|
On November 04 2010 02:23 Xtar wrote:
How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
Exact quote:"" [...] will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country,"
Yes, Obama failed to reduce the power of the insurance companies and give the customers a tool to have a strong negotiating positions vs the insurance companies so they can keep overcharging. Also, the system is still extremely bureaucratic. If a system is too bureaucratic it is going to cost jobs and that's good, btw. The more people doing useless jobs the more labor free to increase the wealth of a nation.
I thought people disapproved of Obama's HCR because it didn't go far enough and didn't fix the major problems. Only problem I think it fixed is lack of prevention of very serious and costly diseases that could have been prevented at very low expense. Like people that need a 1 dollar pill a day that get a heart attack and are on intensive care for months before they die.
But how the fuck can Boehmer call it 'best in the world' and still win an election. Does he mean 'best in the world for the insurance companies' or what?
Sadly this is completely unsurprising. Often a boldfaced lie is a more effective tactic than a fact/reason-based argument.
This goes both ways although I think the tactic is somewhat more useful for conservatives at the moment, given what both parties want to accomplish.
|
On November 04 2010 00:01 Mothxal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 16:29 LOLtex wrote:On November 03 2010 16:26 dcemuser wrote:On November 03 2010 16:23 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 15:01 Scruffy wrote:On November 03 2010 14:10 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 14:08 angelicfolly wrote:On November 03 2010 14:06 Romantic wrote:Pass laws that don't affect the budget deficit, Republicans are mad. Pass laws that increase the deficit, Republicans mad. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. sight... What was the question again? And what are you trying to say? I am saying Democrats have done and will do more to reign in the deficit than Republicans ever have  How about, spend less than you tax. I agree. Lets raise taxes so we're spending less than we tax. I agree, but that isn't a viable option given the economy. Plan B: Get the heck out of both wars and HEAVILY cut military funding to reign in the deficit. I thought Obama would cut military funding and get us out of the wars, which would have cut the deficit down a lot. He didn't do that at all. He's spending money on the military like he's a Republican. Problem is we already created the mess, we can't just up and leave it. That'll make things far worse in the long run. I love this logic. The US invades a country, and whether through mismanagement, underestimating the opposition, incompetence, structural factors, or by design, the situation isn't improving and said country is close to a civil war. A war the USA is a direct cause of. And now, even if most people recognize the wars were a mistake and didn't go well, we still "can't" leave, because then we "abandon" the poor innocent women and children we set out to rescue in the first place *cough*. Really, what makes you think the military will handle the rest of the ongoing wars any more competently than they did originally? Second, a lot of the conflict comes from the fact that there still is an occupation, it's the US armies that provoke attacks by being in places they shouldn't be. Third, don't pretend that the military is just a security force. If you want to leave some troops behind to act as body guards for the politicians, then fine, but that's not what they're doing. Fourth, with this logic the military profits from "failure", the more incompetent, the more necessary they'll apparently be.
I think you and I have different ideas on what we're doing there, and why we haven't left yet, but I'll try to answer anyway.
I don't know if they will or not, I'm not a general. I doubt they will, but there's a chance they have an ace up their sleeve (however slim). I wasn't in favor of going into Iraq in the first place, but we're already there. I feel like we have some kind of moral obligation to try to prevent a post-occupation power vacuum like what happened with Vietnam. The best we can do right now is to train an Iraqi police force, set up some kind of government (democracy), and try to give all the tools to the people so that they can run their own country. It's worked before, and it's failed miserably before, but it requires cooperation on both sides. In the end, it's a gamble. Let me get this straight though, no one wants to be there. Our troops don't want to be there. The Iraqis don't want us there (for the most part). Our citizens (probably) don't want us there. Globally, everyone sits around pointing the finger at the US, but when asked for solutions, all you get are crickets.
|
On November 04 2010 02:23 Xtar wrote:
How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
Exact quote:"" [...] will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country,"
Yes, Obama failed to reduce the power of the insurance companies and give the customers a tool to have a strong negotiating positions vs the insurance companies so they can keep overcharging. Also, the system is still extremely bureaucratic. If a system is too bureaucratic it is going to cost jobs and that's good, btw. The more people doing useless jobs the more labor free to increase the wealth of a nation.
I thought people disapproved of Obama's HCR because it didn't go far enough and didn't fix the major problems. Only problem I think it fixed is lack of prevention of very serious and costly diseases that could have been prevented at very low expense. Like people that need a 1 dollar pill a day that get a heart attack and are on intensive care for months before they die.
But how the fuck can Boehmer call it 'best in the world' and still win an election. Does he mean 'best in the world for the insurance companies' or what?
Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do.
|
On November 03 2010 23:33 HeadhunteR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 16:34 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 16:33 jalstar wrote:On November 03 2010 16:23 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 15:01 Scruffy wrote:On November 03 2010 14:10 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 14:08 angelicfolly wrote:On November 03 2010 14:06 Romantic wrote:Pass laws that don't affect the budget deficit, Republicans are mad. Pass laws that increase the deficit, Republicans mad. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. sight... What was the question again? And what are you trying to say? I am saying Democrats have done and will do more to reign in the deficit than Republicans ever have How about, spend less than you tax. Edit: only after we reach full employment though not possible in a free market, and not in the "failure of a free market" sense, either. full employment implies dictatorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_unemployment I consider full employment to be NAIRU. I thought most people did, perhaps I am wrong Sorry man but if you ever studied sociology you would know that there is no such thing as full employment that is a myth, a farse, a lie, because there always have to be a certain amount of unemployed people in every country so you can have a low minimum wage that makes the economy work. I didnt say it various sociologists said it and its true there will never be full employment in a capitalist free market economy.
You aren't getting it. Mainstream economists usually use full employment to denote the above 0% unemployment rate that is acceptable, usually NAIRU.
To quote Wiki, if that helps any, "It is defined by the majority of mainstream economists as being an acceptable level of natural unemployment above 0%, the discrepancy from 0% being due to non-cyclical types of unemployment. Unemployment above 0% is advocated as necessary to control inflation, which has brought about the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU); the majority of mainstream economists mean NAIRU when speaking of "full" employment."
Yes, I am perfectly aware 0% unemployment is neither possible nor desirable in a free market economy.
/semantics over
|
How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
In terms of health outcomes, the US is not even close to worst in the world. In terms of health outcomes when controlling for murder rates, it's pretty good actually. It's especially good if you control for ethnicity, for what it's worth.
The problem with the US healthcare system is it's so goddamn expensive.
|
On November 04 2010 03:06 maliceee wrote:
Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do.
US infant mortality is below Cuba. All those countries you mention are way higher and are all also examples of not so good health care systems. But even France and Britain have better results for half the costs.
Comparing the humongous expensive health care system of the US to third world countries isn't fair. I never said US has the worst health care in the world. It has some of the worst results in the western worlds and is at a third world level on some stats for minorities. But imagine if a piss poor country had the same system and thus the same value for money. What country has a system that's worse?
|
|
|
On November 04 2010 03:06 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 02:23 Xtar wrote:
How can Boehner get away with calling the health care system that is famous for being the worst in the world 'the best in the world'? How the hell does he get to say that without anyone cringing or anyone calling him out on that stupidity?
Exact quote:"" [...] will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country,"
Yes, Obama failed to reduce the power of the insurance companies and give the customers a tool to have a strong negotiating positions vs the insurance companies so they can keep overcharging. Also, the system is still extremely bureaucratic. If a system is too bureaucratic it is going to cost jobs and that's good, btw. The more people doing useless jobs the more labor free to increase the wealth of a nation.
I thought people disapproved of Obama's HCR because it didn't go far enough and didn't fix the major problems. Only problem I think it fixed is lack of prevention of very serious and costly diseases that could have been prevented at very low expense. Like people that need a 1 dollar pill a day that get a heart attack and are on intensive care for months before they die.
But how the fuck can Boehmer call it 'best in the world' and still win an election. Does he mean 'best in the world for the insurance companies' or what? Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do.
"Worst" was hopefully a hyperbole. If not it is certainly inaccurate; at the very least, the US system outperforms those of developing nations.
The CDC determined that reporting differences alone cannot account for the disparities in infant mortality rates.
Currently the World Health Organization ranks the US system 49th in the world. Even in areas we think our system should do well, such as quality of service, it is rather mediocre. That we pay 2-3x as much for services that are no better, arguably even a little sub-par, is outrageous.
|
On November 04 2010 03:20 Xtar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 03:06 maliceee wrote:
Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do. US infant mortality is below Cuba. All those countries you mention are way higher and are all also examples of not so good health care systems. But even France and Britain have better results for half the costs. Comparing the humongous expensive health care system of the US to third world countries isn't fair. I never said US has the worst health care in the world. It has some of the worst results in the western worlds and is at a third world level on some stats for minorities. But imagine if a piss poor country had the same system and thus the same value for money. What country has a system that's worse?
Of course its below Cuba, thats because they use different standards that omit infant mortality that the US keeps. keep in mind that Fidel Castro wants you to believe Cuba is great, just like Kim Jon Il wants you to believe North Korea is best korea. just because you see a statistic doesn't mean you should believe it. Use you head and realize what Cuba does. You can't use Cuba as an argument against the US healthcare system. they aren't even comparable.
|
On November 04 2010 03:20 Xtar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 03:06 maliceee wrote:
Worst in the world? what are you talking about? besides that being demonstrably false, I think you should look into how the US records infant fatalities opposed to how France, Britain, and the others with "better" health care systems do. US infant mortality is below Cuba. All those countries you mention are way higher and are all also examples of not so good health care systems. But even France and Britain have better results for half the costs. Comparing the humongous expensive health care system of the US to third world countries isn't fair. I never said US has the worst health care in the world. It has some of the worst results in the western worlds and is at a third world level on some stats for minorities. But imagine if a piss poor country had the same system and thus the same value for money. What country has a system that's worse?
uh...thats because they use the different system accounting for mortality rates in infants. As in, there is a system the WHO wants countries to abide by. This is that any sign of life (heart-beat, breathing, motion) qualifies the baby as being alive and it shouldn't be counted as a death. The US abides by this rule. Guess what countries don't? Cuba, Belgium, Canada, France, Slovakia, Switzerland..etc. They go by statistics such as size or taking a breath outside of the womb before the baby can count as a fatality. If the US followed the system that Canada does, or France, they would actually have lower infant mortality rates than those two countries, and that is with the much higher teen pregnancy rate in the US.
Basically, the US counts abortions more than 12 weeks.
Those countries do not.
That is a shit ton of deaths added.
You specifically said it is famous for being the worst health system in the world....
As for the guy above me who said I got "g-ged" or whatever...lol whos talking out of their ass? maybe you could contribute something instead of having an incorrect one liner. Is it like some running joke where anyone who doesn't agree with a liberal view point watches fox news? I don't even have cable lol. I read Drudge, Huffpost, Breitbart, Dailykos, and BBC. so yea, youre way off there buddy.
|
I never said infant mortality rate have any special significance. But the fact is that the statistics are what they are and US scores lower than France, UK and even Cuba.
And no, Cuba's number isn't cooked up by Castro. Cuba is shitpoor. Partly because of 60 years of economic warfare with the US, which is hard to survive. And partly because their centralized style of government, where everything had to go Castro himself, is very inefficient. But still Cuba has impressive health care. Cuban doctors work all over Latin America. The number is real, though there are always reasons who it is low that may not give a good picture of how the health care system performs.
|
On November 04 2010 03:57 Xtar wrote:
I never said infant mortality rate have any special significance. But the fact is that the statistics are what they are and US scores lower than France, UK and even Cuba.
And no, Cuba's number isn't cooked up by Castro. Cuba is shitpoor. Partly because of 60 years of economic warfare with the US, which is hard to survive. And partly because their centralized style of government, where everything had to go Castro himself, is very inefficient. But still Cuba has impressive health care. Cuban doctors work all over Latin America. The number is real, though there are always reasons who it is low that may not give a good picture of how the health care system performs.
did you watch sicko and believe everything you heard? it sounds like it.
The fact that you didn't say that is what is significant. It has a huge effect on the WHO rankings. That should be obvious.
|
You brought up infant mortality. Not me. You were wrong. Not me. Why blame it on me?
I never even said you can compare those stats fairly. They just are what they are. You also claim Cuba's number is fake. If so, why didn't they have extremely low infant mortality ever since Casto has been in power? Or even before that? It's not like the US supported dictatorship were any better, though they probably didn't at all care if they looked like politicians that completely go against the interest of their people. Cuba's infant mortality used to be very high. It got progressively lower to what it is today.
If you claim it is fake, better give some evidence. You don't trust Castro. Fine. I don't either. But why trust any other government?
|
I'll be the first to say our system is far from perfect, but you can't accuse one person of lying when they call it the best in the world when you yourself just called it "famous for being the worst in the world."
Seriously? You talk about the WHO and their ranking of health care systems. Have you looked at the criteria they used to determine that list? It was basically a bunch of "how socialized is this aspect of it" where systems with higher socialization ranked higher than systems with low socialization (e.g. the USA).
Yeah, there's a lot fucked up with the US health care system and how it's basically run by insurance companies, but if you think that a health care system on the scale of the US that's as socialized as, say one in Northern Europe is going to somehow be more effective or more efficient then you've been listening to the wrong people.
So yes the statistics are what they are, Xtar, but the statistics you're referring to basically tell us what we already know (that healthcare in the US is less socialized than that in parts of Europe) and have relatively little to do with patient mortality/morbidity/whatever else actually matters.
Would you go to Cuba to get your brain tumor removed? No, you'd do it here for several times the cost because we have much better equipment, training, and experience.
|
On November 04 2010 04:03 Xtar wrote:
You brought up infant mortality. Not me. You were wrong. Not me. Why blame it on me?
I never even said you can compare those stats fairly. They just are what they are.
No, you just ignored the entire point of what I was saying. Your original post was flat out wrong, or "hyperbole" as you put it when you got called on the bullshit.
I brought up the point that you should look up the infant mortality rates and how they are tallied. This was to show an example that the WHO's rankings are not trustworthy because not all countries follow their guidelines but the WHO ranks them as if they do.
You responded to this with a WHO ranking of infant mortality rates. It's a self-defeating argument.
|
I never brought up Cuba, infant mortality or the WHO. I never said heath care in the US is poor. They have some of the best hospitals there.
I only said the US has the worst system. Cuba's system is clearly better because it costs almost nothing as they have no money and has decent results. What country has a worse system? And don't come with some country that doesn't even have one, line Somalia or something.
maliceee, you said I should look at infant mortality. Apparently you thought US scored better than France and UK. I never looked at any stats because I know from memory that on all the different infant mortality scores US scores lower than those countries and even Cuba. I never said anything more about that. I never denied there isn't a reason why these numbers aren't representative. You were just wrong. Sorry.
|
So we have the worst system in the world but some of the best health care there is? How does that work again?
Ours costs more because we do all the medical research that Cuba doesn't. We have better, more up-to-date equipment, training, and procedures than Cuba does.
|
The beauty of democracy... nothing ever gets done :D
|
On November 04 2010 04:10 Xtar wrote:
I never brought up Cuba, infant mortality or the WHO. I never said heath care in the US is poor. They have some of the best hospitals there.
I only said the US has the worst system. Cuba's system is clearly better because it costs almost nothing as they have no money and has decent results. What country has a worse system? And don't come with some country that doesn't even have one, line Somalia or something.
maliceee, you said I should look at infant mortality. Apparently you thought US scored better than France and UK. I never looked at any stats because I know from memory that on all the different infant mortality scores US scores lower than those countries and even Cuba. I never said anything more about that. I never denied there isn't a reason why these numbers aren't representative. You were just wrong. Sorry.
Correct me if I'm not understanding you right here. You admit that those numbers mean almost nothing in the context they're being used, but still use them as such to tell Maliceee he's wrong?
|
On November 04 2010 04:10 Xtar wrote:
I never brought up Cuba, infant mortality or the WHO. I never said heath care in the US is poor. They have some of the best hospitals there.
I only said the US has the worst system. Cuba's system is clearly better because it costs almost nothing as they have no money and has decent results. What country has a worse system? And don't come with some country that doesn't even have one, line Somalia or something.
You never brought up Cuba? I'm confused, what is this then?
On November 04 2010 03:20 Xtar wrote:
US infant mortality is below Cuba. All those countries you mention are way higher and are all also examples of not so good health care systems. But even France and Britain have better results for half the costs.
Comparing the humongous expensive health care system of the US to third world countries isn't fair. I never said US has the worst health care in the world. It has some of the worst results in the western worlds and is at a third world level on some stats for minorities. But imagine if a piss poor country had the same system and thus the same value for money. What country has a system that's worse?
Oh, thats you bringing up Cuba using the very stats that you used to say the US has the worst system in the world. Which country is worse than Cuba is irrelevent, your original post was false and then you ignored the entire point about the WHO rankings. Like you still are.
Your edit explains a lot. You took my first post and misunderstood in completely, as did that ocean guy. I said to look at the way the US counts infant mortalities compared to those other countries, not the WHO ranking. I mean, the whole point was that the US was lower than those countries because of the way the US system counts infants deaths.
youre confusing me with your abolute misunderstanding of my inital post.
Maybe you should read and comprehend it fully before answering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
