New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last

Tigger · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Catawba said:
Yes, a very tiny percentage of the public would defend to the death the most expensive health care system in the world. Those people are irrelevant politically, and they have no plan to reduce health care costs in this country.

No we don't have a plan to reduce the costs because we don't see it as being as much of a need as you folks do. See, we believe health care is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

Catawba said:
BTW, I thought you were leaving the country. What happened with that?

To make a long story short.... Nobody would take me, so you folks are stuck with me.

ecofarm · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
Anecdote versus actual statistics. That's the difference.

In real health outcomes "socialized" medicine in Europe outpaces our pay for service system in every category. The rational conclusion is theirs is better.

Most of those "catagories" are subjective BS. Graphs and charts, created by those with an agenda, can never substitute for a two year survey of Europe.

Catawba · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Tigger said:
No we don't have a plan to reduce the costs because we don't see it as being as much of a need as you folks do. See, we believe health care is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

Thanks for confirming the irrelevance of a position held by a fraction of 1% of Americans that share your views!

To make a long story short.... Nobody would take me, so you folks are stuck with me.

That's what I figured would happen.

Tigger · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Catawba said:
Thanks for confirming the irrelevance of a position held by a fraction of 1% of Americans that share your views!

Just because we're the minority doesn't mean we're wrong.

Catawba said:
That's what I figured would happen.

Actually what it came down to was that most of the nations I was looking at are not interested in having ANY current American citizens moving into their country on a permanent basis at this time. So it was as much a slight on the rest of you as it was on me.

head of joaquin · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Tigger said:
Healthcare is a Privilege, not a Right

But owning a gun is a right not a privilege.

Only in bizarroconservativeworld do you get this level of moral and legal confusion.

head of joaquin · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Tigger said:
Just because we're the minority doesn't mean we're wrong.

Actually it does in a democracy. That's why the GOP and conservatives are going extinct in the US. At long last.

head of joaquin · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

ecofarm said:
Most of those "catagories" are subjective BS. Graphs and charts, created by those with an agenda, can never substitute for a two year survey of Europe.

I love how conservatives are constantly having to deny statistical and scientific reality to support their delusions.

Ikari · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Catawba said:
Even more of a concern when contrasted with this:

Healthcare spending around the world, country by country

"The US spends more than any other country in the world on healthcare"

Healthcare spending around the world, country by country | News | guardian.co.uk

We spend the most and have the least access too healthcare. A bit sad, but when you run everything ass backwards for the sake of corporations and insurance companies' profits; this is what happens.

Catawba · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Ikari said:
We spend the most and have the least access too healthcare. A bit sad, but when you run everything ass backwards for the sake of corporations and insurance companies' profits; this is what happens.

Yes, eventually the cost of it will force us to go to a single payer system, as most of the industrialized world have done.

Tigger · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
But owning a gun is a right not a privilege. Only in bizarroconservativeworld do you get this level of moral and legal confusion.

You do realize that the US Constitution (via the Second Amendment), and the vast majority of State Constitutions here in the United States specifically protect the RIGHT of the citizens to Keep and Bear Arms, correct?

You do also realize that no such allowance is made in any of these documents (so far as I am aware) for healthcare, correct?

head of joaquin · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Tigger said:
You do realize that the US Constitution (via the Second Amendment), and the vast majority of State Constitutions here in the United States specifically protect the RIGHT of the citizens to Keep and Bear Arms, correct?

I realize that no right is absolute in our jurisprudence. That's just a rightwing fiction you have read on too many tea bagger websites.

You do also realize that no such allowance is made in any of these documents (so far as I am aware) for healthcare, correct?

BUZZZ!

You lose. The general welfare clause obviously includes health care. And the 9th amendment incorporates the common law right to life, which also includes health care.

Are you saying that Americans don't have the right to life?

Tigger · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
BUZZZ!

You lose. The general welfare clause obviously includes health care. And the 9th amendment incorporates the common law right to life, which also includes health care.

Oh, I'm sorry. I had expected you were intelligent enough to comprehend that the "general welfare" clause deals with the welfare of the NATION, not of the individual citizens; just as the "common defense" clause does. The right to LIFE is not the same as the right to Health or to Health Care.

head of joaquin said:
Are you saying that Americans don't have the right to life?

Life, yes. Health and/or Health Care, NO.

head of joaquin · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Tigger said:
Oh, I'm sorry. I had expected you were intelligent enough to comprehend that the "general welfare" clause deals with the welfare of the NATION, not of the individual citizens; just as the "common defense" clause does. The right to LIFE is not the same as the right to Health or to Health Care.]

Same thing.

Life, yes. Health and/or Health Care, NO.

So you have the right to life but not to keep it going!

You have to love tea party logic!

Saying that people who are sick should die means they don't have the right to life. Here we go again, with bizarro conservative double speak.

Let me get this straight, if a parent doesn't take care of a sick kid and the kid dies, that's OK with you, since kids don't have a right to health care. Is that the new conservative bizarro argument?

PirateMk1 · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Sucre said:
I don't agree with you: I feel concerned about people with obesity problems. Especially if they start having mobility or other problems ...

In fact, I feel concern for people in general. Their well being is my well being to some extent. I live in a society, not next to it.

Concern for the well being of others is the fondation of society. Concern for your children, concern for your parents, concern for your family, concern for your neighboors, concern for the old lady who lives all alone on the other side of the street etc. Concern for your fellow citizens. Concern for sick people. And from a certain stadium, obesity is a sickness or causes other sicknesses: heart diseases, cholesterol, problems with the back or the knees, or both, uterus bleeding etc.

Charities and insurances are based on this feeling of concern for others. In charities, resources are pooled together in order to fund research in a certain area - Can be cancer or any other deadly illness. If you fund a charity fighting heart deceases, you'll support programs teaching people how to lower the risk of heart disease including programs fighting obesity.... In insurances, resources are also pooled together to pay for the very high costs of particular illnesses. The less people will get ill, the more resources the insurances will have. It des not matter whether it's a private or a public insurance: they all work according to the same principles.

You can of course live like a bear in your cavern but most people don't

The road to hell is paved with the victoms of those with good intentions.

Tigger · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
Same thing.

No, no the same thing, but I'm beginning to see that I was probably grossly over-estimating your common sense.

head of joaquin said:
So you have the right to life but not to keep it going! Saying that people who are sick should die means they don't have the right to life.

No. It means that there is no specified right to medical care. Medical care has always been and should always be something for which individuals pay, as they are capable of. Therefore, those individuals who have made bad life decisions and are not capable of paying for advanced care don't get advanced care. It's that simple.

head of joaquin said:
Let me get this straight, if a parent doesn't take care of a sick kid and the kid dies, that's OK with you, since kids don't have a right to health care.

It would be up to the local and state governments to determine whether or not the parents had abused their powers and/or whether they were negligent in fulfilling their obligations as the guardians of the child.

As to whether I'm okay with it or not, my opinion on that topic is clouded too greatly by my own personal experiences and beliefs on what has happened to me over the course of my life, for me to make any sort of unbiased commentary on the topic.

head of joaquin · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Tigger said:
No, no the same thing, but I'm beginning to see that I was probably grossly over-estimating your common sense.

Welfare for the nation means welfare for people. You're not into mystical blood and soil, are you?

NEXT!

No. It means that there is no specified right to medical care. Medical care has always been and should always be something for which individuals pay, as they are capable of. Therefore, those individuals who have made bad life decisions and are not capable of paying for advanced care don't get advanced care. It's that simple.

There is no specific right to own a semiautomatic either, since they didn't exist when the 2nd Amendment was passed. You can't have your gun logic and eat it too. General welfare meant one thing in 1787, and now it means something else -- like health care!

It would be up to the local and state governments to determine whether or not the parents had abused their powers and/or whether they were negligent in fulfilling their obligations as the guardians of the child.

As to whether I'm okay with it or not, my opinion on that topic is clouded too greatly by my own personal experiences and beliefs on what has happened to me over the course of my life, for me to make any sort of unbiased commentary on the topic.

Backtracking I see.

If people don't have a right to health care, then children don't. If children don't, then parents don't have to give it to them. Therefore, it's OK for a parent to let a sick child die. Any criminal law to the contrary would be unconstitutional.

That's how conservative "logic" works.

PirateMk1 · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Dittohead not! said:
That's the sort of plan we should all have, insurance rather than pre paid medical. Costs would go down dramatically.

As it is though, people with lifestyle illnesses still cost the rest of us as costs are averaged out for a group.

I can relate to that. Problem is how do you get those costs down? By telling someone how to live and more importantantly attempting to force them to live the way you say is NOT something I wish to be a part of. It leads down a road we shouldnt be going down.

Tigger · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
Welfare for the nation means welfare for people. You're not into mystical blood and soil, are you?

Actually, to some degree I am into mystical blood and soil, as you refer to it.

head of joaquin said:
There is no specific right to own a semiautomatic either, since they didn't exist when the 2nd Amendment was passed. You can't have your gun logic and eat it too. General welfare meant one thing in 1787, and now it means something else -- like health care!

Let's see, what branches of arms were privately owned in 1787..... Artillery, Cavalry (which would be armor today), Naval, and Infantry, along with some Engineering. So far as I'm concerned anything that falls within those branches of the military is perfectly acceptable for private ownership.

The difference here is that I'm taking the position that the US Constitution cannot be changed without amendment, whereas you simply believe that it can be interpreted differently because you want it to read a certain way.

head of joaquin said:
If people don't have a right to health care, then children don't. If children don't, then parents don't have to give it to them. Therefore, it's OK for a parent to let a sick child die. Any criminal law to the contrary would be unconstitutional.

Nope. Regardless of, and totally separate from, whether Health Care is a Right or a Privilege; we require certain things of parents. IF one were to assume your viewpoint then I would suggest that YES, it would be perfectly fine for the parents to ignore the medical needs of the child. I say this as the uncle of 4 children; none of whom have gotten the full spectrum of "suggested" immunizations or vaccines that their doctor's recommended.

Catawba · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
I love how conservatives are constantly having to deny statistical and scientific reality to support their delusions.

Just as one of their own presidential candidates pointed out in the campaign:

“The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem."

Huntsman: GOP can't become 'anti-science' party - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com

The facts are there that show single payer systems cut health care costs for all those that actually look:

Single Payer System Cost? | Physicians for a National Health Program

Tigger · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Catawba said:
The facts are there that show single payer systems cut health care costs for all those that actually look:

That's nice. Now what do you have for those of us that do not see COST as the main concern?

Catawba · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Tigger said:
That's nice. Now what do you have for those of us that do not see COST as the main concern?

Why would you be opposed to better outcomes at lower costs?

head of joaquin · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Tigger said:
Actually, to some degree I am into mystical blood and soil, as you refer to it.

Yeah, I could tell. Conservatism is irrational and discredited.

Let's see, what branches of arms were privately owned in 1787..... Artillery, Cavalry (which would be armor today), Naval, and Infantry, along with some Engineering. So far as I'm concerned anything that falls within those branches of the military is perfectly acceptable for private ownership.

So? Got any other non sequiturs?

The difference here is that I'm taking the position that the US Constitution cannot be changed without amendment, whereas you simply believe that it can be interpreted differently because you want it to read a certain way.

Differently from what? Hundreds of legislators passed the Constitution and the amendments. Their "intent" is legislative intent, but the problem for originalists is (as any scholar knows), legislators often disagree on the meaning of the laws they vote for. So which dead legislator are you channeling?

Channeling dead legislators is silly. We have to determine what the constitution means to us. Even using originalism is a form of interpretation by us. There is no getting out of this -- we're the ones who interpretate the Constitution, not dead people. Deal with it.

Nope. Regardless of, and totally separate from, whether Health Care is a Right or a Privilege; we require certain things of parents. IF one were to assume your viewpoint then I would suggest that YES, it would be perfectly fine for the parents to ignore the medical needs of the child. I say this as the uncle of 4 children; none of whom have gotten the full spectrum of "suggested" immunizations or vaccines that their doctor's recommended.

If children don't have a right to health care, you can't hold parents criminally liable for not giving them health care, something you claim none of us (but the rich) have a right to. So parents can let sick children die with impunity.

One more lunacy from the blood and soil right.

Tigger · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
Differently from what? Hundreds of legislators passed the Constitution and the amendments. Their "intent" is legislative intent, but the problem for originalists is (as any scholar knows), legislators often disagree on the meaning of the laws they vote for. So which dead legislator are you channeling?

How about the ones whose names are on the bottom of the ORIGINAL document.

head of joaquin said:
Channeling dead legislators is silly. We have to determine what the constitution means to us. Even using originalism is a form of interpretation by us. There is no getting out of this -- we're the ones who interpretate the Constitution, not dead people. Deal with it.

Sorry, but that's not the way I see it and never will be the way I see it. You know what the Constitution means to me at this point?.... It's a piece of used toilet paper. That's what we've turned it into over the last 150 years. How's that sit with you?

head of joaquin said:
If children don't have a right to health care, you can't hold parents criminally liable for not giving them health care, something you claim none of us (but the rich) have a right to. So parents can let sick children die with impunity.

NOBODY has a right to health care. The rich have an easier time affording the privilege of health care but nobody has a right to it.

head of joaquin · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

Catawba said:
Why would you be opposed to better outcomes at lower costs?

Because conservative don't like working Americans. Seriously they despise everybody but the rich.

sangha · Jan 14, 2013

Re: We're Number......LAST

cpwill said:
This is incorrect in two ways:

Firstly, defense is not a consumer good or service, as it is not consumed when it is received. It is a public good because it is not. While governments are usually better at breaking things than they are at making or disbursing them, defense does not represent a socialist project for the simple enough reason that it does not represent government ownership or control of the means of production.

Secondly, defense, like most the rest of our government, is also fairly famously inefficient, dollar-for-dollar.

Straw man. No one called defense a consumer good or service

It was called a "consumer", and that's what it is

New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last

Tigger

ecofarm

global liberation

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Tigger

head of joaquin

head of joaquin

head of joaquin

Ikari

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Tigger

head of joaquin

Tigger

head of joaquin

PirateMk1

Tigger

head of joaquin

PirateMk1

Tigger

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Tigger

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

head of joaquin

Tigger

head of joaquin

sangha