• 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!

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

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

I have a question about healthcare in America.

We have billions if not trillions of dollars going into American healthcare each year.

My question is quite simple where does it go?
Drug companies.
Hospitals most are charitable organizations
Doctors most MD'S are underpaid.
So where does the rest go???:peace

That's a great question. I'd like to know myself.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

The fantasies of conservatives are getting more and more ornate.

The usual talking points with you and the standard lack of intelligent description or deduction as to the way the conclusion was made.

Did I read correctly that you are European?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

I have a question about healthcare in America.

We have billions if not trillions of dollars going into American healthcare each year.

My question is quite simple where does it go?
Drug companies.
Hospitals most are charitable organizations
Doctors most MD'S are underpaid.
So where does the rest go???:peace

Hello old friend! I hope the winter has not been too chilly up North for you this winter!

I think the most of it goes to profits by monopolies by health care providers.

March/April 2012

Gerald Friedman, Professor of economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

“While providing superior health care,” the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (HR 676), “would save as much as $570 billion now wasted on administrative overhead and monopoly profits. A single payer system would also make health-care financing dramatically more progressive by replacing fixed, income-invariant health-care expenditures with progressive taxes.”

Friedman estimated that, in 2013, single payer would save $215 billion on administrative costs to providers, $23 billion on government administration, and $153 billion on private health insurance administration. It would also save $178 billion on drugs, medical equipment, and hospital care by reducing their market power, for a total of $570 billion. Of that, single payer would spend $110 billion extending coverage to all, $142 billion on eliminating co-pays and increasing utilization, especially home health care and dental, and $74 billion to raise Medicaid payment rates to providers, for a net savings of $244 billion.

Friedman modeled one financing scheme consistent with HR 676: current federal health spending, current state Medicaid spending, plus a small financial transactions tax, high income surtax (6 percent on top 5 percent of income-earners), surtax on unearned income (6 percent), and 4-7 percent payroll tax (4 percent on bottom 40 percent). Compared with what people pay today in taxes, premiums and out-of-pocket payments, single payer would save money for 95 percent of Americans while providing medically necessary care to all."

Funding a National Single-Payer System | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

What works for you may not work for me. In fact my medical is paid for from the interest on the HSA. My insurance and medical essintially no cost to me directly after my intial investment, I dont believe in Germany you have anything quite comparable. In this country especially, one size definately does NOT fit all. We are not really comparable as my more so called "progressive" countrymen seem to think. We out here are a pretty diverse lot with different ways of living. Your not going to be able to make a straight across clean comparison. What works for you may only work for some of us. Thats what the fight is all about besides the power grab and individual rights issues.

Pooling is a insurance strategy that I am well aware of. I prefer to be able to select the pool most advantages to me.
Pooling is the insurance (a Swiss invention) strategy. There are no others. However, here are many ways to calculate this pool ... Lets not get into the details.

Contrary to what Americans think about the European systems, they are usually a mix between private and public schemes. And they are constantly renegotiated. So what you're saying is actually not in contradiction to my assertion. And you know, surprise, surprise, we also have lots of different ways of living in Europe!

However, I don't see what living styles have to do with health. Health is health and a human body a human body. A heavy smoker might get a lung cancer anywhere in the world regarless whther he lives in a truck on the route 66 or in a penthouse in Paris :roll: In both cases: better have a good health care!

This is why I doubt the argument that this would not work out because Americans are so "special", LOL. As for corruption (your full post), that would be a problem in general regardless of the private or public nature of the insurances.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

You miss the mark by thinking this is about me. It's not, I'm fine with giving single payer a go (not this bastard Obamacare BS). I don't believe it will work here, and will end up being a huge sucking nightmare, but I'm willing to give it a go and be proven wrong. I want to be proven wrong - but by reality, not some poster's hopes and dreams for reality.

The assertion was made that our systems differ in how we view personal responsibility and the mix we allow between personal responsibility and group responsibility, and when and where each holds the most sway. YOU asserted that your society's mix was towards personal responsibility and tortured an example to show it. That is what I addressed, what I responded to. You should know that because I quoted the assertion you made and specifically addressed it.
My assertion is that you have cliché and meaningless views about Europeans.:cool:

I further explained to you that the issue of health care is not about responsibility. It is about getting the best possible deal: the highest value of health care at the cheapest price.

And no, to the further silliness, it is not possible, even here, to just withdraw to the cave and live without societal interference. Some busybody always gets concerned that you are "okay" and enlists the state to come check on you, to "do something" about you. It's an easy thing for the state to do, interfere. They can always pull out the fact that you don't own the cave, or if you do, that you're not paying the proper taxes on it or maintaining it the way the folks down the hill have legislated you must.
Come on ... All you need to do is not to enlist anywhere... As for these busybodies, I wish they had visited these old people regularly found dead in their appartments ...

Where I agree is that as soon as you get into a social activity - be it a job or a club or this forum - you need to play by the rules.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

I don't believe half of this crap. For one, I'll wager we keep better stats than most people. Two, we have a much higher sample size than the other nations that were measured. Three, have any of you been to Europe before? Those people smoke like friggin chimneys man. There's no way we have more people with cancer here.

:funny

1) You don't like these stats ------>> You don't believe them. OK ... :doh. But why would anybody believe you, an anonymous poster on the Internet?

2) What makes you say the US keep better stats than any other country in the world? That's bit arrogant to assert, no? What's your evidence to support this arrogance? We have statistical institutes in Europe, you know. We also get an education and know how to count. Actually statistics were developed in Europe. And anyway, you were actually saying that you were not believing these stats? So, do you or don't you believe them?

3) The sample size is not what matters as long as the result is a ratio (a "rate") rather than a volume (a "total number") That's the beauty of stats.

4) If you actually knew how to read, you would see that the stats are not about the number of people get lung cancer, but about the rate of those who die of lung cancer. There may be (maybe) less people who get lung cancer in the States but there are comparatively more who die of lung cancer - which, excuse me, is not surprising if so many people have no health insurance coverage or insufficient health coverage ... That's actually common sense.

5) Have you actually been to Europe? ;)
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

I am not sure whether I should laugh at such a naive response or cry ... :doh

Don't you see that people of African heritage, as you label it, are also those who have the less access to health care in the USA? Wouldn't you think that their reduced access to health care is the cause of their higher decease rates rather than ... their genes? In fact, your example shows exactly this: all race/ethnicities don't get equal access to care. If they did, it wouldn't so much matter with what kind of illness they are being cured for ... African people would get cured for their sickle cells and European people for their hemopholia ...

Besides, contrary to what wou think, Germany too has a mixed population, or France, or the Netherlands ...

No one is denied healtcare in the US. For the poor, they have Medicaid. So your "they have less access to care" is a fallacy. Many, of all races, should be denied care, but they are not.

Germany--German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, Italian 0.7%, Greek 0.4%, Polish 0.4%, other 4.6%

United States --White: 211,460,626 (75.1%); Black: 34,658,190 (12.3%); Asian: 10,242,998 (3.6%); American Indian and Alaska Native: 2,475,956 (0.9%); Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander: 398,835 (0.1%); other race: 15,359,073 (5.5%); Hispanic origin:1 35,305,818 (12.5%)

Germany is hardly multi-ethnic to any extent when compared to the US.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

The WHO would disagree with that, but then, what do they know? How can we take their word over that of someone posting anonymously posting on an internet forum?

Because I offer all the opportunity to take their blinders off and I point out fallacies with such systems. Don't take my word, simply use it to view the WHO differently. But then WHO use UHC as a weighted measure when determining the ranking of a healthcare system. How do we rank when you take the socialist agenda out of the measure?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Because I offer all the opportunity to take their blinders off and I point out fallacies with such systems. Don't take my word, simply use it to view the WHO differently. But then WHO use UHC as a weighted measure when determining the ranking of a healthcare system. How do we rank when you take the socialist agenda out of the measure?

I'm not sure, how?
and why shouldn't access to health care be a part of the formula for evaluating a health care system?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

I'm not sure, how?
and why shouldn't access to health care be a part of the formula for evaluating a health care system?

Depends on what you define as "access". Number of hospitals per capita, doctors per capita, testing equipment/procedures available per capita are all useful measures of access. People who have not done what is necessary to earn healthcare being granted it, is not a good measure of access. Of course, the US and other "first world" nations are different from others because here, we have plenty of opportunity to better ourselves and earn better for ourselves. Third world countries and worse, they don't have any opportunity to better themselves other than maybe revolution against their governments, so they should be measured differently.

Places like the US, where poverty is more a matter of choice than a matter of lack of opportunity, I say if they don't earn, they don't deserve it.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Depends on what you define as "access". Number of hospitals per capita, doctors per capita, testing equipment/procedures available per capita are all useful measures of access. People who have not done what is necessary to earn healthcare being granted it, is not a good measure of access. Of course, the US and other "first world" nations are different from others because here, we have plenty of opportunity to better ourselves and earn better for ourselves. Third world countries and worse, they don't have any opportunity to better themselves other than maybe revolution against their governments, so they should be measured differently.

Places like the US, where poverty is more a matter of choice than a matter of lack of opportunity, I say if they don't earn, they don't deserve it.

and the bar for having earned it keeps getting higher and higher as costs soar and wages stagnate.

Should cost be a part of the evaluation, or is the sky the limit?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

No one is denied healtcare in the US. For the poor, they have Medicaid. So your "they have less access to care" is a fallacy. Many, of all races, should be denied care, but they are not.

Germany--German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, Italian 0.7%, Greek 0.4%, Polish 0.4%, other 4.6%

United States --White: 211,460,626 (75.1%); Black: 34,658,190 (12.3%); Asian: 10,242,998 (3.6%); American Indian and Alaska Native: 2,475,956 (0.9%); Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander: 398,835 (0.1%); other race: 15,359,073 (5.5%); Hispanic origin:1 35,305,818 (12.5%)

Germany is hardly multi-ethnic to any extent when compared to the US.
I am not saying that anybody is being denied healthcare in the USA ... I am stating a well-known fact that many people in the USA can't afford health care. This is race-unrelated but income-related. And this is something I understand Obama has been trying to fix.

Germany is not as multi-ethnic as the USA, true, but that is hardly the reason why the health care system there is more efficient.
If what you are saying is that the "Arian race" has a better health than, let say, Turkish people, well first this is a racist argument the Nazis would have loved, second there is no evidence for this anyway, third this is completely irrelevant because everybody in Germany gets access to the whole range of available health care services regardless of their "race" and income and this everybody is one reason why altogether the German health care system fares better than the US one.

...

PS. Oh! And by the way, your statistics on Germany are flawed. They record the "nationality", not the "race" or "ethnicity" ... Therefore little surprise that 91 % of the German population is German since this is Germany. Your stats only indicate that 10% non German nationals live in Germany - And I belong to them since I am a French resident in Germany with full access to the German health care system, thank you.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

and the bar for having earned it keeps getting higher and higher as costs soar and wages stagnate.

Should cost be a part of the evaluation, or is the sky the limit?

Depends. Can you actually separate out how much caring for the un-insured is costing us? How many could afford insurance if there was not the added cost of caring for these leeches? How much in added cost do we have due to our allowing our patients to be overcharged on drugs so that the drug can be offered to the third world cheaper? How much is the added due levels of technology and other advances that we have and are the only system paying for?

I look back and see that the cost for policies has skyrocket since care for the indigent became mandatory. It is kind of like when auto insurance became mandatory in all 50 states, cost skyrocketed something like 3,000% in only a couple of years.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

I am not saying that anybody is being denied healthcare in the USA ... I am stating a well-known fact that many people in the USA can't afford health care. This is race-unrelated but income-related. And this is something I understand Obama has been trying to fix.

Germany is not as multi-ethnic as the USA, true, but that is hardly the reason why the health care system there is more efficient.
If what you are saying is that the "Arian race" has a better health than, let say, Turkish people, well first this is a racist argument the Nazis would have loved, second there is no evidence for this anyway, third this is completely irrelevant because everybody in Germany gets access to the whole range of available health care services regardless of their "race" and income and this everybody is one reason why altogether the German health care system fares better than the US one.

...

PS. Oh! And by the way, your statistics on Germany are flawed. They record the "nationality", not the "race" or "ethnicity" ... Therefore little surprise that 91 % of the German population is German since this is Germany. Your stats only indicate that 10% non German nationals live in Germany - And I belong to them since I am a French resident in Germany with full access to the German health care system, thank you.

Obama is a socialist and is trying to socialize medicine. His so-called Obama care package was designed to make the system fail so that the Dems could the socialize the system.

I don't know the different health requirements of German vs Turks, that is not a break down in the CDC documents.

Having experienced the German healthcare system on two occasions, I wouldn't call it good or efficient. But then, the system in a major city like Berlin (isn't that the capital again now?) vs a smaller area like Heinsberg and Geilenkirchen, maybe it is much better in a bigger city.

Differences in medical needs between different races and the level of diversity in the US is only one factor that raises our costs. Also look at our Obesity levels, WIN - Statistics, vs Germany's 60.1%. What are the differences in traffic accident rates, and many other factors.

One thing that could greatly reduce our healthcare cost would be for other countries to pick up a lot more of the cost of developing/deploying new technology and drugs.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Obama is a socialist and is trying to socialize medicine. His so-called Obama care package was designed to make the system fail so that the Dems could the socialize the system.

I don't know the different health requirements of German vs Turks, that is not a break down in the CDC documents.

Having experienced the German healthcare system on two occasions, I wouldn't call it good or efficient. But then, the system in a major city like Berlin (isn't that the capital again now?) vs a smaller area like Heinsberg and Geilenkirchen, maybe it is much better in a bigger city.

Differences in medical needs between different races and the level of diversity in the US is only one factor that raises our costs. Also look at our Obesity levels, WIN - Statistics, vs Germany's 60.1%. What are the differences in traffic accident rates, and many other factors.

One thing that could greatly reduce our healthcare cost would be for other countries to pick up a lot more of the cost of developing/deploying new technology and drugs.
I am sorry you had a bad experience when you were in Germany, but I am not surprised: Americans who are against socialist Obama care usually report a bad experience when they were in Europe , LOL :mrgreen:.

In fact, the German system is one of the most efficient systems in the world and attracts lost of foreign patients:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/w...alth-care-attracts-foreign-patients.html?_r=0

It fares better than the US on all counts and remains cheaper despite an aging poulation ...
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...t_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf

Yes, the obesity level is a problem in the USA but that is something where prevention is possible. And if the spending of drugs and of high tech is higher in the US than anywhere in the world, it's a shame if at the end there are still more ill people, a higher cancer death rates, higher infant mortality rates and shorter life expectancy ... Well, I am sure you know the statistics :cool:
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Exactly where are you talking about though?
The United States on the one hand, and pretty much the rest of the developed world on the other. In comparison, we are getting our asses kicked on overall health care and our wallets drained at the same time.

Really? Are you aware that the numbers being used for comparison in the OP come from the WHO which is a part of the UN? Lol. Sorry. Lots of alphabet there.
Then talk to that guy. As previously noted, I have not cited any UN or WHO data. And thanks to years of experience in and around the federal government, I can put you under the table in an acronym contest.

But seriously. If the numbers from the start are going to be talked about...they are using the WHO numbers as a big portion of their statistics (with some stuff from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
But seriously, all major industrialized countries have highly developed health care systems and highly developed statistical reporting systems. We are not talking about Burundi here. European health care systems are as comprehensive and competent as US systems and have been for quite a long time. The same is true for such countries as Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand. As for classification differences, they are often touted by rah-rah apologists but are in fact way at the margin and in the final analysis totally meaningless. Suppose for instance that we took only the data from the ten US states with the lowest infant mortality rates (NH, WY, VT, MN, CO, WI, HI, KS, UT, and MA) and let them stand in for the country as a whole. We would still rank only tenth out of thirty in infant mortality. Suppose that we then threw all the non-whites out of the data for those ten states. Still tenth, I'm afraid. That's because your carping is nothing but an attempted whitewash of a national disgrace. The richest country in the world loses as many babies as we do not because of social differences or measurement discrepancies, but because we simply don't get health care of any type to an inexcusable portion of our population. This same factor helps drive our eternally dismal standing in the matter of deaths from amenable causes.

I know it was just a google search, but honestly just look up the different articles that are there.
Uh-huh. Let me Google that for you...

Notice this is from the WHO and it talks about the inaccuracy of infant mortality.
No, it was PUBLISHED by WHO but is actually a 2008 interview with a Save the Children researcher working in South Africa. She talks about progress (and in some cases the lack of it) toward meeting Millennium Development Goals. In Africa. Maybe you didn't read it or something.

Why? Kids fall through the cracks. Well. That is only in Africa right? Maybe Asia? Sadly. No. Countries define "live birth" differently. Try this on:
That was a threadbare, six-year old hand-me-down. It didn't fit. Horrible color as well. Wouldn't wear it to a rock fight. Not a single viable point surfaces within that puff-piece article. It's completely worthless.

I mean come on?
Come on? Now you are citing as if they were dispassionate observers a bunch of Obama-haters flailing away at that same WHO report from 2000 as part of a 2009 attempt to beat back health care reform? Get serious! Your extensive and barely more recent exhibits are all frauds. This is because you do not have a case.

In short. Just on infant mortality can you REALLY tell me that the WHO/UN reporting methods are all that "reliable?" Numbers can be fudged. Not in some sinister plot (which if we are to get real...the WHO has a universal health coverage agenda...because that is their mission so I can't fault them for having it)...but because as we HAVE discussed and YOU are trying to ignore...reporting standards differ and so those differences fudge the numbers as a side effect. Do I need to continue on the inadequacies of data reports from the UN?
They have an agenda and are fudging the numbers? Such a load of insouciant and disingenuous tripe. Grade-schoolers would be marked down for turning in such rot.

How many people have to go to the public hospitals and free clinics? So compare numbers of doctors to numbers of patients. Who do you think will have a higher work load? City or rural? Do you think that number of patients doesn't contribute to a decline in overall healthcare for a particular doctor/region? Just because there is "access" doesn't mean the quality is good. Rural can't be compared to city. Why? Differences. Variety of different abilities in different areas. So...
You claimed that the poverty and population density of our inner cities was making our overall health care numbers look bad when it is in fact our rural health care system that is in the worst state of repair. Europe of course has cities. The population density there is higher than here. Their poverty rates equal or exceed ours. Your claims were just more gratuitous smoke and mirrors.

Which country? AGAIN. I really shouldn't need to explain this but I will. We are talking about the rankings of the United States compared to 27 nations. That means the averages of 27 nations. 50 states is equivalent to the policies of 27 nations. The budgets and income are going to be different. Germany isn't trying to deal with French or Polish or Italian health care issues when they are brought to the table. United States Government politicians are going to have to deal with New York, Florida, Mississippi, California, and so on. If we are going to discuss national policies...you need to pick a nation. Last time I checked...Europe wasn't a nation.
Where does CDC data come from? Would that principally be from fifty state health departments, plus DC, VI, and FM? You are yet again trying to produce a silk purse from a sow's ear. It isn't working. You will not be receiving a patent for the process. The EU has more than 500 million diverse people and various political subdivisions. The US has more than 300 million diverse people and various political subdivisions. The EU crushes the US in overall health care, and does so while spending a lot less per capita for it. End of (very unfortunate for us) story.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Depends. 1 Can you actually separate out how much caring for the un-insured is costing us? 2 How many could afford insurance if there was not the added cost of caring for these leeches? 3 How much in added cost do we have due to our allowing our patients to be overcharged on drugs so that the drug can be offered to the third world cheaper? 4 How much is the added due levels of technology and other advances that we have and are the only system paying for?

5 I look back and see that the cost for policies has skyrocket since care for the indigent became mandatory. 6 It is kind of like when auto insurance became mandatory in all 50 states, cost skyrocketed something like 3,000% in only a couple of years.

1. probably quite a lot. We should have a better idea when mandatory coverage takes effect.
2. Probably more than can afford it now.
3. Quite a lot, yet the government is prohibited from negotiating prices. I'm not sure about private insurance, but they don't seem to negotiate prices either. The sky is the limit on non generic drugs.
4. I'm not sure what that means.
5. When did that happen? Costs have been skyrocketing for as long as I can remember, and that's a long time.
6. Holy crap! Where do you live? Auto insurance hasn't gone up anywhere near that much here.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

:funny

1) You don't like these stats ------>> You don't believe them. OK ... :doh. But why would anybody believe you, an anonymous poster on the Internet?

2) What makes you say the US keep better stats than any other country in the world? That's bit arrogant to assert, no? What's your evidence to support this arrogance? We have statistical institutes in Europe, you know. We also get an education and know how to count. Actually statistics were developed in Europe. And anyway, you were actually saying that you were not believing these stats? So, do you or don't you believe them?

3) The sample size is not what matters as long as the result is a ratio (a "rate") rather than a volume (a "total number") That's the beauty of stats.

4) If you actually knew how to read, you would see that the stats are not about the number of people get lung cancer, but about the rate of those who die of lung cancer. There may be (maybe) less people who get lung cancer in the States but there are comparatively more who die of lung cancer - which, excuse me, is not surprising if so many people have no health insurance coverage or insufficient health coverage ... That's actually common sense.

5) Have you actually been to Europe? ;)
1) Didn't ask you too
2) Yep, you guys can count. You do a great job. How's the Euro doing btw?
3) When you have a larger sample size, it effects the ratio. The margin or error is larger with a smaller sample size. I figured an all knowing European would know that:roll: Also, when the methods of gathering statistics are different, there is potential for collusion. I see that the World Health Organization took these stats. I doubt they surveyed people directly. They most likely gathered the stats from each country's gov't.
4) Having no health coverage has nothing to do with it. Any person can walk into a hospital here and received care. No one is turned away. That's common sense over here.
5) Numerous times. It sucks. I see why our ancestors wanted out so bad.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

1) Didn't ask you too
2) Yep, you guys can count. You do a great job. How's the Euro doing btw?
3) When you have a larger sample size, it effects the ratio. The margin or error is larger with a smaller sample size. I figured an all knowing European would know that:roll: Also, when the methods of gathering statistics are different, there is potential for collusion. I see that the World Health Organization took these stats. I doubt they surveyed people directly. They most likely gathered the stats from each country's gov't.
4) Having no health coverage has nothing to do with it. Any person can walk into a hospital here and received care. No one is turned away. That's common sense over here.
5) Numerous times. It sucks. I see why our ancestors wanted out so bad.

Faced with overwhelming evidence that the US pay for service medical system is failing, conservatives invoke false histories and deny statistics. It's all they got
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

Pooling is the insurance (a Swiss invention) strategy. There are no others. However, here are many ways to calculate this pool ... Lets not get into the details.

Contrary to what Americans think about the European systems, they are usually a mix between private and public schemes. And they are constantly renegotiated. So what you're saying is actually not in contradiction to my assertion. And you know, surprise, surprise, we also have lots of different ways of living in Europe!

However, I don't see what living styles have to do with health. Health is health and a human body a human body. A heavy smoker might get a lung cancer anywhere in the world regarless whther he lives in a truck on the route 66 or in a penthouse in Paris :roll: In both cases: better have a good health care!

This is why I doubt the argument that this would not work out because Americans are so "special", LOL. As for corruption (your full post), that would be a problem in general regardless of the private or public nature of the insurances.

My primary reason to oppose universal health care or single payer is it is in MY interest to do so. My rates are as low as you can get and the way I am set my families health care up, is essintially free, and on track to actually pay me. Change is NOT something I want.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Faced with overwhelming evidence that the US pay for service medical system is failing, conservatives invoke false histories and deny statistics. It's all they go.
Would you mind reposting that in English please? Your post is almost incoherent. Though I can guess what it sounds like. "Conservatives/Tea Partiers/the GOP sucks at _________ because that's all I know how to say. Oh, I have no back up for this claim. I'm just sayin..."
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

No one is denied healtcare in the US. For the poor, they have Medicaid. So your "they have less access to care" is a fallacy. Many, of all races, should be denied care, but they are not.

Nonsense. There are plenty of people who make too much for Medicaid, but not enough to afford insurance.


Germany--German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, Italian 0.7%, Greek 0.4%, Polish 0.4%, other 4.6%

United States --White: 211,460,626 (75.1%); Black: 34,658,190 (12.3%); Asian: 10,242,998 (3.6%); American Indian and Alaska Native: 2,475,956 (0.9%); Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander: 398,835 (0.1%); other race: 15,359,073 (5.5%); Hispanic origin:1 35,305,818 (12.5%)

Germany is hardly multi-ethnic to any extent when compared to the US.

It's dishonest to list nationality for Germany, and race for the US
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Would you mind reposting that in English please? Your post is almost incoherent. Though I can guess what it sounds like. "Conservatives/Tea Partiers/the GOP sucks at _________ because that's all I know how to say. Oh, I have no back up for this claim. I'm just sayin..."

it's perfectly correct grammar. Would it help if you put quotes around the words "pay for service"
 
Back
Top Bottom