• 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!

Limbaugh threatens to leave the country if the health-bill passes

It is certainly understandable why Rush would choose Costa Rica to go to,

Their health care system, along with 35 other countries, are rated higher than the US.

Your post assumes he going there for Costa Rican health care. If you knew what he was discussing, and it is abundantly clear that you do not, he was discussing a group of doctors that said THEY would set up a private practice there. He then said he would go there to see them.

The whole discussion had NOTHING to do with government run health care in Costa Rica.
 
Doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica and 35 other countries, have a health care system rated higher than the US. One can hardly blame him for wanting to go there.
 
Doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica and 35 other countries, have a health care system rated higher than the US. One can hardly blame him for wanting to go there.

Since he wouldn't be seeing a Costa Rican doctor, the rating of their health care system is moot. He would be seeing an American doctor at an American doctor's clinic.

Besides, you seem to assume that when he said he would "leave" the country for medical care in Costa Rica, that he meant he would "move" to Costa Rica. People leave the U.S. all the time, but few move from it.

But you already knew that didn't you ??
 
Doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica and 35 other countries, have a health care system rated higher than the US. One can hardly blame him for wanting to go there.


Only if you take the flawed UN's word for it.....


The World Health Report 2000, prepared by the World Health Organization, presented performance rankings of 191 nations’ health care systems.

These rankings have been widely cited in public debates about health care, particularly by those interested in reforming the U.S. health care system to resemble more closely those of other countries.

Michael Moore, for instance, famously stated in his film SiCKO that the United States placed only 37th in the WHO report. CNN.com, in verifying Moore’s
claim, noted that France and Canada both placed in the top 10.

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems.
They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions— some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares.

The analysts behind the WHO rankings express the hope that their framework “will lay the basis for a shift from ideological discourse on health policy to a more empirical one.” Yet the WHO rankings themselves have a strong ideological component.

They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance,
some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance. Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components.

And finally, the WHO rankings reflect implicit value judgments and lifestyle preferences that differ among individuals and across countries.


www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf


j-mac
 
Only if you take the flawed UN's word for it.....

I'll take the WMO's word for it before I would the Cato Institute, if that is what you mean.

Some of the factors Cato disallows are accessibility and distribution of services to all.
 
I'll take the WMO's word for it before I would the Cato Institute, if that is what you mean.

Some of the factors Cato disallows are accessibility and distribution of services to all.


You mean there are some that are turned away from accessing care here? Where?

Distribution = government provided. We still don't have that thank god. You must be upset.


j-mac
 
You mean there are some that are turned away from accessing care here? Where?

Distribution = government provided. We still don't have that thank god. You must be upset.


j-mac


"A recent Harvard University study revealed that 45,000 adults in the United States die each year because of lack of health insurance plans. That all changes with an aggressive series of reforms enacted by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, which will extend affordable health insurance plans to 95 percent of all Americans. Projections showed that about 60.1 million Americans would be uninsured by 2020 if the reforms hadn't passed."
Affordable health insurance - individual family and self-employed

Not really upset, I know for a country as socially immature as the US, it will take baby steps to catch us up to the rest of the developed world in providing affordable health care for all our citizens.
 
I read the transcript. Rush never said he was moving out of the country, just that he was "going to Costa Rica" in the context of speaking about health care reform. I took that to mean he was going there for health care.
 
I read the transcript. Rush never said he was moving out of the country, just that he was "going to Costa Rica" in the context of speaking about health care reform. I took that to mean he was going there for health care.

I really don't care what his reasons are for leaving, just as long as he leaves. :lol:

If HCR had not passed many more of us would have to go there for health care.
 
"A recent Harvard University study revealed that 45,000 adults in the United States die each year because of lack of health insurance plans.

I wonder how many of those are people who:

1. Chose not to get health insurance because they figured they wouldn't need it.

2. Were "financially unable to" yet spent money on a large variety of leisure activities rather than purchase something that apparently is so vital of a necessity people should be forced to purchase it for others.

3. Would still die even if they had insurance for a variety of reasons from complications to simply not bothering to go to the doctor even if they had the insurance.

4. How many are actual people who died specifically because they couldn't afford insurance in any way shape or form and would've done everything in their power had they had insurance to get healthy
 
I wonder how many of those are people who:

1. Chose not to get health insurance because they figured they wouldn't need it.

2. Were "financially unable to" yet spent money on a large variety of leisure activities rather than purchase something that apparently is so vital of a necessity people should be forced to purchase it for others.

3. Would still die even if they had insurance for a variety of reasons from complications to simply not bothering to go to the doctor even if they had the insurance.

4. How many are actual people who died specifically because they couldn't afford insurance in any way shape or form and would've done everything in their power had they had insurance to get healthy

Did you read the source link? Also below is a link to the actual report itself.

"The new study, “Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults,” appears in today’s online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.

The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

Lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, who worked at Harvard Medical School when the study was done and who now teaches at the University of Washington Medical School, said, “The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors and baseline health. We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking education, income and many other factors including smoking, drinking and obesity into account. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.

Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.

Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease.

An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths associated with lack of insurance. The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care.

Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who don’t is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.

The research, carried out at the Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those that examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase).

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Mass., noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

She added: “Even the most liberal version of the House bill would have left 17 million uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The whittled down Senate bill will be worse — leaving tens of millions uninsured, and tens of thousands dying because of lack of care. Without the administrative savings only attainable through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer reform — real universal coverage will remain unaffordable. Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives.”

Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, remarked, “The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance. Even this grim figure is an underestimate — now one dies every 12 minutes.”

“Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults,” Andrew P. Wilper, M.D., M.P.H., Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Karen E. Lasser, M.D., M.P.H., Danny McCormick, M.D., M.P.H., David H. Bor, M.D., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D. American Journal of Public Health, Sept. 17, 2009 (online); print edition Vol. 99, Issue 12, December 2009.

A copy of the study, along with a state-by-state breakout of excess deaths from lack of insurance, is available at [URL="http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths"]http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths[/URL]"

Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
"A recent Harvard University study revealed that 45,000 adults in the United States die each year because of lack of health insurance plans. That all changes with an aggressive series of reforms enacted by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, which will extend affordable health insurance plans to 95 percent of all Americans. Projections showed that about 60.1 million Americans would be uninsured by 2020 if the reforms hadn't passed."
Affordable health insurance - individual family and self-employed


Not having insurance is not the same thing as not having access.


Not really upset, I know for a country as socially immature as the US, it will take baby steps to catch us up to the rest of the developed world in providing affordable health care for all our citizens.

So you agree with me that this law is just the first step to getting a Universal plan, and putting private insurers out of business? And if it is so good, why is the rest of the world running away from it?


j-mac
 
Did you read the source link? Also below is a link to the actual report itself.

"The new study, “Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults,” appears in today’s online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.


The study is flawed....


The Harvard researchers reviewed data of 9,000 people who were tracked for up to 12 years. They found that an uninsured person among that group was 40 percent more likely to die sooner than an insured person with the same demographic, economic and health characteristics.

Stearns denounced the study, conducted by founders of the 17,000-member Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates a single-payer system. Stearns said the study was biased to promote "socialized medicine" and riddled with "inaccurate characterizations."

Stearns, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, accused the report's authors - Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler - of reaching their conclusion before launching the study.


Stearns, Grayson duel over health care study | Ocala.com


I am seeing a pattern here of you using flawed and deeply biased sourcing to back up your arguments....


j-mac
 
i remember when liberals use to shout how dissent is the highest form of patriotism....


Now we got hypocrites foaming at the mouth over a lie they spun about someone who dissents from thier views.... how sad.... :lamo

no one is excoriating rush for his willingness and weak ability to offer up his personal form of dissent

he is being flayed for saying stupid ****; making commitments that he then backs away from. he's a coward who won't stand behind his words
but i do hope rush will continue to cast his rhinestones before swine
look at its entertainment value in this thread alone
 
no one is excoriating rush for his willingness and weak ability to offer up his personal form of dissent

he is being flayed for saying stupid ****; making commitments that he then backs away from. he's a coward who won't stand behind his wordsbut i do hope rush will continue to cast his rhinestones before swine
look at its entertainment value in this thread alone




uhm, he is. you are the one lying about what he meant when putting his statement into context....


and yes, the reason you are throwing a tantrum day in and day out over your lies, is because of your seething hatred for an entertainer that you want to silence because he does not agree with your limp wristed politics.
 
Not having insurance is not the same thing as not having access.

So you agree with me that this law is just the first step to getting a Universal plan, and putting private insurers out of business? And if it is so good, why is the rest of the world running away from it?

j-mac

What makes you think the rest of the world is running away from it?
 
no one is excoriating rush for his willingness and weak ability to offer up his personal form of dissent

he is being flayed for saying stupid ****; making commitments that he then backs away from. he's a coward who won't stand behind his words
but i do hope rush will continue to cast his rhinestones before swine
look at its entertainment value in this thread alone


Still wondering if Susan Sarandon has left yet? How about Barbara Streisand She left yet? She's only about 4 years late.....Spare us the babble.


j-mac
 
uhm, he is. you are the one lying about what he meant when putting his statement into context....
no lying on my part. notice it was rush who committed to leaving the country and he is still within our borders. but if it bunches your panties, then offer up a translator for those of us who choose to accept rush's words as they were presented. it is understandable why you object to our exposing his stupidity and propaganda for any who are not currently addicted to the reich wing koolaid
but, i can appreciate why the sore losers would want rush, as the default figurehead of the republican party, to quit embarrassing himself



yes, the reason you are throwing a tantrum day in and day out over your lies, is because of your seething hatred for an entertainer that you want to silence because he does not agree with your limp wristed politics.
if you were acquainted with my posts, you will find i do not believe rush actually believes the crap he spreads. as an entertainer, rush exploits the stupidity and ignorance of his audience to enrich himself
rev, i must defer to your expertise regarding the throwing of tantrums, lying and limp wristedness
 
no lying on my part. notice it was rush who committed to leaving the country and he is still within our borders.


You are lying again. He stated IF paying out of pocket was banned he would go to costa rica for health care.


Please show some class.



but if it bunches your panties, then offer up a translator for those of us who choose to accept rush's words as they were presented. it is understandable why you object to our exposing his stupidity and propaganda for any who are not currently addicted to the reich wing koolaid
but, i can appreciate why the sore losers would want rush, as the default figurehead of the republican party, to quit embarrassing himself



Yeah, it is I who is embarrassing himself, not you who is lying his ass off to make some idiotic claim that any rational person can see, is not the case.


FAIL



if you were acquainted with my posts, you will find i do not believe rush actually believes the crap he spreads. as an entertainer, rush exploits the stupidity and ignorance of his audience to enrich himself
rev, i must defer to your expertise regarding the throwing of tantrums, lying and limp wristedness



Really? Have any examples? I know I asked you before, you said you don't listen to him.... Therefore you are being bigoted against a right winger based on ignorance.....


I won't hold my breath waiting for you to post something honest. :shrug:
 
What makes you think the rest of the world is running away from it?


Canada Considering Moving Away From Socialized Health Care - Fish Wrapper Will Ignore | The Dead Fish Wrapper Watch


The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Death By Socialized Medicine


The American Spectator : Socialized Medicine on Display


The call is out there, and countries that have long had Universal systems are faced with massive debt, and rationing due to this set up, are telling the US "DON'T DO IT!!!!!" Yet the dunderheads press forward.


j-mac
 
Canada Considering Moving Away From Socialized Health Care - Fish Wrapper Will Ignore | The Dead Fish Wrapper Watch

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Death By Socialized Medicine

The American Spectator : Socialized Medicine on Display

The call is out there, and countries that have long had Universal systems are faced with massive debt, and rationing due to this set up, are telling the US "DON'T DO IT!!!!!" Yet the dunderheads press forward.

j-mac

The first article uses the word Obamunism, which is a silly word (like teabagger), but also links to an article that I cannot research. When I read the quote from the senior official, he clearly states that he wishes to tweak the system, not overhaul it and make it completely private. There are models for a public/private partnership in universal health care systems, so this is not out of the ordinary and does not represent a fundamental shift away from universal care.

The other two articles point out to serious problem with NHS, but I fail to see how the conclusion could be made that the government was considering moving towards a private system. Especially since we have preventable tragedies in this country as well.
 
Funny Justabubba.

I didn't see any indication in his words of a specific date that he'd leave the country to visit Costa Rica.

Are you using that idiotic "Filter" of your hatred and bias towards the man again to determine context?
 
The first article uses the word Obamunism, which is a silly word (like teabagger), but also links to an article that I cannot research. When I read the quote from the senior official, he clearly states that he wishes to tweak the system, not overhaul it and make it completely private. There are models for a public/private partnership in universal health care systems, so this is not out of the ordinary and does not represent a fundamental shift away from universal care.

The other two articles point out to serious problem with NHS, but I fail to see how the conclusion could be made that the government was considering moving towards a private system. Especially since we have preventable tragedies in this country as well.


It really doesn't matter, chances are that you would fail to accept even the PM's of these nations saying that they had to shed the shackles of Universal care to move to a private system for better outcomes, if I or anyone opposing Obamacare found it anyway.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom