• 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!

U.S. offers its human rights record for U.N. review

Le Marteau

In regards to your first point, I'll make the singular statement that a document that partially outlines your system of government, as worthy as it may be, even if it's still in use, does not denote the end of the maturing period for your civilisation.

It's actually a great deal more than a piece of paper, it attempts to guarantee human rights and freedoms and has done quite a good job.. American history compares very favorably with any European, Asian, African or South American countries. If you can name more 'mature' nations that can compare with that of the United States I'd appreciate hearing what they might be.

At any rate, I'd hope that you think the US is still maturing, because it's a ****ty place for your evolution to have stopped, if it indeed has at the present day.

What makes you think that? People from all over the world are still trying to live there.

For the second point -- well that's certainly the trick, isn't it? I'm not claiming to have the perfect solution to the problem you've named, but I am saying that we must work to find one, as no nation should be exempt from investigation into international law.

It seems there are other nations far more deserving of inspection than the United States. I think we can both name a few.
 
Awesome.

An international organization full of dictators and diplomats, who do not represent their own people, get to excuse their oppressions and bad behaviors over a celebration of America's imperfections. And it really doesn't matter how slight those imperfections are or how insignificant they are compared to the whole of our identity. Is it possible that the greatest force for good over the last 200 years have made mistakes along the way? Is it possible that we have built the last standing "empire" with not only moral high ground, but also a little shadow activity? Has the entire free world been saved from Barbary Pirates, Spaniards, Japanese, Germans and Russians with only good manners? Nobody should really worry about this. Any one of our stumbles can be multiplied over and over for everybody else across the oceans. In the end, we outshine even our closest allies. Of course, our allies and enemies will take great pleasure in exaggerating anything they can for the sake of their own decrepit (very recent) histories.

With America being the muscle for the UN since the Korean War and the Soviet Union (light) and China being Security members, who gives a damn about what the UN thinks.
 
Last edited:
Until quite recently I thought the left was in favor of the separation between Church and State.

What was it that convinced them otherwise, I wonder?

The stoning of Gays and adulterers? Multiple wives and marrying children?

Would one of you lefties out there please explain this turnabout?
It's really the separation of Christianity and State.
 
Who said I didn't support some of those things.

Obamacare as you aptly name it, has been so misinterpreted and so many blatant lies made about it, I can't even tell whats fact, and made up right wing rhetoric. So thanks for that.

All I have to say is, in certain aspects.

If you can find money to kill people apdst. Then you can find money to help people.


“I wouldn’t like to see Americans make the same mistake Canadians have made… Patients in Canada are treated like Third World citizens. Our health-care system is like Cuba or North Korea.”
- Lindsay McCreith (Brain tumor patient, Canada)

Beverly Green

Beverly Green, 45, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2001. Initial tests indicated she would not benefit from hormonal drug treatment, but retesting at Mount Sinai Hospital in 2005 found that her initial test results were incorrect. Green testified at a public inquiry in March 2008.
“Angry patients testify at breast cancer test inquiry” CTV.ca News (March 19, 2008) http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080319/breast_cancer…

Branislav Djukic

Branislav Djukic, an Ontario cab driver, faced a difficult choice: Wait more than 14 weeks for cancer surgery, or travel outside of Canada and purchase the lifesaving operation. Ultimately, Djukic returned to the country he fled in 1995, the former Yugoslavia. In Belgrade, he underwent surgery to remove a portion of his left kidney at a cost of $5,000.
“Long wait forces cancer patient to buy operation in land he fled; Patient’s choice: Wait 14 weeks or pay $5,000,” The Globe and Mail, By Lisa Priest (January 31, 2007) Home - The Globe and Mail (Subscription Required)
“Londoner Travels to Yugoslavia For Cancer Treatment,” A-Channel News A-Channel | NEWS | Londoner Travels to Yugoslavia For Cancer Treatment

David Malleau

David Malleau, a 44 year-old truck driver suffered a devastating car accident in 2004 that forced doctors at Hamilton General Hospital to remove a fist-sized piece of bone from his skull to relieve pressure on his brain. Once the swelling subsided and he was ready for surgery in March 2005, Malleau was sent home and placed on a waiting list. Three months passed. Then six. He waited at home, a prisoner unable to leave the house for fear something would hit the exposed side of his brain - for him a potentially fatal incident. In the end, it took nearly a year before he could get skull replacement surgery.
“You can’t fight the hospital; Man forced to wait a year for skull surgery had no official advocate,” The Toronto Star, By Tanya Talaga and Robert Cribb (May 22, 2007) Year-long wait for skull surgery - thestar.com

Diane Nesenbrink

Diane Nesenbrink, was goofing around as a teen when her jaw locked open. That incident, 27 years ago, marked the beginning of the Stratford, Ontario, woman’s lifelong ordeal with jaw joint problems. Ms. Nesenbrink jaw joint needed to be surgically replaced. But patients who need a new hip or knee have been deemed a political priority and are guaranteed joint replacements within nine months – the “medically acceptable” wait for consultation is no more than three months and the subsequent wait for surgery no more than six months. Ms. Nesenbrink’s doctor, Dr. Baker said, “The jaw joint is an important joint as well, but we’ve been forgotten.” In fact, his patients wait an average of more than two years for surgery. Even critical cases – where patients suffer excruciating pain and are unable to move their mouths – wait at least three months. “We see patients who are in dire straits: Talking, eating, chewing, smiling are all difficult, if not impossible,” Dr. Baker said.
“A jaw-dropping wait time for surgery; While people who need new hips or knees get action within nine months, jaw joint patients can wait more than two years,” The Globe and Mail, By Andre Picard, (May 22, 2007) Jaw-dropping waiting time for surgery - The Globe and Mail

Jeff Clarke

Jeff Clarke, 34, was in a chronic state of pain for three years. The Kitchener man could stand for only 10 minutes at a time, sit for about 20 and then lie down again. The back pain, diagnosed as degenerative disc disease, travelled through his legs and often he buckled over as he tried to stand. He used two canes and a walker to get around. Then one night last November as he was watching TV, he saw a commercial about a Canadian company offering surgery in India. Clarke called the Vancouver-based business and within two days was sending his folder of medical information to the surgeon in Chennai, India. “All of a sudden there was hope, valid hope I could grasp,” he said. On Jan. 28, Clark had two titanium rods placed in his lower back, two reconstructed discs made of high-density plastic inserted, as well as screws to hold the discs together, all thanks to an Indian doctor.
“Kitchener man walks again after back surgery in India; ‘Still in a state of shock,’” The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, By Liz Monteiro (April 19, 2007) (Subscription Required)

Jordan Johanson

Jordan Johanson, 18, died at Rockyview Hospital in late March. He died following a 12-hour wait for surgery on his appendix. Darcy Johanson, the boy’s father, said “Young kids shouldn’t be dying like this. If something can be done to fix it, they should get on with it.”
“Families upset city health-care inquiry delayed; Five appendicitis deaths in 10 years at city hospitals,” The Calgary Herald, By Sean Myers (May 2, 2007) (Subscription Required)
“Teen dies after appendix ruptures,” The Edmonton Sun, By Bill Kaufman (April 19, 2007) http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/04/19/4078502.html

Lindsay McCreith

Lindsay McCreith, 66, was told he had a brain tumor but that he would have to wait four and a half months to obtain an MRI to rule out the possibility that it was cancerous. Unwilling to risk the progression of what might be cancer, Mr. McCreith obtained an MRI in Buffalo, which revealed the tumor was malignant. Even with this diagnosis in hand, the Ontario system still refused to provide timely treatment, so Mr. McCreith had surgery in Buffalo to remove the cancerous brain tumor in March, 2006. In Ontario, Mr. McCreith would have waited eight months for surgery, according to his family doctor. Eight months is enough time for a cancer to worsen, spread and progress to an irreversible stage. Had Mr. McCreith not paid $26,600 for immediate care, he might be dead today.
“Ontario man featured in U.S. health-care debate,” The Toronto Star, By Tim Harper (February 22, 2008) http://www.thestar.com/Article/305918
“Taking Ontario’s health monopoly to court,” The National Post, By John Carpay (May 3, 2007) Taking Ontario's health monopoly to court
“Patients suing province over wait times,” The Toronto Star, By Tanya Talaga (September 6, 2007) Patients suing province over wait times - thestar.com

Manon Lemoignan

Manon Lemoignan, 46, a cancer patient and the mother of two girls, was denied access to a life-prolonging drug. Lemoignan’s oncologist at the Royal Victoria Hospital recommended the best therapy available, Avastin. The drug, however, had not yet been approved for use in Canada.
“Cancer drug has OK - it just isn’t available,” The Montreal Gazette, By Charlie Fidelman (March 27, 2006) canada.com - Canadian news, entertainment, television, newspapers, free email and more

Rally Levy

Rally Levy, a breast cancer patient in Montreal, was denied eligibility for the drug Herceptin. Where she lives, the drug is only available to women with advanced breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. “If I started my chemo a month ago, I would have been on the trial group that was eligible,” said Rally Levy. “They have realized it is a good pill. Why can’t I get it?”
“Speed up cancer drug availability, critics urge,” CBC News (June 21, 2005) CBC News - Health - Speed up cancer drug availability, critics urge

Sheila Nunn

Sheila Nunn, a Kitchener woman suffering seizures, was told by her doctor that she urgently needed an MRI scan. She was also told she would have to wait three months to have it done locally. Nunn, who had been suffering blackouts, memory loss, confusion and seizures for two months, decided to take action: She paid $1,100 to have the MRI scan done in Michigan.
“Seizure patients face long MRI waits, group says,” The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, By Anne Kelly (June 15, 2007) (Subscription Required)
“Wait for MRI tests too long in region,” The Kitchener-Waterloo Record (June 9, 2007) (Subscription Required)
“‘Totally Unacceptable,’” The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, By Anne Kelly (June 7, 2007) (Subscription Required)

Sheryl Smolkin

Sheryl Smolkin had been undergoing several months of assorted treatments for pain in her right knee, but the pain was still putting a crimp in her quality of life. So, she decided to go to Buffalo, New York in late December for an MRI. She had an appointment at 1:30 a.m. on Feb. 21 at a Toronto hospital, but simply didn’t want to put it off any longer. With the assistance of Richard Baker at Vancouver-based Timely Medical Alternatives, she arranged to have the procedure done at a convenient time five days later for $465 (CDN). The only waiting she had to do was the two hours in traffic it took to cross the Queenston-Lewiston Bridge into the United States. Based on the MRI, her knee problem has been diagnosed, but that’s only the first step. A February appointment with a specialist will determine if she’ll need to go on another wait list for surgery.
“Shuffling off to Buffalo for an MRI,” Employee Benefit News Canada, By Sheryl Smolkin (February 1, 2007) (Subscription Required)

Vince Motta

Vince Motta, 23, died of a severe asthma attack after he was airlifted to Rockyview Hospital following appendix surgery at High River hospital. Motta and his mother had waited at both Rockyview and Foothills Hospital, but eventually left due to the long waits.
“Deaths deserve a public inquiry,” The Calgary Herald, Editorial By Maureen L. Prowse (June 17, 2007) (Subscription Required)
“CHR review clears hospital in death of Calgary teenager; Parents of boy ‘disappointed’ with finding,” The Calgary Herald, (June 13, 2007) (Subscription Required)
“Families upset city health care inquiry delayed; Five appendicitis deaths in 10 years at city hospitals,” The Calgary Herald, By Sean Myers, (May 2, 2007) (Subscription Required)

Virginia Yule

Virginia Yule, 49, met her surgeon only twice, for a total of 45 minutes, to learn she needed a biopsy after a mammogram found a shadow on her breast, and then to be told she had cancer. So she wrote her doctor a letter. “I really wanted her to know who I was,” she says now, cancer-free for seven years. Ms. Yule’s desire to be seen as a person is a common complaint among cancer patients caught in a system that seems overwhelmed by waiting lists and swamped by test results, where phone calls tunnel through to voice mail and a busy doctor may have mere minutes to explain the most complicated, heart-stopping medical information.
“I made noise, and things moved,” The Globe and Mail, By Erin Anderssen (December 9, 2006) 'I made noise, and things moved' - The Globe and Mail


BigGovHealth | Health Care Horror Stories


Yep, Canadian health care sounds just great.


j-mac
 
Duplicate post
 
Last edited:
Duplicate post
 
Last edited:
j-mac


Yep, Canadian health care sounds just great.

Unless you know better.

It was better before the government got involved and I suspect it was better before the HMO's and Medicare became big in the States. Whatever comes between doctors and patients is not good, and we know prices are going to go crazy when they do. Where Canadians can go to get proper medical treatment once the the US changes their system is causing a bit of a dilemma for Canadians.

Medical tourism is becoming big business in Central America though, where I am right now, so at least there are still areas of free enterprise, as well as agreements directly between doctor and patient.
 
Last edited:
Something willm always come between doctors and patients, even if it is just money. The patient who can't afford care, won't get it under any system. It's a false argument to suggest that the only way someone is between the patient and the doctor is with government involvement. For the patient who can't afford care, that intervention seems pretty damn good.
 
Yep, Canadian health care sounds just great.

Right, and patients here in the US aren't at times denied life-saving treatment simply because the health insurer decides it's less expensive to delay in court and let the patient die rather than pay for care.
 
Something willm always come between doctors and patients, even if it is just money. The patient who can't afford care, won't get it under any system. It's a false argument to suggest that the only way someone is between the patient and the doctor is with government involvement. For the patient who can't afford care, that intervention seems pretty damn good.

There are people who can't afford health care because the middleman, either the government or insurance companies, are forcibly involving themselves in the process. Intervention between two consenting parties committing a legal act is never pretty damn good. We can see how that works.
 
There are people who can't afford health care because the middleman, either the government or insurance companies, are forcibly involving themselves in the process. Intervention between two consenting parties committing a legal act is never pretty damn good. We can see how that works.

That's not really true. Remove them, and the cost is still prohibative. Medicien will not go back to a time of trading fruits and vegatables for service, and even then, most could not afford adequate care and simply went without.
 
That's not really true. Remove them, and the cost is still prohibative. Medicien will not go back to a time of trading fruits and vegatables for service, and even then, most could not afford adequate care and simply went without.

There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. With outsiders deciding how much the doctor will receive, as well as the restrictions that be followed, then it naturally follows that there will be more money going to the middleman rather than the doctor. Someone has to pay for all that administration that's required to oversee who's getting what, and that's why prices are so high.

At one time, before these shenanigans began, most people could afford a doctor and if there was a special needs case, such as in the polio epidemic, private citizens jumped in to help. And when there was a special rare operation that was expensive, family, friends and neighbors all chipped in to help.

Those days are gone now, thanks to a recent ideology that some stranger, "the rich" according to this administration, should pay for everyone else. This is immoral of course but that won't stop the process. It will eventually collapse from its own weight, as we can see elsewhere, but facts will never stop the ideologues.
 
There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. With outsiders deciding how much the doctor will receive, as well as the restrictions that be followed, then it naturally follows that there will be more money going to the middleman rather than the doctor. Someone has to pay for all that administration that's required to oversee who's getting what, and that's why prices are so high.

At one time, before these shenanigans began, most people could afford a doctor and if there was a special needs case, such as in the polio epidemic, private citizens jumped in to help. And when there was a special rare operation that was expensive, family, friends and neighbors all chipped in to help.

Those days are gone now, thanks to a recent ideology that some stranger, "the rich" according to this administration, should pay for everyone else. This is immoral of course but that won't stop the process. It will eventually collapse from its own weight, as we can see elsewhere, but facts will never stop the ideologues.

Outsiders generally work to bring costs down. Third party payers want to pay less and not more.

Before third party payers, we lived in a different world. Medicine was limited, and many relied on home remedies. What medicine many got form doctors was from a town physician who often traded services for things liek fruits and vegatables. Only the very wealthy had access to more. As medicine became more advanced, people were being left out of it and were easy prey to dishonest quacks who lacked the actual training, causing harm. So, we began to regulate more and bring in insurance.

This allowed more people access. And allowed for people to specialize and do more for people than they could in the past. Sure, people aslo came to expect more, and that has it's problems, but overall this has been good. No one really wants a return no matter how much they have forgotten or don't know the actual history here, but the fact is, we won't go back. So with that fact, we need to see how to go forward.

And the rich are not so abused as they want to stop being rich. I know their lot is a hard, hard thing. Sad really. But they still prefer being them than the poor. :coffeepap
 
Outsiders generally work to bring costs down. Third party payers want to pay less and not more.

How is third party involvement going to bring costs down? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Before third party payers, we lived in a different world. Medicine was limited, and many relied on home remedies.

Are you saying that had there been third party inolvement 80 years ago or so, the technology would have been better? That's just a part of how we have advanced in almost all areas of life, and has nothing whatsoever with third party involvement.
What medicine many got form doctors was from a town physician who often traded services for things liek fruits and vegatables.

That did occasionally happen but so what? The bottom line is that people got treated.
Only the very wealthy had access to more.

That is simply not true. It's not even remotely true and you should be ashamed for making such a claim.

As medicine became more advanced, people were being left out of it and were easy prey to dishonest quacks who lacked the actual training, causing harm. So, we began to regulate more and bring in insurance.

That is simplistic nonsense as well. I'd really like to see your sources for this disinformation.
This allowed more people access. And allowed for people to specialize and do more for people than they could in the past. Sure, people aslo came to expect more, and that has it's problems, but overall this has been good. No one really wants a return no matter how much they have forgotten or don't know the actual history here, but the fact is, we won't go back. So with that fact, we need to see how to go forward.

The fact is that with government involvement no one has any idea where you are going. No one does because it's all based on whimsy.

And the rich are not so abused as they want to stop being rich. I know their lot is a hard, hard thing. Sad really. But they still prefer being them than the poor.

The "rich" are leaving. I'm in Central America at the moment and they''re arriving daily from the highly taxed countries. Why should they give away their money to the US government when there are other very attractive places to live? The next "rich" is the middle class.
 
How is third party involvement going to bring costs down? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

By saying what they will and won't pay for, negotiating savings, and denying payment for certian types of procedures (death panels :coffeepap )

Are you saying that had there been third party inolvement 80 years ago or so, the technology would have been better? That's just a part of how we have advanced in almost all areas of life, and has nothing whatsoever with third party involvement.

Remember, better doesn't mean only. Sure, there are other factors and other ways, but yes, it would have been better (though that was a main point of mine). The point was more where we were, and that technology increased and people could not afford it, and didn't actually have access to it. Insurance provided access.

That did occasionally happen but so what? The bottom line is that people got treated.

Acutally no. Many did not get treated, and fewer got good treatment. Most could not afford the modern techonologies.


That is simply not true. It's not even remotely true and you should be ashamed for making such a claim.

No, that is true.

When doctors began learning more about diseases and effective treatments, they started charging more - more than most people could afford. They also needed to treat people in hospitals to take advantage of new medical technology, which further added to the costs. Couple that with the start of the Great Depression, and the situation was even worse.

U. S. Healthcare History

For a number of reasons, health care costs also began to rise during the 1920’s, mostly because the middle class began to use hospital services and hospital costs started to increase. Medical, and especially hospital, care was now a bigger item in family budgets than wage losses.

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program

Price has always rationed health care in this country.

That is simplistic nonsense as well. I'd really like to see your sources for this disinformation.

See above, or look up the history of health care insurance. cost was outdistancing people's ability to pay, so insurance was needed. There were efforts at being about nation health insurance, but the same socialism scares we see today were at work back then, and that is how we came to have insurance attach to the empolyer. I could link several history sites, but I think you can do that as seasily as I can.


The fact is that with government involvement no one has any idea where you are going. No one does because it's all based on whimsy.

I'm really not sure what you're saying here. Can you clarify?


The "rich" are leaving. I'm in Central America at the moment and they''re arriving daily from the highly taxed countries. Why should they give away their money to the US government when there are other very attractive places to live? The next "rich" is the middle class.

Well, they're free to go. Greed has always played a role in world history. I don't suspect that will change. And the wealthy lived overseas even in the past. So, I'm not sure I care about this too much. Workers and the average citizen loses either way.
 
Back
Top Bottom