• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

What needs to change in US healthcare?

  • Complete overhaul, replacing old system with European-style universal healthcare.

    Votes: 25 65.8%
  • Partial overhaul, including expansion of Medicare, reworking of profit-based insurance system.

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Sparse overhaul, based around getting rid of the profit-based private insurance companies.

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Nothing needs to change, the US system is good the way it is.

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • Total voters
    38
Talking to your buddies is called anecdotal evidence. Not really a study. This is why it is so difficult to discuss something as complex as a national healthcare system with the RWers.
I don't get my news like your from programming sites. I see or talk to 40+ people per day (all employed) and we see what is going on.
 
I make great money and have great health insurance. Another RW meme.
You strike me as that kind, gamble your money but then can't afford healthcare
 
Talking to your buddies is called anecdotal evidence. Not really a study. This is why it is so difficult to discuss something as complex as a national healthcare system with the RWers.

or left wing moonbats
 
So pretty much all you know about healthcare is what 40 of your buddies tell you a day and what you hear in the RW noise machine.
sure you do
 
So pretty much all you know about healthcare is what 40 of your buddies tell you a day and what you hear in the RW noise machine.

and you know so much because Maddow, NY times, and Huffington Post program you every morning
 
Dman, I stayed on this thread till it got to sillyville.
and you know so much because Maddow, NY times, and Huffington Post program you every morning
 
meh, must be why most of the counties that have it are in worse economical shape that we are

Last I checked, Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Monaco, and San Marino were all economically better-off than the US, and they have universal health care too!

Hm.
 
that is a classic chicken **** statement, someone has to pay, why shoudl it always be the ones willing to work? Conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals, why, because liberals are selfish and petty

It's almost as though you have no sense of patriotism or morality -- it is stunning. How can you be so hateful towards your own brethren? I just don't understand such vitriolic resistance to what could only benefit your nation.
 
The brethren are fellow right wingers, the rest of us are "them" people. The right wing isn't very American anymore.
It's almost as though you have no sense of patriotism or morality -- it is stunning. How can you be so hateful towards your own brethren? I just don't understand such vitriolic resistance to what could only benefit your nation.
 
It's almost as though you have no sense of patriotism or morality -- it is stunning. How can you be so hateful towards your own brethren? I just don't understand such vitriolic resistance to what could only benefit your nation.

I do not believe in socialism. I feel no pity for people that make bad choices and then whine after their realities change later in life. Choices make people what they are most of the time. Working class should not bear that result
 
36 countries have better health care than the U.S. I have to wonder about that. I am always reading about people from all over the world coming to the U.S. to get the best health care the world has. Now all of a sudden, we are number 37 over night. Something with the title here does not equate with me. I have been perfectly satisfied and happy with the healthcare I and my family have received over my long life. So the U.S. ranking 37th in the world in health care just doesn’t make sense.

A thought crossed my mind. I now wonder if the ranking was based on quantity instead of quality. That those of us in the U.S. receive the best health care good insurance and money can buy. But those at the bottom of the spectrum, with no insurance and little money get or receive very poor health care. So perhaps the title is dealing with quantity and health care availability to one and all and not the quality of health care this nation can provide.

In other words, the U.S. has the highest quality of healthcare available in the world, but not all can partake of that quality. So it seems the goal of the ACA, to me anyway, is to downgrade the quality of healthcare that is provided to most Americans who had insurance prior to the passage of the ACA in order to give healthcare to everyone. Sort of dumbing down our healthcare system like our public school system has been dumbed down. Our public school system now teaches or brings down the education to the lowest or poorest student. Is our healthcare system going the same way. Bringing down the quality of it so everyone can partake of it? It seems that way.

Perhaps if the quality of healthcare drops for the 80% while giving healthcare to the remaining 20% our standing will in the world soar from number 37 upwards while in reality the quality will have dropped immensely and we are no longer able to proved the highest quality of health care in the world.

Just some thoughts.
 
I do not believe in socialism. I feel no pity for people that make bad choices and then whine after their realities change later in life. Choices make people what they are most of the time. Working class should not bear that result

You can not be serious. What you're saying is that you feel no pity for your dying countrymen due to your political slant.

That is absolutely abhorrent.
 
You can not be serious. What you're saying is that you feel no pity for your dying countrymen due to your political slant.

That is absolutely abhorrent.

You mean character, has nothing to do with slant. Socialism fails, it has been proven over and over. You can't rob the makers to take care of the takers, it is a ridiculous notion.

Natural Selection works great, you just can't fix stupid.
 
Is it okay with you enough to not lock them in a cage for not wanting to fund it?

People without insurance use tax payer funded community clinics and hospital emergency rooms for their health care, so they should pay a fee or tax to cover the cost if they earn enough to afford coverage.
 
You pay for it anyway, in the least efficient why possible. I love the conservatives give more to charity thing, I hang out on very conservative forums too, about every few months one of them start a thread bragging about how much charity they give. Guilt maybe?

Their alleged extra 'charity' spending actually goes to their churches to pay for their weekly entertainment and a ticket to heaven.
 
You can not be serious. What you're saying is that you feel no pity for your dying countrymen due to your political slant.

That is absolutely abhorrent.

That's not it at all and a horrible characterization. Look, people as a group decide what balance they'll accept between capitalism and socialism and they move towards that goal. Pros and cons exist for each balance point. Feeling pity for people achieves absolutely nothing, it's a self-serving emotion and it's the actions taken that count in the real world. Pointing out that people dig themselves into their own holes doesn't imply that we shouldn't give them at least a hand up out of said hole. It's a truism - people chose and sometimes, perhaps for some often, make terrible choices that make their lives unmanageable later on.

For us it's freedom to be able to chose the course of one's life, for good or ill. For you folks it's not, you'd rather be taken care of no matter what bad choices you make. That's fine too and much to be said for the nanny form of governing. Doesn't mean it works for us.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe in socialism. I feel no pity for people that make bad choices and then whine after their realities change later in life. Choices make people what they are most of the time. Working class should not bear that result

"....Research at least suggests that our conscious self does not initiate all behavior. Instead, the conscious self is somehow alerted to a given behavior that the rest of the brain and body are already planning and performing. These findings do not forbid conscious experience from playing some moderating role, although it is also possible that some form of unconscious process is what is causing modification in our behavioral response. Unconscious processes may play a larger role in behavior than previously thought.

It may be possible, then, that our intuitions about the role of our conscious "intentions" have led us astray; it may be the case that we have confused correlation with causation by believing that conscious awareness necessarily causes the body's movement. This possibility is bolstered by findings in neurostimulation, brain damage, but also research into introspection illusions. Such illusions show that humans do not have full access to various internal processes. The discovery that humans possess a determined will would have implications for moral responsibility. Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris believes that we are mistaken in believing the intuitive idea that intention initiates actions. In fact, Harris is even critical of the idea that free will is "intuitive": he says careful introspection can cast doubt on free will. Harris argues "Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do? The truth about us is even stranger than we may suppose: The illusion of free will is itself an illusion"...."
Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
36 countries have better health care than the U.S. I have to wonder about that. I am always reading about people from all over the world coming to the U.S. to get the best health care the world has. Now all of a sudden, we are number 37 over night. Something with the title here does not equate with me. I have been perfectly satisfied and happy with the healthcare I and my family have received over my long life. So the U.S. ranking 37th in the world in health care just doesn’t make sense.

A thought crossed my mind. I now wonder if the ranking was based on quantity instead of quality. That those of us in the U.S. receive the best health care good insurance and money can buy. But those at the bottom of the spectrum, with no insurance and little money get or receive very poor health care. So perhaps the title is dealing with quantity and health care availability to one and all and not the quality of health care this nation can provide.

In other words, the U.S. has the highest quality of healthcare available in the world, but not all can partake of that quality. So it seems the goal of the ACA, to me anyway, is to downgrade the quality of healthcare that is provided to most Americans who had insurance prior to the passage of the ACA in order to give healthcare to everyone. Sort of dumbing down our healthcare system like our public school system has been dumbed down. Our public school system now teaches or brings down the education to the lowest or poorest student. Is our healthcare system going the same way. Bringing down the quality of it so everyone can partake of it? It seems that way.

Perhaps if the quality of healthcare drops for the 80% while giving healthcare to the remaining 20% our standing will in the world soar from number 37 upwards while in reality the quality will have dropped immensely and we are no longer able to proved the highest quality of health care in the world.

Just some thoughts.

Overall, despite the many challenges of educating more diverse students, I think our country is better off educating more people.

Table 1: Percentage of Students Graduating from High School* Year Percentage
1899-1900 6.4
1909-1910 8.8
1919-1920 16.8
1929-1930 29.0
1939-1940 50.8
1941-1942 51.2
1943-1944 42.3
1945-1946 47.9
1947-1948 54.0
1949-1950 59.0
1951-1952 58.6
1953-1954 60.0
1955-1956 62.3
1957-1958 64.8
1959-1960 65.1
1961-1962 69.5
1963-1964 76.7
*This table is reproduced from Kenneth A. Simon and W. Vance Grant, Digest of Educational Statistics, Office of Education, Bulletin 1965, No. 4 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965).
U.S. High School Graduation Rates | Safe & Civil Schools

"....A new analysis from the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center finds that the graduation rate for America's public schools stands just shy of 75 percent for the class of 2010, the most recent year for which data are available.

The graduation rate, which has risen nearly 2 full percentage points from the previous year and 8 points in the past decade, has reached its highest point since 1973. At the current pace of improvement, the portion of students earning a diploma could surpass the historical high of 77.1 percent within the next few years....."
U.S. Graduation Rate Highest in 40 Years | NEA Today
 
That's not it at all and a horrible characterization. Look, people as a group decide what balance they'll accept between capitalism and socialism and they move towards that goal. Pros and cons exist for each balance point. Feeling pity for people achieves absolutely nothing, it's a self-serving emotion and it's the actions taken that count in the real world. Pointing out that people dig themselves into their own holes doesn't imply that we shouldn't give them at least a hand up out of said hole. It's a truism - people chose and sometimes, perhaps for some often, make terrible choices that make their lives unmanageable later on.

For us it's freedom to be able to chose the course of one's life, for good or ill. For you folks it's not, you'd rather be taken care of no matter what bad choices you make. That's fine too and much to be said for the nanny form of governing. Doesn't mean it works for us.

That is one of the best expressions of a viewpoint from a conservative I have seen on this site in a long time.

Here is where I differ:
1. Many of us make bad choices at times in our life, especially when we are young and our brains aren't fully formed (in one's mid-2Os]. Many of us have economic, family, medical and psychological difficulties that impair our decision making. In many cases luck and our original economic circumstances determine the extent to which those mistakes will impact our future income and quality of life.

2. Even with all the right choices and hard work, an unexpected and serious medical problem can destroy almost any family unless they are prosperous enough to afford high quality insurance or pay directly. Even healthy young people have accidents or develop a disease. Many families lose their primary income generator, have new expenses in addition to the direct medical costs, and lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Medical crisis are the leading cause of mortgage defaults and bankruptcies. Using government to prevent, or prepare for, the challenges to all families and individuals caused by major medical problems can help improve our overall economic stability and quality of life. Wisely investing in prevention is healthier and better economically than spending money on a cure, both in medicine and public policy.
 
Last edited:
Overall, despite the many challenges of educating more diverse students, I think our country is better off educating more people.

Table 1: Percentage of Students Graduating from High School* Year Percentage
1899-1900 6.4
1909-1910 8.8
1919-1920 16.8
1929-1930 29.0
1939-1940 50.8
1941-1942 51.2
1943-1944 42.3
1945-1946 47.9
1947-1948 54.0
1949-1950 59.0
1951-1952 58.6
1953-1954 60.0
1955-1956 62.3
1957-1958 64.8
1959-1960 65.1
1961-1962 69.5
1963-1964 76.7
*This table is reproduced from Kenneth A. Simon and W. Vance Grant, Digest of Educational Statistics, Office of Education, Bulletin 1965, No. 4 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965).
U.S. High School Graduation Rates | Safe & Civil Schools

"....A new analysis from the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center finds that the graduation rate for America's public schools stands just shy of 75 percent for the class of 2010, the most recent year for which data are available.

The graduation rate, which has risen nearly 2 full percentage points from the previous year and 8 points in the past decade, has reached its highest point since 1973. At the current pace of improvement, the portion of students earning a diploma could surpass the historical high of 77.1 percent within the next few years....."
U.S. Graduation Rate Highest in 40 Years | NEA Today
I am mildly interested in how graduation standards have changed during the same period.

Also, that list stops 50 years ago.

Edit: I see the second link is supposed to cover that?

Anyways, if the grad rate in 2010 was 75% and the highest in 40 years, it must have gone down a bit since 1964
 
Overall, despite the many challenges of educating more diverse students, I think our country is better off educating more people.

Table 1: Percentage of Students Graduating from High School* Year Percentage
1899-1900 6.4
1909-1910 8.8
1919-1920 16.8
1929-1930 29.0
1939-1940 50.8
1941-1942 51.2
1943-1944 42.3
1945-1946 47.9
1947-1948 54.0
1949-1950 59.0
1951-1952 58.6
1953-1954 60.0
1955-1956 62.3
1957-1958 64.8
1959-1960 65.1
1961-1962 69.5
1963-1964 76.7
*This table is reproduced from Kenneth A. Simon and W. Vance Grant, Digest of Educational Statistics, Office of Education, Bulletin 1965, No. 4 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965).
U.S. High School Graduation Rates | Safe & Civil Schools

"....A new analysis from the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center finds that the graduation rate for America's public schools stands just shy of 75 percent for the class of 2010, the most recent year for which data are available.

The graduation rate, which has risen nearly 2 full percentage points from the previous year and 8 points in the past decade, has reached its highest point since 1973. At the current pace of improvement, the portion of students earning a diploma could surpass the historical high of 77.1 percent within the next few years....."
U.S. Graduation Rate Highest in 40 Years | NEA Today

I graduated from High School in 1964. I was shocked when my youngest daughter went to college and I helped her with her homework. I found out a lot of what I learned back in High School was now being taught in College. This was especially true in core subjects like English, Math and Science. In other words the stuff I learned back in High School or my H.S. diploma as far as knowledge learned was the equivalent of a 2 year degree in college today. Not all subjects, just the core one.

Hence my conclusion that of dumbing down our students through grade 12. My oldest granddaughter is now going to college and I can easily help her with her homework too. the grade structure in High School has also changed immensely. Looking at some of my old early 60's report cards, the grade scores or structure was 70-77 D, 79-85 C, 86-92 B and 93-100 A. According to another one of my granddaughters report cards the grade structure is now 70 D 71-79 C, 80-90 B and 90-100 A. That is pure grade inflation.

We maybe keeping kids in school longer today and even graduating. But are we doing them any favors when they graduate with a 10th grade education and have to complete two years of college to get the education I received way back in the 50's and 60's?
 
Back
Top Bottom