she HATES canada care with a passion. she could get care in Canada, but chooses to get her medical care in the US. she is old, does not want to wait, and likes the care she gets here. BTW we here in MN have arguably one of THE BEST hospitals in the world.

this concludes anecdotal evidence hour. haha
 
To people that don't give a shit it is generally thought of as 2/3.

Absolute Majority: 50% + 1 person

Super Majority: 3/5 of 2/3 type majority.

Super Majority for the most part is way most people think of it.
 
I have to admit i had to do some learning before making this post.

to me, and in the British-English language

the majority is the group with the most amount of members compared to the other groups within a whole (in American-English we call this a plurality)

if of 100 people,

30 want a.

15 want b.

15 want c.

and 40 want d.

I would say the d's are the majority.

 
haha just saw that pretty much every pollster shows a pretty solid opposition to the government plan. Also, the government's own cost analysis showed that the plan would be more expensive than if we don't act at all.

Also, ACORN is getting its funding back. what a fucking travesty.
 
this may be personal opinion, but i've made the habit of only forming correct opinions so you can treat this as fact

1. There are high numbers of Americans that have been trained in and are proud to resort to emotive reasoning whom also enjoy the conservative platform which, via, outlets such as fox 'news' is provided to please the emotive pallet. -- this explains why so many Americans think they are against a government plan (the current plan that has been made as an attempt to compromise on all fronts, understandably lacks the backing of the people first because of the aforementioned population that enjoys being afraid of change for the sake of being afraid, and the logically rational population that believes the current proposition to be too much a compromise...if we had a robust single payer plan that made health care non-profit, it would gain the full support of anyone who rationally considers it's benefits.)

2. real life has shown that what we do now is the least cost efficient means of delivering health care in comparison with all other industrialized nations, if a government analysis shows the plan to be more expensive than what we have now, it is because the public option is too weak, and it contains too much of what we already have. there is no more expensive system than what we have right now

3. Acorn is also getting your lunch money, because they're a bunch of bullies, and you'll just have to suck it up and be a big boy now.

 
first of all, ACORN is getting its money back because some idiot judge decided it was unconstitutional to remove it in the first place, which constitutional experts are saying is complete BULLSHIT!

Second of all, the government's own study has shown that not doing anything will be less expensive than the current harry reid bill.
 
don't pretend like the reid bill is an equivalent to the rest of the modern world's health care systems. i don't want a shitty compromise of extended medicare that we're proposing now, i want full coverage for every person.

The rest of the world shows how it can be done right. it doesnt surprise me that half-assing it in the right direction while holding on to the bad old ways is a worse idea. however it doesn't mean what we have now is good, and should be left as is.

 
it might be force fed propaganda from GB, Hannity, and Fox. Or there are actually some Americans that have a right :) view of the legitimate functions of government.

taking my money to pay for someone elses healthcare not being one of them. Actually my faith in the rational of the American people is waning. We are fast becoming a nation of people looking for a free lunch. A nation that would happily take what you have and give it to me, just so long as a law sanctions it. A nation of looters and moochers. Both individuals, and business.

governments should be in the practice of upholding rights. not destroying them. Personally i see the seizure of MY PROPERTY to pay for some deadbeats (or even if he is not a deadbeat:) healthcare as just that, the destruction of my right to the property i have created. I do not have the right to your property, you dont have the right to my property. keep in mind though, the right to property is the right to an action, it is not a right to an object. it is not a right to something, it is the right to earn/gain something, and then keep, dispose, use the material values my work has produced.

does my right take away from your rights? if it does, its not a right. If my rights come at the expense of your rights, what does that make you? a slave?

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” Who is John Galt?

Sorry, i think my post just went over a great deal of the American public's head. So in that case you might be right, they dont know what they are supporting. However, would their mind be changed if they were to be educated in what rights, and things of that nature are? (my view, we dont need the liberals view, thats what public ed and higher ed are for ZING! :) I honestly dont know.

/fragment/

it never stops. lol.

well i have 2 finals tomorrow. happy reading / reflecting!
 
i do need you to clarify again how there is a difference between the seizure of your property for social services such as law enforcement, public education, fire fighting, and the like are also not on your list of things that America can do without

or are they?

 
ok im killing 10min before a final starts. so this one wont be a page long, or nearly as indpeth as the subject requires.

i made the assumption/assertion, that i have a right to the property i have created. who are the likely offenders of denying me right to my property? criminals and the government. we have the government to protect our rights to life, and property. (from criminals)

the police protect you / punish me if i were to club you over the head and steal your car. I was destroying your right to your own life, and the property you have accumulated.

firefighting, i would say thats comparing apples and firetrucks. :) local firedepartments are on a whole nother level than a national healthcare bill. In my home town we pay a user fee (property taxes) that in part pays for a volunteer fire-department.

public education is something i could argue either way, but if you want to debate public ed start a thread.

I understand taht i must give up some of what is mine to live in a functioning society. Healthcare for all does not make my list. I understand it does make your list. thats fine.
 
It's not that it's just on my personal list, it is a principle already accepted within the USA, when an uninsured person goes to the ER, they are treated regardless of their ability to pay.

With the fundamental principle of health care as a right in this country already established, your argument becomes a non-starter.

hope ya did well in your final though
 
maybe it comes down to whether or not you see less-fortunate people as being worth something, somebody you wouldn't mind spending a few bucks on every once in a while, if it meant they could get proper treatment at a hospital. i suppose sharing is a burden for certain people and a virtue for others. generally the people less fortunate than myself are only that way because they haven't been given the same opportunities i have in life, i know that. although i don't hold much value for human life in the first place, i still know i'm part of the human community and therefore it makes me feel good to know i've contributed a little to some of the people around me. whether or not they really deserve my help isn't something i care about because it's not as if my life is going to get any worse from the betterment of theirs.
 
The things is, you don't need to be a bleeding heart, compassionate soul in order to support a change towards a socialized medical system.

our status-quo already costs more and gives us less than any other system out there. Even if you don't want to lend a helping hand, at least you can support the socialized medicine on the grounds that if we're going to be helping people if we change or if we stay the same, we might as well do so in the most cost effective way.
 
well yeah, nobody who knows me would EVER call me one of those haha. it's just a better system.
 
if you broke socialized medicine down to it's core components;

lower costs, higher quality care, less denial of coverage, more freedom in doctor choice

you do have popular support, these are all things Americans want. When you attach these components to a word like 'socialized medicine' you cast a net that catches people who oppose the word and not what it is.

i've mentioned this before, there is a significant population of individuals who prefer to react and think in emotive modes, and the primary platform that caters to this pallet is the conservative base. The supposed lack of popular support is a fabricated truth based on deception and falsehoods about socialized care, that capitalizes on peoples fear of words as opposed to people who have a legitimate concerns.

Of those who already have socialized medicine in this country: veterans and seniors, there IS an outstanding majority of support for the systems they use.

You'll have to trust me on this as my source was provided through an academic journal that i no longer have access to but, i promise I read the data accurately and recall it accurately: there have been reports comparing the costs and quality of care between those with private insurance, medicare, and uninsured; the group that was found to have the most stable costs, and highest quality of care was medicare.

 
Ok so now it's getting extended through February and once they drop it they will pay $400 a month for anybody with proof of insurance. Now this sounds pretty generous seeing as though they were going to drop it completely, but my dad has diabetes and kidney problems so we probably won't get it. Could we sue for discrimination or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top