• 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!

Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care

For the excessive money we spend on healthcare, no one should be with ten points of us in any category.

Cost is effected by an increase demand with a slow to respond supply.
You can thank your elected leaders for that.

How about we build some more medical schools and lift the license cap on doctors before going to stupid extremes, like UHC.
 
For the excessive money we spend on healthcare, no one should be with ten points of us in any category.

Maybe the numbers are so high because evolution is working hard despite peoples insistence on creating an environment where the crippled and dependent pets not only survive but thrive. Because God knows we need MORE of those Jerry Springer rejects...
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
I'm not real sure what exactly you were saying due to your strange sentence structure, but I'll take a stab anyway.
I'm saying that just because a few abuse the system, is no reason to not try to help those that truly need help.

Madoff and Stanford abused the system, but there was no call to shutter the investment business.

Rightwingnutjob said:
If a system is not perfect then fix the system.
So you did understand my post. By all means, strive for perfection...but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Rightwingnutjob said:
Whose standards should we use? Mine, most definitely.
Just because someone is a dirtbag doesn't mean they aren't in need of help.
 
Pete, there are more factors to life expectancy than health care quality. The USA has the highest cancer survival rate in the world, while the UK has the lowest survival rate in Europe. Cancer survival rates more accurately depict a nations health care quality.
news-graphics-2007-_643378a.gif

Source:UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe - Telegraph

Cancer is often jumped on as an example of US superiority. Can you name any illness but cancer in which American outcomes are not worse?
 
Maybe the numbers are so high because evolution is working hard despite peoples insistence on creating an environment where the crippled and dependent pets not only survive but thrive. Because God knows we need MORE of those Jerry Springer rejects...

I doubt that as well (noting a bit of a joke). Our system is good for those who can afford it, or the very, very poor. Not much for everyone else. While I believe there is no perfect system, we can do better. And all countries should keep trying to do better. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
How can you compare a free clinic to actual hospital and doctor's office conditions and expect it to show that U.S. health care is poor? In all of your pictures I didn't see any 'filth' or sanitation issues, just simple, temporary setups.
Wasn't trying to compare office conditions or sanitation issues. Just that our system isn't the health care model that the rest of the world should try to emulate, like some try to allude to.

I like some parts of our health care system. I dislike some parts of our healthcare system. I want it to be better, as an American I believe that we can always do it better. You want to accomplish it one way. I want to accomplish it another way.

The large turnouts for temporary clinics show that a lot of people aren't getting even the basic health care that they need.
 
I doubt that as well (noting a bit of a joke). Our system is good for those who can afford it, or the very, very poor. Not much for everyone else. While I believe there is no perfect system, we can do better. And all countries should keep trying to do better. Nothing wrong with that.

Boo...I do more work with all those categories than you can imagien. Im not without compassion...believe it or not. At the end of the day I take people at their word when they say their desire for government health care is because they believe it will eb the 'right thing'. My experience with government health care is that it is SOOOOO not healthy. It is the lowest levels of treatment. Our social services dont help. Period. People survive in the system...they do not thrive. And with VERY RARE exceptions they DO NOT GET OFF of the system unless they simply drop off the map and have NO services. Add to the dismal delivery the fact that the government has PROVEN they are incapable of running their own house, forget about a trillion dollar a year system.
 
I'm quite tired of this debate.
Comparing the U.S. with other countries is a useless effort because we have so many statistical (and other) differences that it can skew the information out of whack.
Not to mention all the laws preventing supply and demand from coming together here.

Quite frankly, UHC is a silver bullet fallacy.
It is not the be all, end all solution to cost inflation in the medical care industry.
You have to sacrifice some quality of care in order to fund medical services for everyone.
 
Last edited:
For the excessive money we spend on healthcare, no one should be with ten points of us in any category.
If you look at the men's survival rates, only 2 other countries are within 10 points of ours.
Cancer is often jumped on as an example of US superiority. Can you name any illness but cancer in which American outcomes are not worse?
I am a student of molecular biology, I have studied cancer and I'm about to take a course specifically in cancer biology. I have had 2 close family members survive cancer, and one of them survived due to very new and top line medical treatments. Cancer absolutely indicates the quality of a countries health care system, because it takes the newest research, machines, and therapies in order to reach a survival rate that high. It's also due to the quality of medical testing. The article I cited said one reason why the UK ranks so low is because of the waits in their healthcare system. People make an appointment and get to the doctor too late, and so the cancer is harder to treat. I searched for other statistics and I couldn't find anything beyond cancer. However, I did find this chart which depicts deaths related to heart disease. Heart disease deaths statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
7 United Kingdom: 122 per 100,000 people
13 United States: 106.5 per 100,000 people
Honestly I was shocked by this considering America has a higher obesity rate (and epidemic) compared to the UK. I think it can be inferred from the data presented that one main reason why the US heart disease related deaths is lower could be due to our superior quality of care.
 
I am a student of molecular biology, I have studied cancer and I'm about to take a course specifically in cancer biology. I have had 2 close family members survive cancer, and one of them survived due to very new and top line medical treatments. Cancer absolutely indicates the quality of a countries health care system, because it takes the newest research, machines, and therapies in order to reach a survival rate that high. It's also due to the quality of medical testing. The article I cited said one reason why the UK ranks so low is because of the waits in their healthcare system. People make an appointment and get to the doctor too late, and so the cancer is harder to treat. I searched for other statistics and I couldn't find anything beyond cancer. However, I did find this chart which depicts deaths related to heart disease. Heart disease deaths statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
7 United Kingdom: 122 per 100,000 people
13 United States: 106.5 per 100,000 people
Honestly I was shocked by this considering America has a higher obesity rate (and epidemic) compared to the UK. I think it can be inferred from the data presented that one main reason why the US heart disease related deaths is lower could be due to our superior quality of care.

Specifically to what is in the bold.

Those new cutting edge treatments are expensive.
If we implement a cost effectiveness counsel, much like the U.K. does with NICE, you will start to see our survival rates fall or stagnate because the state won't want to pay out for those drugs.

It shows a decline in quality for more access.
Can't say it's worth it considering our true life expectancy isn't that much different from the rest of Europe and Canada.
 
VanceMack said:
Two obvious points...

1-The pictures I posted are the societal norm for Cuba...a system which everyone holds out as desirable in the socialized health care realm whereas the pictures you depicted are 'events'.

2-There is a world of difference even in the voluntarily provided and free (notice...people did it without government mandate) healthcare services you posted and the standard ops in Cuba.

And the funny part is I bet you think you made a POINT by posting your pics. Well..you did...you made mine...
Two obvious points...

1-You haven't shown that the pictures you posted are the "societal norm for Cuba". You may right, they may very well be the norm, but a couple of pictures and your assertions doesn't prove that. I've read many articles from many different sources that say you are correct. I've also read many articles from many different sources that say you are incorrect. Who are these "everyone" that holds Cuba system as desirable, a few maybe, but I don't think "everyone". Enough isn't known.

2-The turnout for the occasional "voluntarily provided and free" clinics show the enormous need of readily available and affordable healthcare for our citizens.

I did make a POINT by showing how desperate our citizens are for healthcare, that they will stand all night in below freezing weather 'just to be seen' by a medical professional.


Besides, the whole point of your photos was to wonder if people who thought that Cuba's system was so great, thought of the pictures you posted.

The point of my photos was to wonder if people who thought our system was so great, thought of the photos that I posted.
 
Just because someone is a dirtbag doesn't mean they aren't in need of help.
Sure they might be in need, but they sure as hell don't deserve it. Let the career criminals, abusers, rapists etc. rot.
 
LaMidRighter said:
He is a dishonest debator, which is why I have him on ignore.
Translation - He won't settle for my 'Because I Say So' as a rebuttal...LOL
 
Two obvious points...

1-You haven't shown that the pictures you posted are the "societal norm for Cuba". You may right, they may very well be the norm, but a couple of pictures and your assertions doesn't prove that. I've read many articles from many different sources that say you are correct. I've also read many articles from many different sources that say you are incorrect. Who are these "everyone" that holds Cuba system as desirable, a few maybe, but I don't think "everyone". Enough isn't known.

2-The turnout for the occasional "voluntarily provided and free" clinics show the enormous need of readily available and affordable healthcare for our citizens.

I did make a POINT by showing how desperate our citizens are for healthcare, that they will stand all night in below freezing weather 'just to be seen' by a medical professional.


Besides, the whole point of your photos was to wonder if people who thought that Cuba's system was so great, thought of the pictures you posted.

The point of my photos was to wonder if people who thought our system was so great, thought of the photos that I posted.

If I give you a link that shows the other side of Cuba would that count? therealcuba.com

I guess 'everyone' is the liberals that swallowed Michael Moores syrupy goo without using their brains that maybe they shouldnt oughta be doin that!

Those 'desperate people' can go to any publicly funded hospital in the country and get help. Period. And not in someones garage, nor piled up with a 100 person waiting list ALA Canadas walk-in clinics. Creating a universal healthcare system is going to be hugely expensive and its not going to help those people...if anything it will REINFORCE the tendency towards the crippled and dependent state they are currently in.
 
Last edited:
Just because someone is a dirtbag doesn't mean they aren't in need of help.

Enabling dirtbags and creating more social systems doesnt 'help' said dirtbag...
 
I never said it would.. so stop putting words in my mouth. The real question is how big part of the life expectancy statistic are they.. ball is in your court. While you are at it, find it for all countries so we can remove them there too. Also dont forget drinking and smoking habits and so on and so on.

I'll start out by saying sorry that I can't source this anymore. I used to have a link directly to the study, but lost it when the website I stored it at was deleted.

There was a statistical analysis done that I read about in the Sun Times about 2 years ago, in which they removed motor vehicle accidents and violent deaths (murders, etc) from the life expectancy statistics of every country. The result was that by removing these causes of death from all countries, the US was number one in life expectancy by a bit.

In other words, using life expectancy to argue that one health care system is better than another doesn't quite work. Although, it will never stop some from trying their darndest to shoe-horn it in.
 
Add in statistics for different diseases, and so on, and you can break down where the different health care systems are good and bad. That in turn has an impact on life expectancy much more than car wrecks.

I'm not certain that the last sentence is quite true. The reason is that most diseases caused by eating fatty foods (CHF/ MI) or binge drinking (liver damage) are likely to kill someone when they are older, then a car accident or gun shot wound / stabbing, which is more likely to kill someone that is younger. Obviously, the death of a 16 year old has a greater impact on life expectancy than the death of a 60 year old due to cirrhosis.
 
Boo...I do more work with all those categories than you can imagien. Im not without compassion...believe it or not. At the end of the day I take people at their word when they say their desire for government health care is because they believe it will eb the 'right thing'. My experience with government health care is that it is SOOOOO not healthy. It is the lowest levels of treatment. Our social services dont help. Period. People survive in the system...they do not thrive. And with VERY RARE exceptions they DO NOT GET OFF of the system unless they simply drop off the map and have NO services. Add to the dismal delivery the fact that the government has PROVEN they are incapable of running their own house, forget about a trillion dollar a year system.

Right now, government health care amounts to people trying not to have it. This does effect efficiency. Perhaps if we quit playing games and simply tried to do it right things would be better.

BTW, remember the VA hospital that was mostly privatized? As I recall, that got worse. Oh well, so much stereotypes. ;)
 
If you look at the men's survival rates, only 2 other countries are within 10 points of ours.

Wow, in only one category, and still two do get within ten. Doesn't seem all that impressive to me, keeping in mind how much we pay.
 
Wow, in only one category, and still two do get within ten. Doesn't seem all that impressive to me, keeping in mind how much we pay.

Those two countries are very small ;)

The facts show that our horrible and poor quality healthcare system has the highest cancer rate in the world. While the UK's ranks as the worst in Europe when it comes to surviving cancer.
 
Right now, government health care amounts to people trying not to have it. This does effect efficiency. Perhaps if we quit playing games and simply tried to do it right things would be better.

BTW, remember the VA hospital that was mostly privatized? As I recall, that got worse. Oh well, so much stereotypes. ;)

No...tell me more about the VA Hospital that was privatized.

The question gets down to "what is right". I know of NO ONE that is involved as a PROVIDER in thew Medicare system that thinks this is a GOOD thing. Medicare/Medicaid for the crippled and dependent pets...OK...fine...but we are migrating to a Universal health care. And when EVERYONE is on Medicare...well...Okiedokie...

Ooops...that is...everyone but the very rich and congress....they will have private care.
 
No...tell me more about the VA Hospital that was privatized.

The question gets down to "what is right". I know of NO ONE that is involved as a PROVIDER in thew Medicare system that thinks this is a GOOD thing. Medicare/Medicaid for the crippled and dependent pets...OK...fine...but we are migrating to a Universal health care. And when EVERYONE is on Medicare...well...Okiedokie...

Ooops...that is...everyone but the very rich and congress....they will have private care.

How soon we forget:

The scandal over treatment of outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has focused attention on the Army's decision to privatize the facilities support workforce at the hospital, a move commanders say left the building maintenance staff undermanned.

Privatized Walter Reed Workforce Gets Scrutiny - washingtonpost.com

We're no where near univerisal care. Personally I would prefer a univerisal provider for a lot of reasons. Remove it from an employer responsibility and allow business to compete fairly with the rest of the world. But, no one has proposed such a system. But, you are right that no matter what we will have a two tiered system. those who can afford more will always have more here in the states. And we will likely always give the very poor something. But the working poor and the middle class have no guaranties. ANd they don't have them without reform.

Our problems are many, and with people fighting to make reform impossible, it makes doing anything positive hard. But we have a step. Now, the question is what's the next step. Do we buckle down and try to improve? Or do we whine and let those who seek to stop reform win? Which would leave us with nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom