Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58

Thread: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

  1. #41
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It's completely in context.

    If you read the article of even the blurb I posted you'll see that the hospital was closed because of cost cutting.

    Had this been a private hospital that wouldn't be necessarily true.
    If it had been a private hospital (which there are in France...) then it would have close years ago, if ever opened. We are talking about a rural area of France for god sake. This is like saying, the European or US system is bad because it took 2 min longer for an ambulance to arrive at a broken leg than it does elsewhere... pathetic measurement of how good or bad a system is.

    The fact is, it is not cost effective in a public or private system to have a "birthing center" for under 300 births a year in an area, when there is close by (and yes 30 miles is close) a hospital that can take the slack up. It would be a waste of money and I know you are all into cost cutting and stopping waste right?

    Plus the baby was 1 month early!!!!!

    UHC and government health care systems hide their administrative costs.
    So they are not cheaper in that respect although it is harder to quantify.
    Yea says right wing think tanks with zero proof. Seriously I have heard this bs excuse for years and have yet seen any evidence of it at all. One would think that the right wingers would promote it far more than they do, if they actually had evidence to prove it... considering that administrative costs for private insurers is huge when compared to UHC.

    I'm glad it costs a lot considering we are going to need all that extra capacity to handle the retiring baby boomers. I hope any government program fails and fails hard because in about 10 years or so, we are going to have all the medical capacity we need and you guys are going to be struggling handling your aging populations.
    Well you could stop giving healthy livers to 70 year old drunks for one.

    And you are living in a fantasy world. For one you have less medical capacity per captia than we do, you have less beds, less doctors. You do not cover all your population and your population stays away from healthcare because they cant afford it. We on the other hand pay far less per capita, have more beds, same amount of nurses, more doctors, and most likely more hospitals too and the only reason to stay away from getting treatment is fear of said treatment, ignorance but never because it will put you and your children in debt for life.

    Costs are rising because an increase in demand exists and those profits are turned into building extra facilities and hiring more doctors.
    BS. There is zero evidence of this. Yes demand is increasing, but the supposed "profits" of US HMOs and hospitals is not being put into new hospitals, more beds or facilities. The number of Emergency rooms in the US has been falling for decades.

    Crisis Seen in Nation's ER Care - washingtonpost.com

    Interesting article that totally blows your world view out of the water..
    From 1993 to 2003, the U.S. population grew by 12 percent but emergency room visits grew by 27 percent, from 90 million to 114 million. In that same period, however, 425 emergency departments closed, along with about 700 hospitals and nearly 200,000 beds.
    So, those profits are going into investing in facilities?... I see.. which are those exactly?.. spas? breast implant clinics?

    You also do not have more doctors and nurses per captia than a country spending far less. You do not have more hospital beds than a country spending less.. in fact you have far less hospital beds.

    According to WHO, the US has 32 beds for every 10000 people. Do you think places like Spain, France, Germany and the UK have more or less.. Well France and Germany have double the amount of beds per 10000 and Spain and the UK also have more but not double the amount.

    If we look at nurses it is more even. The UK has far more nurses than the US, where as France, Germany and Spain have a bit less. But considering you spend almost double the amount per captia then one would expect far more nurses no?

    If we look at doctors.. then your whole world view falls apart. The US has 26 doctors per 10000 people. France, Germany and Spain have 33 to 34 doctors per 10000 people.. only the UK has less than the US. Funny, if the right wing mantra of "doctors are coming to the US" should be true, then why do you have far less doctors than we do?

    Statistics and facts are a bitch.

    Cheaper is not better.
    Expensive is not better either especially when it is rationed by race and economic standing like it is in the US. Just take out your black population like the right always loves to do and wupti.. your world health ranking goes up!.. yea Black Americans are not real Americans after all right.. they just Muslim sleeper cells waiting to take over the US government... right?

    I have a far higher chance of surviving cancer in the U.S. than anywhere in Europe.
    So? I do not deny it, however it has to be taken in context.

    Things like detection rates, number of cancer suffers, number of cancer suffers that get treatment and so on. That number is only for people who actually get treatment.. what about those not getting treatment or are not detected because they are too afraid of the medical bill? And to be frank, if you look at the raw numbers then the differences are not that great, but yes an American who has been diagnosed with cancer (depending on the type btw) has a greater chance of survival...So you beat the world on one illness.. congrats..

    But we can trade statistics if you want.

    I have a much better chance of avoiding tuberculoses here than in the US. Considering that this was suppose to have been eradicated from the west decades ago.. then.. wtf.

    Women in the US have a far higher chance of dieing at birth.

    Infant mortality is far higher in the US (can already see the response to this one).

    We can go on and on with these tit-for-tat statistical jabs if you want, but it does not change the fact that the US system does not cover everyone, and is far far more expensive than anything in Europe who do cover everyone.
    PeteEU

  2. #42
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke[MaxX] View Post
    You know, the prevention of being obese is still prevention right?
    We already have obesity prevention today. Everyone already knows the terrible effects of being obese. The only way legislation is going to change that is through social engineering. Is that really want you want in a health care bill?

    What's your point? If you live in that country, you live by their standards not ours. When people say you have to measure healthcare standards (or whatever was talked about on this thread) in only plain dollars, you're ignoring the fact that a dollar here is different than a dollar in a poorer country.
    If you make $7/hour in some poor nation, you'll be considered rich in that country. Sure. However, you're still not going to be able to afford the treatment that most Americans are used to.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  3. #43
    Advisor Don't Tase Me Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-22-09 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    446

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie, proportionally to their income, and patients get treatment even if they can't pay for it. France spends 11% of national output on health services, compared with 17% in the U.S., and routinely outranks the U.S. in infant mortality and some other health measures.
    France outranks the U.S. in infant mortality? Not exactly.

    First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

    Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

    Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

  4. #44
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Seen
    11-30-09 @ 04:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    446

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    We already have obesity prevention today. Everyone already knows the terrible effects of being obese. The only way legislation is going to change that is through social engineering. Is that really want you want in a health care bill?
    Oh really? Everyone already knows the terrible effects of being obese? I don't know where you live, but here in Arkansas not everybody knows how bad being obese is.

    If you make $7/hour in some poor nation, you'll be considered rich in that country. Sure. However, you're still not going to be able to afford the treatment that most Americans are used to.
    Says you. If you're in a poor country, you won't get the same treatment as we get here because you live in a poor country. It has nothing to do with affordability. There are a lot of things that equalize prices among different countries. We have a privatized health care system where we have to pay insurance + doctors charge a high price + doctors keep getting sued which drive up prices + pharmaceutical companies charge high dollar for their drugs. On the other hand, you may have universalized health care in other places or an emphasis on cheaper/generic drugs, or drug subsidies, etc.

    All I'm saying is that it's never a clear 1:1 comparison in terms of dollars. Even comparing cost of living in AR compared to CA or FL is a joke.

  5. #45
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke[MaxX] View Post
    Oh really? Everyone already knows the terrible effects of being obese? I don't know where you live, but here in Arkansas not everybody knows how bad being obese is.
    Just because people choose to be obese doesn't mean that they don't know about the negative consequences.

    Says you. If you're in a poor country, you won't get the same treatment as we get here because you live in a poor country. It has nothing to do with affordability. There are a lot of things that equalize prices among different countries. We have a privatized health care system where we have to pay insurance + doctors charge a high price + doctors keep getting sued which drive up prices + pharmaceutical companies charge high dollar for their drugs. On the other hand, you may have universalized health care in other places or an emphasis on cheaper/generic drugs, or drug subsidies, etc.

    All I'm saying is that it's never a clear 1:1 comparison in terms of dollars. Even comparing cost of living in AR compared to CA or FL is a joke.
    Actually, the land is more desirable over here so the cost of living can be compared. That and taxes are the only main differences. You're not proving to me why you can't compare $ to $.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  6. #46
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    If it had been a private hospital (which there are in France...) then it would have close years ago, if ever opened. We are talking about a rural area of France for god sake. This is like saying, the European or US system is bad because it took 2 min longer for an ambulance to arrive at a broken leg than it does elsewhere... pathetic measurement of how good or bad a system is.

    The fact is, it is not cost effective in a public or private system to have a "birthing center" for under 300 births a year in an area, when there is close by (and yes 30 miles is close) a hospital that can take the slack up. It would be a waste of money and I know you are all into cost cutting and stopping waste right?

    Plus the baby was 1 month early!!!!!
    I didn't write the story but I always think it proper to put the first paragraph in the story as my beginning quote.



    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Yea says right wing think tanks with zero proof. Seriously I have heard this bs excuse for years and have yet seen any evidence of it at all. One would think that the right wingers would promote it far more than they do, if they actually had evidence to prove it... considering that administrative costs for private insurers is huge when compared to UHC.
    Your not willing to understand some things.
    Like additional personnel to collect the extra taxes and go over the extra tax forms. That is a small example.

    You also ignore that health insurance companies have administrators looking for the best possible cost effective care for patients.
    I know you'll call it a lie though.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Well you could stop giving healthy livers to 70 year old drunks for one.

    And you are living in a fantasy world. For one you have less medical capacity per captia than we do, you have less beds, less doctors. You do not cover all your population and your population stays away from healthcare because they cant afford it. We on the other hand pay far less per capita, have more beds, same amount of nurses, more doctors, and most likely more hospitals too and the only reason to stay away from getting treatment is fear of said treatment, ignorance but never because it will put you and your children in debt for life.
    You have of all this stuff yet you still have to wait longer than any American does to see a doctor or to get admitted, why is that?

    Could it be that we use our less doctors more efficiently?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    BS. There is zero evidence of this. Yes demand is increasing, but the supposed "profits" of US HMOs and hospitals is not being put into new hospitals, more beds or facilities. The number of Emergency rooms in the US has been falling for decades.

    Crisis Seen in Nation's ER Care - washingtonpost.com

    Interesting article that totally blows your world view out of the water..
    You were saying?

    "HOSPITALS NATIONWIDE have initiated an array of major construction projects in the past few years. Although rigorous tracking does not take place, data from Modern Healthcare’s annual surveys of health care architects and builders indicate the growing scale of construction activity. The trade magazine reported that costs for completed acute care hospital construction rose from $9.2 billion in 2000 to $13.0 billion in 2004, and costs for construction that broke ground or was in the design phase increased from $30.8 billion in 2000 to $54.0 billion in 2004."

    "The increased pace of construction activity is driven by several factors, including recent improvements in hospital payment and profitability, the availability of low-cost capital, the changing competitive environment, and the aging of hospital facilities nationwide. Limited information exists, however, on what types of hospital capacity are affected, to what extent capacity is being added rather than being replaced or restructured, which market and institutional factors are affecting these activities, and what the likely impacts of the increased spurt of construction will be on health care markets. We address these issues using data from Round Five of the Community Tracking Study (CTS), which was conducted in 2005."

    Construction Activity In U.S. Hospitals -- Bazzoli et al. 25 (3): 783 -- Health Affairs

    Those crazy right wingers at Conway Medical Center, it's all fake!!!11

    "CONWAY | As Angie Porter walks across the shiny floors of the third floor critical care unit at Conway Medical Center, her face lights up as she explains the innovative changes in store for patients in the new addition."

    "Today, Conway officials will open their latest expansion _ a three-story, 71,600-square-foot patient bed tower addition, which will house 64 patient rooms, giving the hospital a 210-bed capacity."

    "Conway's expansion is among several ongoing projects at area hospitals in Brunswick County, N.C., and Georgetown and Horry counties. They include the emergency room and intensive care unit renovations at Loris Community Hospital and Brunswick Community Hospital's new 250,000-square-foot facility expected to open in 2011. The area's increasing population coupled with advances in health care have hospital officials renovating their current spaces and planning additions to expand departments and services."

    Hospital expansion embraces innovation - Local - The Sun News

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So, those profits are going into investing in facilities?... I see.. which are those exactly?.. spas? breast implant clinics?
    No, hospitals and urgent care centers which are extensions of some hospitals.
    Urgent care centers stay open later than regular doctors offices and they help stem the demand on a regular hospital's ER.

    Read about them here.
    Immediate Care: Urgent care centers see continued growth | Story | Idaho Health 2007

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    You also do not have more doctors and nurses per captia than a country spending far less. You do not have more hospital beds than a country spending less.. in fact you have far less hospital beds.

    According to WHO, the US has 32 beds for every 10000 people. Do you think places like Spain, France, Germany and the UK have more or less.. Well France and Germany have double the amount of beds per 10000 and Spain and the UK also have more but not double the amount.

    If we look at nurses it is more even. The UK has far more nurses than the US, where as France, Germany and Spain have a bit less. But considering you spend almost double the amount per captia then one would expect far more nurses no?
    We don't need as much as you guys have, just a little more.

    It seems though that we are able to use ours very efficiently so much that I don't have to wait, which is incredibly important with medical care.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    If we look at doctors.. then your whole world view falls apart. The US has 26 doctors per 10000 people. France, Germany and Spain have 33 to 34 doctors per 10000 people.. only the UK has less than the US. Funny, if the right wing mantra of "doctors are coming to the US" should be true, then why do you have far less doctors than we do?

    Statistics and facts are a bitch.
    It is, isn't it.

    I mean you guys have all these extra beds and staff yet your systems are always at near full capacity, why is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Expensive is not better either especially when it is rationed by race and economic standing like it is in the US. Just take out your black population like the right always loves to do and wupti.. your world health ranking goes up!.. yea Black Americans are not real Americans after all right.. they just Muslim sleeper cells waiting to take over the US government... right?
    Ok, now your really going off into outer space.

    What does race have to do with any of this?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So? I do not deny it, however it has to be taken in context.

    Things like detection rates, number of cancer suffers, number of cancer suffers that get treatment and so on. That number is only for people who actually get treatment.. what about those not getting treatment or are not detected because they are too afraid of the medical bill? And to be frank, if you look at the raw numbers then the differences are not that great, but yes an American who has been diagnosed with cancer (depending on the type btw) has a greater chance of survival...So you beat the world on one illness.. congrats..

    But we can trade statistics if you want.
    It seems that they are living longer after cancer, I mean they can get medical care even though they don't have money or insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    I have a much better chance of avoiding tuberculoses here than in the US. Considering that this was suppose to have been eradicated from the west decades ago.. then.. wtf.
    If I told you why, you'd call me a racist.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Women in the US have a far higher chance of dieing at birth.

    Infant mortality is far higher in the US (can already see the response to this one).

    We can go on and on with these tit-for-tat statistical jabs if you want, but it does not change the fact that the US system does not cover everyone, and is far far more expensive than anything in Europe who do cover everyone.
    It should be more expensive as there is more demand for it.
    At least everyone here can see a doctor or specialist with in the same week if needs be.

    All of Europe is suffering from waiting lists.
    That doesn't help when you have heart problems, cancer, and other ailments that require immediate attention.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #47
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I didn't write the story but I always think it proper to put the first paragraph in the story as my beginning quote.
    So you are admitting that the article is idiotic by blaming your way of linking things?

    Your not willing to understand some things.
    Like additional personnel to collect the extra taxes and go over the extra tax forms. That is a small example.
    What planet are you on? You are seriously using as an excuse that, the state has to hire more tax collectors to get money for UHC run by the government and that should be count into the administrative costs? You do know that most tax systems over here are totally electronic and the "tax collector" went out long ago?

    And if we are going down that road, then why not count the bankers, since the money has to be somewhere, or the cleaners that sweep the street outside the insurance building and tax office, and so on.. sorry your argument is beyond lame.

    You also ignore that health insurance companies have administrators looking for the best possible cost effective care for patients.
    I know you'll call it a lie though.
    Of course I will lol. Do you blame me considering the horror stories about insurance companies coming out of the US? People running out of coverage mid treatment or people denied treatment because the policy does not cover it when it should have? or insurance companies dumping people or refusing coverage?

    You have of all this stuff yet you still have to wait longer than any American does to see a doctor or to get admitted, why is that?
    We do? Says who? Got any evidence of this? I can see my doctor any time I want.

    Could it be that we use our less doctors more efficiently?
    Err are you seriously using that excuse? How can you use less doctors more efficiently and yet have a system that is far far more expensive than other systems that have more doctors? You do know that we are talking about money costs right and that is a very important part of efficiency..?

    Congrats you found a bit of new building, so you only have to find what.. 798 more to make up for the facilities closed according to my article? Plus your first article is from 2006 and admits "we build this **** cause we got cheap credit"..

    No, hospitals and urgent care centers which are extensions of some hospitals.
    Urgent care centers stay open later than regular doctors offices and they help stem the demand on a regular hospital's ER.

    Read about them here.
    Immediate Care: Urgent care centers see continued growth | Story | Idaho Health 2007
    so 797 to go.. got anymore? I am being "large here" since extending existing hospitals is a iffy question if that is "new hospital" or not.

    We don't need as much as you guys have, just a little more.

    It seems though that we are able to use ours very efficiently so much that I don't have to wait, which is incredibly important with medical care.
    Again with the "wait" comment.. again provide evidence of that. And you are still using the excuse of being more efficient.. err yea for a bill that is way higher than it is over here.. I would not call that efficient.. at all.

    That is like saying that paying 1 million for a car is more efficient than buying a normal car for 30k .. more efficient in going from home to work and back.. yea right..

    It is, isn't it.

    I mean you guys have all these extra beds and staff yet your systems are always at near full capacity, why is that?
    We are, says who? Again you are coming with a claim without backing it up. Plus it is easy to not fill your hospital beds up when people are turned away because of no insurance or fear getting treated due to the bill thrown in their face after the fact...

    It is much like your unemployment rate.. it is easy to lower it if you exclude a bunch of people after X months on the list because their unemployment insurance has run out..

    Ok, now your really going off into outer space.

    What does race have to do with any of this?
    Has everything to do with it. The original articles uses race in its supposed "debunking" of the WHO, so why cant I? And considering that race is used by the right to excuse crappy healthcare statistics, then ... I remember debating on these boards infant mortality rates and the excuse from some of the usual suspects, cause the black babies die more than white babies.. wtf.

    It seems that they are living longer after cancer, I mean they can get medical care even though they don't have money or insurance.
    No, those getting treatment live longer, and those that can get treatment are those with money or/and insurance. Those that dont get treatment due lack of money or insurance are not part of the statistic in the US.

    If I told you why, you'd call me a racist.
    Oh I would, depends on you answer, but considering the usual answers from the American right on "bad" health statistics, then I already know what you are thinking.

    It should be more expensive as there is more demand for it.
    At least everyone here can see a doctor or specialist with in the same week if needs be.
    So can we here.

    All of Europe is suffering from waiting lists.
    That doesn't help when you have heart problems, cancer, and other ailments that require immediate attention.
    Again provide evidence of this. Are you seriously saying there are no waiting lists in the US? I dont deny there is in Europe, for things like hip replacements and knee replacements.. in the public system.. can always go to the private hospital and pay your way out if you want... but for things that require immediate attention? provide evidence of this. I have evidence of the opposite.. personal evidence.. so your evidence better be good.

    Or why dont you just admit you lost the debate and move on?
    Last edited by PeteEU; 08-09-09 at 05:58 AM.
    PeteEU

  8. #48
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So you are admitting that the article is idiotic by blaming your way of linking things?
    The article is not idiotic, unless your suggesting that the pertinent information inside the rest of it is not relevant.

    If you noticed right under the three exerts I used, I encouraged everyone to read the whole article.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    What planet are you on? You are seriously using as an excuse that, the state has to hire more tax collectors to get money for UHC run by the government and that should be count into the administrative costs? You do know that most tax systems over here are totally electronic and the "tax collector" went out long ago?

    And if we are going down that road, then why not count the bankers, since the money has to be somewhere, or the cleaners that sweep the street outside the insurance building and tax office, and so on.. sorry your argument is beyond lame.
    Sigh, do you know that many of these systems operate outside of just the one department.
    The department of health in X country is not the sole decider of what goes on with the policies formed there. It does not handle all of the things that happen with in said system.

    Another example is that the French government pays for doctors education, that should be included in the costs of the French health care statistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Of course I will lol. Do you blame me considering the horror stories about insurance companies coming out of the US? People running out of coverage mid treatment or people denied treatment because the policy does not cover it when it should have? or insurance companies dumping people or refusing coverage?
    They do that to control costs, geesh man, they exist to make a profit so they actively look for the best cost to treatment ratio so they no longer have to pay to make the person not sick anymore.

    That is apart of the administration costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    We do? Says who? Got any evidence of this? I can see my doctor any time I want.
    "Waiting lists vary from region to region but are a significant problem everywhere. On average, Spaniards wait 65 days to see a specialist,
    and in some regions the wait can be much longer. For instance, the wait for a specialist in the Canary Islands is 140 days. Even on the mainland, in Galacia, the wait can be as long as 81 days. For some specialties the problem is far worse, with a national average of 71 days for a gynecologist and 81 days for a neurologist.114 Waits for specific procedures are also lengthy.The mean waiting time for a prostectomy is 62 days; for hip replacement surgery, 123 days
    "

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

    That is an example for Spain and if you decide to dispute this fact as a lie you can scroll on down to the citations part of this review and check out the book it is referencing.

    (Hint: the book isn't political, it's just a review on how to reduce wait times in health care systems.)

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Err are you seriously using that excuse? How can you use less doctors more efficiently and yet have a system that is far far more expensive than other systems that have more doctors? You do know that we are talking about money costs right and that is a very important part of efficiency..?
    Of course but there are two sides to this, in health care time is more important to treat someone as the longer their condition is not treated the worse it can get.

    I'll pay more to get well faster, so I can go back to work and earn money.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Congrats you found a bit of new building, so you only have to find what.. 798 more to make up for the facilities closed according to my article? Plus your first article is from 2006 and admits "we build this **** cause we got cheap credit"..

    so 797 to go.. got anymore? I am being "large here" since extending existing hospitals is a iffy question if that is "new hospital" or not.
    It doesn't have to be a new hospital to count as expanding capacity.

    It can be a clinic or outpatient surgery center, because you don't have to hospitalize people if you treat them quicker.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Again with the "wait" comment.. again provide evidence of that. And you are still using the excuse of being more efficient.. err yea for a bill that is way higher than it is over here.. I would not call that efficient.. at all.

    That is like saying that paying 1 million for a car is more efficient than buying a normal car for 30k .. more efficient in going from home to work and back.. yea right..
    Not even in the ballpark of comparisons.
    1 million to 30k is way out of bounds as well.

    Paying more gets faster treatment so you can go back to work sooner to offset the expense of paying more.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    We are, says who? Again you are coming with a claim without backing it up. Plus it is easy to not fill your hospital beds up when people are turned away because of no insurance or fear getting treated due to the bill thrown in their face after the fact...
    We don't need as many hospital beds, we are treating people quicker so as not having to hospitalize them.

    If you didn't know already, a hospital in the U.S. can't turn someone away by law.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    It is much like your unemployment rate.. it is easy to lower it if you exclude a bunch of people after X months on the list because their unemployment insurance has run out..
    Blame the government, they compile the statistics.
    That is why I don't trust them with my health care, would you?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Has everything to do with it. The original articles uses race in its supposed "debunking" of the WHO, so why cant I? And considering that race is used by the right to excuse crappy healthcare statistics, then ... I remember debating on these boards infant mortality rates and the excuse from some of the usual suspects, cause the black babies die more than white babies.. wtf.
    The U.S. and Europe have different ways of treating under developed infants.

    "Similarly, infant mortality, a common measure in cross-country comparisons, is highly problematic. In the United States, very low birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low birth weight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low birth-weight infants are not included when
    infant mortality is calculated.24 In addition many countries use abortion to eliminate problem pregnancies. For example, Michael Moore cites low infant mortality rates in Cuba, yet that country has one of the world’s highest
    abortion rates, meaning that many babies with health problems that could lead to early deaths are never brought to term.25
    "


    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No, those getting treatment live longer, and those that can get treatment are those with money or/and insurance. Those that dont get treatment due lack of money or insurance are not part of the statistic in the US.
    They get treated, they can't be turned away.
    Their failure to pay is passed on to the rest of us who do pay.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Oh I would, depends on you answer, but considering the usual answers from the American right on "bad" health statistics, then I already know what you are thinking.
    "Immigrants arriving in the U.S. from Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America have high rates of active or latent tuberculosis, highlighting a need for improved screening of the disease, according to a CDC study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Reuters reports"

    High TB Rates Among Immigrants To U.S. Highlight Need For Improved Screening, Study Says


    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So can we here.

    Again provide evidence of this. Are you seriously saying there are no waiting lists in the US? I dont deny there is in Europe, for things like hip replacements and knee replacements.. in the public system.. can always go to the private hospital and pay your way out if you want... but for things that require immediate attention? provide evidence of this. I have evidence of the opposite.. personal evidence.. so your evidence better be good.
    "Notably, the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the
    world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality
    "

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Or why dont you just admit you lost the debate and move on?
    What did I loose?
    Whenever I post evidence that is contrary to your populist beliefs you don't refute the facts, you consequently use the weak mans game of attacking the person, attacking the source, changing the subject.

    You can't deal with the facts, it is very clear.
    The source of my facts is clearly noted so you can go back and check to make sure they are valid and true, which I have done on my own just to verify.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  9. #49
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Sigh, do you know that many of these systems operate outside of just the one department.
    The department of health in X country is not the sole decider of what goes on with the policies formed there. It does not handle all of the things that happen with in said system.

    Another example is that the French government pays for doctors education, that should be included in the costs of the French health care statistics.
    LOL you continue down this path of making excuses. So we should also add the US doctors who got their education through government sponsored financing systems? How about doctors trained at hospitals that are state funded in part? Or how about adding the banking system, and tax man on top of that because they all participate in the educating the doctors.. oh and how about the parents? Lets add their life time costs, because without them there would be no doctors.. How about the paper producers that produced the paper that the would be doctors used in kindergarten to paint mommy and mommy?

    They do that to control costs, geesh man, they exist to make a profit so they actively look for the best cost to treatment ratio so they no longer have to pay to make the person not sick anymore.

    That is apart of the administration costs.
    The best cost to treatment there is, is to dump the sick from the program. Sorry but private insurance companies are in the business of making a profit in anyway they can and we have plenty of evidence from the US and even from Europe, that they are willing to do anything to avoid paying out for treatment.

    "Waiting lists vary from region to region but are a significant problem everywhere. On average, Spaniards wait 65 days to see a specialist,
    and in some regions the wait can be much longer. For instance, the wait for a specialist in the Canary Islands is 140 days. Even on the mainland, in Galacia, the wait can be as long as 81 days. For some specialties the problem is far worse, with a national average of 71 days for a gynecologist and 81 days for a neurologist.114 Waits for specific procedures are also lengthy.The mean waiting time for a prostectomy is 62 days; for hip replacement surgery, 123 days
    "

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

    That is an example for Spain and if you decide to dispute this fact as a lie you can scroll on down to the citations part of this review and check out the book it is referencing.

    (Hint: the book isn't political, it's just a review on how to reduce wait times in health care systems.)
    It aint political? it is a freaking hit job lol and just reading about the Spanish system I see tons of mistakes. And lets take the first too footnotes in the Spanish section. First one refers to an article from Expatica.. that is a web site not a book, and the article is no where on the site as far as I can see. The second footnote just says Ibid.. err okay. Their "proof" for waiting lists in Spain is from Ibid,.. which means the "same place".. as what? the former footnote, which was a website specializing in dating for expats?
    .
    Some health services that U.S. citizens take for granted are almost totally unavailable. For example, rehabilitation, convalescence, and care for those with terminal illness are usually left to the patient’s relatives. There are very few public nursing and retirement homes, and few hospices and convalescence homes.
    That is total bs and frankly typical right wing American crap that does not take into account local traditions and attitudes. First off, rehabilitation.. there is, there has been since the civil war. Spain is by far one of the best places to be physically handicapped because since the Civil war the law of the land (put in place by Franco) has been accessibility to everything for the handicapped. Every single side walk here has a on/off ramp for wheel chairs.. it is the law!. Care for the terminally ill.. err okay as far as I know very few nations provide this over the UHC as they leave it up to religious charity organisations..and what does it have to do with healthcare? There are care units for the terminally ill here, run by charities.. I contribute to the local cancer hospice here.

    And then the last.. few public nursing and retirement homes.. for the love of god, do the people who wrote this hatchet job of a report even travel to the countries they are pissing on?

    Spain is a traditional catholic country, and yes very very family orientated. So the family takes care of the elderly, just as they have done for many many generations. There is no tradition for such services, and even if there was, what the hell does it do with the healthcare system? This is a social issue not a healthcare issue! And for the record there are retirement homes here, and there is one being built just down the road by the local government. Most retirement homes here, are however for no Spanish.. aka Brits, Danes and so on.

    Then I read on.. and the article rambles on about how the "rich" are able to pay their way out of the public system to get treatment faster.. well no **** sherlock, that is the whole point of a public/private system.. if you want to pay your way around the public system then you can if you want.

    And then this gem..

    For example, two regions, Ceuta and Melilla, do not have a single MRI unit.
    Not only can we not confirm the comment since the footnote is incomplete, but lets take it as fact just to humour you.. you do know where these to regions are right.. in Africa. But okay, they dont have MRI machines.. so what?

    and then this gem..

    As a result, Spain has fewer physicians and fewer nurses per capita than most European countries and the United States. The lack of primary care physicians is particularly acute...
    Eh? Not only does the footnote refer to the same 2 dudes as the Ceuta and Mellina case, but the information is.. wrong. If you look at the WHO, or OECD numbers on the matter, then the US has 26 doctors per 10000 people and Spain has 33. On nurses it is however correct, but the difference aint that big.. 94 versus 76 ..

    Sorry this Cato document is at least in the Spanish part, riddled with mistakes, falsehoods and lack of documentation. I suspect that the rest of the article is the same.

    And if you look up Michael Tanner.. well then you understand why... he is against UHC and a right winger..

    Of course but there are two sides to this, in health care time is more important to treat someone as the longer their condition is not treated the worse it can get.
    Yes I actually agree. The most important thing is though to get early detection and not use the emergency room......That is the main problem with your system.. people avoid the doctor and treatment because they cant afford it, and hence when it gets serious they go to the emergency room and then the costs for the state and you are huge.

    I'll pay more to get well faster, so I can go back to work and earn money.
    And Europeans can do that if they wish. My uncle had his busted knee operated on at a private hospital because he did not want to wait a month for the public option.. a knee he busted playing football btw.

    It doesn't have to be a new hospital to count as expanding capacity.

    It can be a clinic or outpatient surgery center, because you don't have to hospitalize people if you treat them quicker.
    I dont know where to start on this.. you seem to be stuck in the same RNC talking points over and over again. You have yet to provide any evidence that people get treated faster in the US as a whole than in a UHC system in Europe. And I mean ALL people, not just those insured.

    Not even in the ballpark of comparisons.
    1 million to 30k is way out of bounds as well.

    Paying more gets faster treatment so you can go back to work sooner to offset the expense of paying more.
    Seriously. You have provided zero evidence that paying more gets you faster or better treatment. And let me remind you, you are paying considerably more than Europeans and yet it does not cover your whole population and in most healthcare statistics you do not come out on top and more than often you are way down compared to UHC countries.

    The U.S. and Europe have different ways of treating under developed infants.

    "Similarly, infant mortality, a common measure in cross-country comparisons, is highly problematic. In the United States, very low birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low birth weight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low birth-weight infants are not included when
    infant mortality is calculated.24 In addition many countries use abortion to eliminate problem pregnancies. For example, Michael Moore cites low infant mortality rates in Cuba, yet that country has one of the world’s highest
    abortion rates, meaning that many babies with health problems that could lead to early deaths are never brought to term.25
    "
    And where did you get that gem? Seriously you are using every excuse in the book to divert attention away from the truth. And of course as an American excuse piece, it has to bring in abortion...

    They get treated, they can't be turned away.
    Their failure to pay is passed on to the rest of us who do pay.
    They get treated when it is critical and hence the cost far higher. HUGE difference. That is the whole point.

    Yea as I thought, blame the outsiders. I have no doubt that the problem came from those regions btw, but it aint their fault that the US fails deal with it in an effective way.

    "Notably, the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the
    world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality
    "

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf
    Another cato report.. oh the same faulty one.. this is gonna be fun!

    What exactly do all those words mean? Dignity? Confidentiality? as for choice of provider, that I would understand.. but the rest, what the heck does it mean? Okay lets look at the foot note.. hmm not much information there.. Okay they claim it is a WHO document.. nada.. lets google it.. Oh it is an OECD program!

    So not only is the Spain part riddled with mistakes, factual inaccuracies and falsehoods and lack of source material, but now they mix up the OECD and WHO?... And you expect us to take this report seriously? Yea lets mix up 2 international organisations that have nothing to do with each other.. that will not hurt our credibility...

    You can't deal with the facts, it is very clear.

    The source of my facts is clearly noted so you can go back and check to make sure they are valid and true, which I have done on my own just to verify.
    Give me a break. All I am doing is trying to verify the information from a right wing think tank, and what happens.. I cant! because their source material is lacking at best or out right wrong! Dont blame me for your failed attempt to pass a right wing hit piece off as "fact".
    PeteEU

  10. #50
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    you continue down this path of making excuses. So we should also add the US doctors who got their education through government sponsored financing systems? How about doctors trained at hospitals that are state funded in part? Or how about adding the banking system, and tax man on top of that because they all participate in the educating the doctors.. oh and how about the parents? Lets add their life time costs, because without them there would be no doctors.. How about the paper producers that produced the paper that the would be doctors used in kindergarten to paint mommy and mommy?

    We should certainly include any educational benefits covered by the government in our cost assessment of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system as it would give an accurate picture of the true costs.

    You are failing to get the point that if the government adds more people, supplies, and other expenses to itself to cover the new inclusion of government health care, that is apart of the total cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    The best cost to treatment there is, is to dump the sick from the program. Sorry but private insurance companies are in the business of making a profit in anyway they can and we have plenty of evidence from the US and even from Europe, that they are willing to do anything to avoid paying out for treatment.
    They make more money by having healthy people under their insurance plans, so it only makes sense to make sure people get healthy quicker.

    You do know that health insurance companies denials are on par with Medicare denials and that a lot of that is inaccurate paperwork filing and fraud prevention.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    It aint political? it is a freaking hit job lol and just reading about the Spanish system I see tons of mistakes. And lets take the first too footnotes in the Spanish section. First one refers to an article from Expatica.. that is a web site not a book, and the article is no where on the site as far as I can see. The second footnote just says Ibid.. err okay.
    Here you go

    Waiting to be seen: How the health service varies across Spain < Healthcare | Expatica Spain

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    That is total bs and frankly typical right wing American crap that does not take into account local traditions and attitudes. First off, rehabilitation.. there is, there has been since the civil war. Spain is by far one of the best places to be physically handicapped because since the Civil war the law of the land (put in place by Franco) has been accessibility to everything for the handicapped. Every single side walk here has a on/off ramp for wheel chairs.. it is the law!. Care for the terminally ill.. err okay as far as I know very few nations provide this over the UHC as they leave it up to religious charity organisations..and what does it have to do with healthcare? There are care units for the terminally ill here, run by charities.. I contribute to the local cancer hospice here.
    So we can't use our cultural differences to support our health care system but it counts for you.
    I got it, you have a double standard in your measurements of quality.

    Seeing as the U.S. has retirement facilities that provide general health care to it's residents would add on to the cost of overall health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And then the last.. few public nursing and retirement homes.. for the love of god, do the people who wrote this hatchet job of a report even travel to the countries they are pissing on?
    So far I've pointed out your double standard and have spoon fed you the information directly from the source.
    Something you could of found yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Spain is a traditional catholic country, and yes very very family orientated. So the family takes care of the elderly, just as they have done for many many generations. There is no tradition for such services, and even if there was, what the hell does it do with the healthcare system? This is a social issue not a healthcare issue! And for the record there are retirement homes here, and there is one being built just down the road by the local government. Most retirement homes here, are however for no Spanish.. aka Brits, Danes and so on.
    It's a health care issue as these places provide health care in the U.S.

    So you can't always make a straight comparison with cost because we do things differently than you guys do.
    It's incredibly short sighted to this without putting it into proper context.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Then I read on.. and the article rambles on about how the "rich" are able to pay their way out of the public system to get treatment faster.. well no **** sherlock, that is the whole point of a public/private system.. if you want to pay your way around the public system then you can if you want.
    How is it right to make someone pay taxes for a UHC system and then force them to go outside of it and pay again to get needed treatment?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Not only can we not confirm the comment since the footnote is incomplete, but lets take it as fact just to humour you.. you do know where these to regions are right.. in Africa. But okay, they dont have MRI machines.. so what?
    So it's ok that it doesn't have these things because its apart of Africa?

    It is part of the Spain, do you have something against North Africans or people who live there?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Eh? Not only does the footnote refer to the same 2 dudes as the Ceuta and Mellina case, but the information is.. wrong. If you look at the WHO, or OECD numbers on the matter, then the US has 26 doctors per 10000 people and Spain has 33. On nurses it is however correct, but the difference aint that big.. 94 versus 76
    I can't read Spanish very well but this seems to be the direct paper published in 2006.

    http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/edu/v10n3/art2.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Sorry this Cato document is at least in the Spanish part, riddled with mistakes, falsehoods and lack of documentation. I suspect that the rest of the article is the same.

    And if you look up Michael Tanner.. well then you understand why... he is against UHC and a right winger..
    I've pointed out several of your mistaken "flaws" and have further linked you to the direct places to further read the information.

    Being against UHC does not make one a "right winger" combine that with the fact the Michael Tanner is not a "right winger" but a libertarian, it pretty much disproves your point.

    Here is further reading on libertarians, how they are not "right wingers."

    "Libertarianism is a term used to describe a broad spectrum of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize or even abolish the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian."

    "Libertarian author and politician Harry Browne wrote: "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives – nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.""

    The underlined sums up libertarianism and as you can see we are not "right wingers."

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism]Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Yes I actually agree. The most important thing is though to get early detection and not use the emergency room......That is the main problem with your system.. people avoid the doctor and treatment because they cant afford it, and hence when it gets serious they go to the emergency room and then the costs for the state and you are huge.
    You can't make people take care of themselves, even if it is cheaper it won't make someone stop eating garbage, stop being alcoholics, stop doing drugs, etc.

    You can't change this with any health care system except one that makes examples out of stupid choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And Europeans can do that if they wish. My uncle had his busted knee operated on at a private hospital because he did not want to wait a month for the public option.. a knee he busted playing football btw.
    I hope your uncle is better as I have had 3 knee surgeries and it can have a life long impact.

    It's wrong for him to have to pay taxes for health care and then have to pay again to get quick service.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Seriously. You have provided zero evidence that paying more gets you faster or better treatment. And let me remind you, you are paying considerably more than Europeans and yet it does not cover your whole population and in most healthcare statistics you do not come out on top and more than often you are way down compared to UHC countries.
    The lack of waiting lists is one and the higher cost is another.
    WHO ranks use number 1 in timely care.

    I don't use RNC talking points as I am not a Republican.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And where did you get that gem? Seriously you are using every excuse in the book to divert attention away from the truth. And of course as an American excuse piece, it has to bring in abortion...
    It takes no stand on abortion other than to say that people in Europe and Cuba are more likely to use it to get rid of problem pregnancies than they are here, it is a cultural and policy difference.

    It doesn't say that abortion is right or wrong.
    In general, libertarians are ok with abortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    They get treated when it is critical and hence the cost far higher. HUGE difference. That is the whole point.
    I agree the cost is huge, there is a purpose for it though.

    That is to slow demand and have services ready for people who need them and not for people with stupid **** that don't need a doctors services.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Yea as I thought, blame the outsiders. I have no doubt that the problem came from those regions btw, but it aint their fault that the US fails deal with it in an effective way.
    Your right, the government drops the ball on this as well, yet another reason I am against government health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So not only is the Spain part riddled with mistakes, factual inaccuracies and falsehoods and lack of source material, but now they mix up the OECD and WHO?... And you expect us to take this report seriously? Yea lets mix up 2 international organisations that have nothing to do with each other.. that will not hurt our credibility...
    It is a WHO report, see Ibid and previous entry.
    Doctor/patient confidentiality is very big in the U.S.

    Dignity, I don't know you'd have to check WHO for what it considers dignity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Give me a break. All I am doing is trying to verify the information from a right wing think tank, and what happens.. I cant! because their source material is lacking at best or out right wrong! Dont blame me for your failed attempt to pass a right wing hit piece off as "fact".
    It is not a right wing think tank, for the love of everything holy, it is a libertarian think tank and I have checked the sources and have provided them for you.

    Libertarians do not equal right wing, republican, or conservative.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •