|
|
Post by burrito on Aug 24, 2012 21:59:12 GMT -8
I agree with you that life expectancy isnt the only key indicator. I said that in my original post. Americans unable to eat a balanced diet, hold on to a gun without killing someone and drive in a straight line detract from the healthcare = life expectancy argument.
My original point was, that there is a system available that is more economical than the current one. I have proved that. The rest of the world has proved that. In fact, the US' publically funded system has proved that. Costs are substantially lower in the public system.
Is "freedom" worth the extra 51% per capita costs per person to you?
Please show me a system where you can substantially lower the costs per capita of american healthcare and maintain the same standard of care. I have shown you one model. If you can show me another one I will be willing to concede that it is a better model and I would fully support it.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrito on Aug 24, 2012 22:05:18 GMT -8
The current system has to be changed. The pay at the point of service model is failing a large majority of Americans economically.
Medically related bankruptcy's have increase significantly. Now we are at a point were over 50% of bankruptcy's are medically related. Its both morally and economically wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrito on Aug 24, 2012 22:38:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 25, 2012 14:13:29 GMT -8
Any model would be better than your "single payer" model, where, as in all models, you get no more than you pay for. And your model won't pay squat to any competent medical practitioner. About the only ones you could attract to the profession would be a few dedicated doctors like the Pubic Hair Service somehow manages to find to serve Indian Reservations. No offense to plumbers, but when you get a quality of doctors who are paid no more than plumbers, you might as well go to a plumber to treat your colon cancer. And you won't have nearly as long a wait to be seen.... plumbers even make house calls, ta boot! As for the "freedom" issue, under your "single payer" model, service would be allowed or denied at the sole discretion of a faceless government slug. No alternative. Under a market model, the patient can negotiate with the doctor if coverage is denied. In other words, the individual has the choice to make the decision, and if bankruptcy is a possibility, that's the individual's decison to make. I'd like to make the decison myself. The laughable thing about libtards is that they think the government is going to find a way to make it possible for people to live forever. Who would want to live forever in a world dominated by libtards? I sure as hell wouldn't. Now to "CEPR", aka "Center for Economic Policy Research". LOL. Prominent supporter of, and apologist for, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Founded in November 1999, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is a Washington, D.C.-based organization whose professed objective is to "ensure that the citizenry has the information and analysis that allows it to act effectively in the public interest."
CEPR has focused much attention to the issue of welfare reform. At the time of welfare reform's passage into law in 1996, CEPR researchers furnished numerous studies denigrating its prospects for success. A 1997 report by Co-Director Mark Weisbrot, insisted that the implementation of welfare reform would "cause not only an increase in poverty among welfare recipients, but also an increase in the numbers of the working poor." In fact, by 2002, the total number of welfare recipients in the U.S. stood at just over 1.4 million, a marked decline from a peak of 4.5 million in 1993.
In 1996 CEPR produced an analysis celebrating the passage of Ordinance 442, a Baltimore "living wage" law that raised the minimum wage for service workers in the city's tourist hub. It dismissed the "concerns of critics about negative economic and fiscal consequences" as being "not well-founded." But as Steven Malanga chronicled in his book The New New Left, the law crippled Baltimore's economy to such a dregee that by the mid-1990s, the city had lost nearly 60,000 jobs—at a time when 120,000 jobs were being created throughout the otherwise prospering state.
In an October 1999 Z Magazine article, CEPR’s Weisbrot inveighed against “the worst excesses and irrationalities of a market system” that allegedly caused “crises, panics, overshooting, recessions and even depressions.” “[T]he welfare state,” he said, “has softened the impact of these irrationalities and also mitigated the injustices that result from market outcomes.” Weisbrot urged nation states to impose their own "regulatory mechanisms," not least by establishing "socialist" governments. CEPR followed up on Weisbrot's manifesto in a 2000 report contending that the proposition that "more open economies grow faster" was "inconclusive."
In the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, CEPR opposed all calls for tax reductions as means of spurring economic growth. Instead it advocated an economic "stimulus" package founded on the premise that "ncreases in government spending will have to be an important source of stimulus in the near future."
The only area in which CEPR opposed higher government spending was national security. In spelling out its objections, nominally on economic grounds, to the looming war in Iraq, a December 2002 CEPR policy paper expressed concern that a "serious terrorist threat would require considerably more expensive measures" and lamented that "resources that could have gone to consumption or investment are instead being diverted to security." The CEPR paper asserted that the "nation would have lost approximately 800,000 jobs after ten years as a result of the post-September 11th security measures."
In 2003, CEPR published findings purporting to prove that those European Union member nations that opposed the U.S.-led toppling of Saddam Hussein had outperformed the economy in "George Bush's America" between the months of January 2001 and December 2002. Ignored by CEPR's conclusion was that during each of those months, so-called Old Europe, especially its largest economies in Germany and France, posted higher unemployment rates than the supposedly suffering American economy.
CEPR consistently lauds the professed achievements of socialist regimes, most notably Venezuela. In 2003, the Hugo Chavez government established a U.S.-based lobbying group, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO), in Washington, D.C. Working in concert with a bevy of radical leftist groups like Global Exchange, the VIO acts as a publicity arm for the Chavez regime, polishing Venezuela's troubled image in America. Among those who took an immediate interest in the mission was CEPR. On the same day that VIO registered with the U.S. Justice Department, Mark Weisbrot co-signed a letter addressed "to the progressive funding community," urging potential donors "to take an interest in this issue [democracy in Venezuela], and provide funding to groups [like VIO] that are working on it, before it is too late." Weisbrot's fellow signatories included, among others, Medea Benjamin (founder of Global Exchange), her husband Kevin Danaher, and Chuck Kaufman, National Coordinator of Nicaragua Network.
There's more, but you can take the link to that source and shove it. But thanks for exposing the kinds of slime that form your arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by burrito on Aug 25, 2012 14:29:34 GMT -8
Any model would be better than your "single payer" model, where, as in all models, you get no more than you pay for. And your model won't pay squat to any competent medical practitioner. About the only ones you could attract to the profession would be a few dedicated doctors like the Pubic Hair Service somehow manages to find to serve Indian Reservations. No offense to plumbers, but when you get a quality of doctors who are paid no more than plumbers, you might as well go to a plumber to treat your colon cancer. And you won't have nearly as long a wait to be seen.... plumbers even make house calls, ta boot! As for the "freedom" issue, under your "single payer" model, service would be allowed or denied at the sole discretion of a faceless government slug. No alternative. Under a market model, the patient can negotiate with the doctor if coverage is denied. In other words, the individual has the choice to make the decision, and if bankruptcy is a possibility, that's the individual's decison to make. I'd like to make the decison myself. The laughable thing about libtards is that they think the government is going to find a way to make it possible for people to live forever. Who would want to live forever in a world dominated by libtards? I sure as hell wouldn't. Now to "CEPR", aka "Center for Economic Policy Research". LOL. Prominent supporter of, and apologist for, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Founded in November 1999, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is a Washington, D.C.-based organization whose professed objective is to "ensure that the citizenry has the information and analysis that allows it to act effectively in the public interest."
CEPR has focused much attention to the issue of welfare reform. At the time of welfare reform's passage into law in 1996, CEPR researchers furnished numerous studies denigrating its prospects for success. A 1997 report by Co-Director Mark Weisbrot, insisted that the implementation of welfare reform would "cause not only an increase in poverty among welfare recipients, but also an increase in the numbers of the working poor." In fact, by 2002, the total number of welfare recipients in the U.S. stood at just over 1.4 million, a marked decline from a peak of 4.5 million in 1993.
In 1996 CEPR produced an analysis celebrating the passage of Ordinance 442, a Baltimore "living wage" law that raised the minimum wage for service workers in the city's tourist hub. It dismissed the "concerns of critics about negative economic and fiscal consequences" as being "not well-founded." But as Steven Malanga chronicled in his book The New New Left, the law crippled Baltimore's economy to such a dregee that by the mid-1990s, the city had lost nearly 60,000 jobs—at a time when 120,000 jobs were being created throughout the otherwise prospering state.
In an October 1999 Z Magazine article, CEPR’s Weisbrot inveighed against “the worst excesses and irrationalities of a market system” that allegedly caused “crises, panics, overshooting, recessions and even depressions.” “[T]he welfare state,” he said, “has softened the impact of these irrationalities and also mitigated the injustices that result from market outcomes.” Weisbrot urged nation states to impose their own "regulatory mechanisms," not least by establishing "socialist" governments. CEPR followed up on Weisbrot's manifesto in a 2000 report contending that the proposition that "more open economies grow faster" was "inconclusive."
In the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, CEPR opposed all calls for tax reductions as means of spurring economic growth. Instead it advocated an economic "stimulus" package founded on the premise that "ncreases in government spending will have to be an important source of stimulus in the near future."
The only area in which CEPR opposed higher government spending was national security. In spelling out its objections, nominally on economic grounds, to the looming war in Iraq, a December 2002 CEPR policy paper expressed concern that a "serious terrorist threat would require considerably more expensive measures" and lamented that "resources that could have gone to consumption or investment are instead being diverted to security." The CEPR paper asserted that the "nation would have lost approximately 800,000 jobs after ten years as a result of the post-September 11th security measures."
In 2003, CEPR published findings purporting to prove that those European Union member nations that opposed the U.S.-led toppling of Saddam Hussein had outperformed the economy in "George Bush's America" between the months of January 2001 and December 2002. Ignored by CEPR's conclusion was that during each of those months, so-called Old Europe, especially its largest economies in Germany and France, posted higher unemployment rates than the supposedly suffering American economy.
CEPR consistently lauds the professed achievements of socialist regimes, most notably Venezuela. In 2003, the Hugo Chavez government established a U.S.-based lobbying group, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO), in Washington, D.C. Working in concert with a bevy of radical leftist groups like Global Exchange, the VIO acts as a publicity arm for the Chavez regime, polishing Venezuela's troubled image in America. Among those who took an immediate interest in the mission was CEPR. On the same day that VIO registered with the U.S. Justice Department, Mark Weisbrot co-signed a letter addressed "to the progressive funding community," urging potential donors "to take an interest in this issue [democracy in Venezuela], and provide funding to groups [like VIO] that are working on it, before it is too late." Weisbrot's fellow signatories included, among others, Medea Benjamin (founder of Global Exchange), her husband Kevin Danaher, and Chuck Kaufman, National Coordinator of Nicaragua Network.
There's more, but you can take the link to that source and shove it. But thanks for exposing the kinds of slime that form your arguments. Link and source to prove a doctor in the american single payer system will be paid the same as a plumber? Socialized medicine as a part of the Department of Veteran Affairs are able to attract doctors? Can you also please explain how every country who implements universal healthcare manages to attract doctors? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 25, 2012 14:46:27 GMT -8
ROFL!
You think you'd like to go to the VA for health care? Have you actually ever done that???
You make my point! That's what you'll get with your model.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 25, 2012 16:02:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by burrito on Aug 25, 2012 17:05:58 GMT -8
Even using your 2 incidents as examples, neither of them relate univeral healthcare to causation. You drew that link yourself. Please show causation to me. In fact if you had read that article yourself, the Member of Parliament Dr. Sarah Wollaston expressed her opinion that the shortage was due to "many medical students perceiving hospital careers to be more glamorous". Can you also please link me to where doctors will be paid the wage of a plumber link you stated Is it your belief also that a privatised health system leads to greater physicians per capita?Because you said that universal healthcare systems cannot attract physicians. Therefore, a privatised system should have a greater number of physicians per capita? If so, does this lead to better healthcare amongst key indicators? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 26, 2012 13:10:28 GMT -8
Interesting how you have eased away from the term "single payer" to "universal health care". I don't think they are necessarily interchangeable. But, as to the "plumber" link you demand: www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/11/plumber-charges-neurosurgeon.htmlI will add to that with a personal observation. I recently visited the doctor, and he billed $267.00. Medicare approved $175.84. I recently had a plumber fix a plumbing problem for me, and he charged $180.00. The time consumed by the providers were roughly the same. The plumber did such a good job, I tipped him 20 bucks. Now, IMO, when you manage to force a third of a billion people into a single payer (read: government) system, the providers are not going to get paid much. The good ones will find something else to do with their lives, and the "system" will retain mostly incompetent quacks. It's also interesting that you Anglicize your spelling. I suppose you think that makes you look "intelligent". It doesn't. It only makes you look like an arrogant prick. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 26, 2012 13:41:02 GMT -8
You can always tell when the above poster is being bested. He starts the insults.  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 26, 2012 13:59:12 GMT -8
You can always tell when the above poster is being bested. He starts the insults. Anything germane to add? Didn't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 26, 2012 14:29:39 GMT -8
You can always tell when the above poster is being bested. He starts the insults. Anything germane to add? Didn't think so. My observation is germane to your behavior patterns. Have not the mods spoken to you about this before? You complain about Bob, but you do the same. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 26, 2012 14:47:01 GMT -8
Anything germane to add? Didn't think so. My observation is germane to your behavior patterns. Have not the mods spoken to you about this before? You complain about Bob, but you do the same. Excuse me? You must have me confused with someone else. I have fun tweaking the =Perfesser, but I have never complained to mods about him, nor have I ever complained to them about anyone else. Now you go ahead and put me on report to the mods. I will consider it a badge of honor. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 26, 2012 15:00:41 GMT -8
My observation is germane to your behavior patterns. Have not the mods spoken to you about this before? You complain about Bob, but you do the same. Excuse me? You must have me confused with someone else. I have fun tweaking the =Perfesser, but I have never complained to mods about him, nor have I ever complained to them about anyone else. Now you go ahead and put me on report to the mods. I will consider it a badge of honor. If you want to be so honored, fine. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 26, 2012 15:04:26 GMT -8
Interesting how you have eased away from the term "single payer" to "universal health care". I don't think they are necessarily interchangeable. But, as to the "plumber" link you demand: www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/11/plumber-charges-neurosurgeon.htmlI will add to that with a personal observation. I recently visited the doctor, and he billed $267.00. Medicare approved $175.84. I recently had a plumber fix a plumbing problem for me, and he charged $180.00. The time consumed by the providers were roughly the same. The plumber did such a good job, I tipped him 20 bucks. Now, IMO, when you manage to force a third of a billion people into a single payer (read: government) system, the providers are not going to get paid much. The good ones will find something else to do with their lives, and the "system" will retain mostly incompetent quacks. It's also interesting that you Anglicize your spelling. I suppose you think that makes you look "intelligent". It doesn't. It only makes you look like an arrogant prick. This is the one, William |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 26, 2012 15:11:54 GMT -8
Excuse me? You must have me confused with someone else. I have fun tweaking the =Perfesser, but I have never complained to mods about him, nor have I ever complained to them about anyone else. Now you go ahead and put me on report to the mods. I will consider it a badge of honor. If you want to be so honored, fine. Thank you, Your Pettiness! It's delightful to get under your skin. I am truly honored. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 26, 2012 15:12:59 GMT -8
Interesting how you have eased away from the term "single payer" to "universal health care". I don't think they are necessarily interchangeable. But, as to the "plumber" link you demand: www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/11/plumber-charges-neurosurgeon.htmlI will add to that with a personal observation. I recently visited the doctor, and he billed $267.00. Medicare approved $175.84. I recently had a plumber fix a plumbing problem for me, and he charged $180.00. The time consumed by the providers were roughly the same. The plumber did such a good job, I tipped him 20 bucks. Now, IMO, when you manage to force a third of a billion people into a single payer (read: government) system, the providers are not going to get paid much. The good ones will find something else to do with their lives, and the "system" will retain mostly incompetent quacks. It's also interesting that you Anglicize your spelling. I suppose you think that makes you look "intelligent". It doesn't. It only makes you look like an arrogant prick. This is the one, William hehehe. Yep. I'm the ONE! |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 26, 2012 15:47:17 GMT -8
If you want to be so honored, fine. Thank you, Your Pettiness! It's delightful to get under your skin. I am truly honored. LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 26, 2012 16:01:32 GMT -8
Thank you, Your Pettiness! It's delightful to get under your skin. I am truly honored. LOL. heeheehee... Take note, William... I am "THE ONE". hahahahaha |
|
|
|
Post by burrito on Aug 27, 2012 0:48:20 GMT -8
Interesting how you have eased away from the term "single payer" to "universal health care". I don't think they are necessarily interchangeable. But, as to the "plumber" link you demand: www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/11/plumber-charges-neurosurgeon.htmlI will add to that with a personal observation. I recently visited the doctor, and he billed $267.00. Medicare approved $175.84. I recently had a plumber fix a plumbing problem for me, and he charged $180.00. The time consumed by the providers were roughly the same. The plumber did such a good job, I tipped him 20 bucks. Now, IMO, when you manage to force a third of a billion people into a single payer (read: government) system, the providers are not going to get paid much. The good ones will find something else to do with their lives, and the "system" will retain mostly incompetent quacks. It's also interesting that you Anglicize your spelling. I suppose you think that makes you look "intelligent". It doesn't. It only makes you look like an arrogant prick. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Maybe its due to the fact I was born and educated in Australia? Im sorry if I offended you with my education in British spelling. So youre criticising me because of my way in which I was educated, not my opinion? Is this a f****** joke? A physican/surgeon makes 3 times the average wage of a plumber. This is pretty much relative across most OECD countries. The plumber = surgeon story is a load of bull$#!+. Check the US Department of Labor before you lie. And your opinion is wrong on skills and universal healthcare. OECD countries maintain as good if not better healthcare indicators as the States all with the government setting the rules. The "system" is continuing to provide better healthcare in Germany, France and many other European countries at a fraction of the cost. Physicians per capita are as high as the privatised system in the states, so there goes that myth that all physicians will leave the profession or wont be attracted to it. |
|
