Reply With Quote
Why? I don't have an opinion at this time. I know yours it automatically against anything Obama does, but I'm simply not as mindless as you.
I could refute all of those questions....if I had time.
Why? I don't have an opinion at this time. I know yours it automatically against anything Obama does, but I'm simply not as mindless as you.
People need to stop throwing around the word refute if they don't know how to use it. You don't refute questions!
The United States has highest overall cancer survival rate among world nations. Canada and Japan also do very well, with the rest of Europe behind them.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491
It should not be surprising that the U.S./Canada/Japan have the highest rates, as they are affluent nations that work on the bleeding edge of heart and cancer research.
Obviously the type of health care system is no factor or the U.S. wouldn't be ranked at the top alongside nations with socialized health care.
This leads me to believe that the move to involve the government in health care is just that, a power grab by our leaders. No one up top really cares about raising the life expectancy of homeless bums and poor people. Everyone is just after the poor vote.
Government marches towards a tyranny of the majority.
Last edited by sabar; 07-29-2009 at 04:13 AM.
I'm going to be anal on this, and argue that when the question is argumentative, you absolutely can refute the argument presented in said question.
Here's another source I found: LINK
Canada and the US are basically almost equal as far as cancer is concerned. Which furthers your point that healthcare systems actually don't really enter the equation.
Anyone else see Jon Stewart last night? The conservative editor from the Weekly Standard was on and he got totally tongue-tied. He said -- repeatedly -- that veterans deserve better medical care than other citizens, and that their (government subsidized) medical care is the best in the country. Then he went on to make the usual conservative claim that the government can't provide decent health care.
It was so classic. Conservatives are so rigid in their thinking they can only repeat certain tag lines, even when those tag lines contradict one another.
As for complete refutation of these points, let me point people again to this link which was posted earlier: http://comments.realclearpolitics.co.../1/396232.html
All your questions about why the article in the OP is so asinine will be answered, if your minds are open enough to listen.
I believe that to be fact, but did you link the right page? I read:Referring to the beast survival rates, and not breaking it down. I didn't see the article as putting them in order of merit.North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern Europe
To be fair, I also looked for the data and didn't find it. I do believe we have the best system, especially since our citizens don't have a waiting line to die in. Perhaps we have fewer who are diagnosed, and get treated too lat, but what's awful is to be diagnosed, and have to wait, and get worse to the point treatment is not effective!
What a way to go... Knowing and having no control...
OK, so the survival rate is about 6% better in the USA than in Canada.
That gives women a 5.2% better survival rates in the USA, and men 7.6%.wiki: All cancers, mortality rate
women:
42.8% Canada
39.8% USA
men:
47.2% Canada
43.2% USA
Please note that the earlier studies showed the USA and Canada closer to equal, but the later ones show a clear lead in the USA or survival rates.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-29-2009 at 10:46 AM.
ElNoni, the wiki link also says this, which is very important to me:How long are the waiting lines in Canada?This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service for individuals receiving treatment, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada.
Obviously not long enough considering Canadians are pretty happy with their healthcare system
Now, it's not a perfect system but (from the study):
More than 54 per cent of those surveyed required ongoing medical care within the past year. Of those, only 13 per cent experienced difficulties getting an appointment or contacting a doctor. Most were able to see a doctor within seven days.
Let's not pretend that the US system is not already rationed.
If it's important, I can walk in and see my doctor today. No appointment wait. May have to wait a few hours. I did that once. I called and asked if I could be seen, they told me to come in and expect to wait. My total visit was about an hour. They gave me a room, and came in and out between patients.
13% having difficulty with appointments? That's unheard of with private coverage. Now when you quote "ongoing medical care" I'll bet most those are simple blood tests for things like diabetes, hypothyroidism, etc. What about real issues that are no so common?
Now I can understand the desire to have better access for those not covered by insurance, or pay out of pocket, but any plan that does so and reduced my level of care is flat out wrong.
Lowest common denominator thinking is wrong. I do not want my quality of health care to be reduced because someone wants to suck on the government teat.
It is heard of.13% having difficulty with appointments? That's unheard of with private coverage.
I'm glad you have good healtcare coverage. Unfortunately, you're not an average american.
Not unheard of at all. Maybe you simply don't want to hear.
We know it's all about you.
I fail to see how your quality of care would vary, considering you can keep on purchasing from your same private insurer.
Your usually a straight shooter; parsing words doesn't suit you.
You made sure and didn't say, "keep your same plan"; because you realize plans are going to be forced to change; with sweeping legislation as proposed NOONE will keep the same coverage they have - despite being happy with it.
Your utilitarian arguments get to the heart of the disagreement here. Cobra likes what he has; wants to keep it; you see that inconveniencing him for the "greater good" is worthwhile.
Individual vs. Public.
He reads "Each person is endowed....inalienable rights in bold"
while your read "the general welfare" in bold.
...and the country seems very closely divided on this point - with a elative handful of swing voters who hold sway.
Even though, right now, Congress heavily leans Democrat; the presidential election gave only a 6 - 7% indicator of the country's sentiments last November; and no doubt that gap is even closer now. SO, even though the Democrats hold mighty sway, and can pass anything they want - the "Will" of the people probably is not a radical as what is being proposed.
The Senate compromise plan is probably the best compromise of what actual Americans, and not necessarily the actual congress as currently constructed, would come up with.
If we end up with something like that, and Obama signs it; I will readily admit that THAT was change; and it was different. Compromise, when, ultimately, you don't have to, would be change; and welcome change.
If the Dems, however, because of the numbers they have, force through something that a great many Americans don't wan't, simply because they currently have the numbers to do; well, that will be status-quo; and we'll probably end up with a backlash in 18 months that shifts power inordinately the other way; and on, and on.....
Have a relavant study:I have studied hard for years to get where I am at. It is flat out wrong to socialize something that is part of the formula for how I decided who to apply for work with. I earned the privilege of the things I have. To socialize medicine takes rights away from me, and others who have earned it.The 2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times was conducted to determine the average time new patients must wait before they can see a physician in a variety of large metropolitan markets. The survey also examines the percentage of physicians willing or able to schedule Medicaid patients.
I'd say it's all about you. Wanting to take something away from me that you didn't earn. The quality of my health care will suffer if we socialize medicine. That's just not right. You want to make us all the same. We are not all the same. Take away all the things that someone works hard for by giving those who don't work for it the same thing, and you destroy the incentives that made this nation great.
That's not necessarily true. In fact, it's very unlikely. If you look at the proposed plan, it makes it hard to keep private health care. It's a path to erode the free market system and put all health care decisions in the hands of the DC Elite.
What's irrelevant about the study? That it ALSO tracks who accepts medicaid doesn't make it irrelevant. If you have any better study supporting your zero day contention, by all means I'd love to see it.
What rights to do you lose? I assume those are cons utional rights you're talking about?
How so? You claim it but you don't back it up. Let's hear it.
Myth. Can you prove otherwise?
I'm not going to look. My point about relevancy is that it looked at first time patients. Established patience don't have a hard time making appointments in most cases.
Look, we discussed the 13% in Canada waiting a week or more for an appointment. I said that's unheard of here, referring to established patient/provider. You then bring up a FIRST TIME reference.
It had absolutely no relevance to the flow of the debate. I am an established patient. Not a first time. The 13% in Canada also dod not say FIRST TIME.
You are comparing Apples with Oranges.
Probably the right of Freedom of Association. The right to benefit from the fruits of my labor. I could come up with more I bet if I looked.
It changes the compe ive angles of the equation. I've heard some in depth discussion on the subject, and believe it. I'm not going to look for it now. You should know, businesses cannot compete with government. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be running a business.
I'll bet I could, but I have better things to do.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-30-2009 at 11:27 AM.
Is There a ‘Right’ to Health Care?
In Britain, its recognition has led to substandard care.
If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.
People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.
Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to each and every American.
Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C., or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?
If, on the other hand, the right to health care did not exist in those benighted days, how did it come into existence, and how did we come to recognize it once it did?
When the supposed right to health care is widely recognized, as in the United Kingdom, it tends to reduce moral imagination. Whenever I deny the existence of a right to health care to a Briton who asserts it, he replies, “So you think it is all right for people to be left to die in the street?”
When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.
Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things.
The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.
Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.
The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary ins utional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given.
Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. (Not coincidentally, British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries, where patients need to make at least some payment for their care.)
In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.
There is no right to health care—any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month.
So they prefer the Greek national health care system to the British national heath care system.Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.
Ok.
There are many people who have worked hard and did the right things yet still suffer from bad luck. I guess you'll just say those are the breaks.. I got mine! Woohoo!
Of course you won't.
How does public healthcare denies your Freedom of Association right?
And please, if you have more, bring them up... this is hilarious.
You always hear all these things, and believe them too. I have no doubt you you do. Shame you can't really prove any of them.
Maybe later?
Right, like Fedex, UPS or private schools... I bet they're about to bankrupt... [/sarcasm]
Sure you do...
But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.
Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world.
So it's better in Greece because universal health care has been available for a shorter time?
Hilarious.
By your logic, the US will have undoubtedly the best government health care in the world if it comes to pass.
Why should I bother when you cannot keep things relevant? I have learned over time what sources to trust and not trust. Much of what I hear is in the radio. Yes, I can find the information when I need to. It doesn't matter, no matter how many facts I find, you will keep a closed mind.Of course you won't.
His logic is that eventually it will suck hard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
