EPTok............... in which world do you know of that cancer survival rates are too high or too low. I think no where tbh. I think this guy just living under a rock imo. When its curable its curable, if its not then it is not. and these guys are basing statistics off of pure luck, those who were told they are going to die from it and survive get lucky, those who don't and do end up losing their lives are unlucky. really cancer is 50/50 until it is removed or kills you. no stats can truly be made on this one (imo).
Healthcare Reform in the US - Page 46
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
wishbones
Canada2600 Posts
ok............... in which world do you know of that cancer survival rates are too high or too low. I think no where tbh. I think this guy just living under a rock imo. When its curable its curable, if its not then it is not. and these guys are basing statistics off of pure luck, those who were told they are going to die from it and survive get lucky, those who don't and do end up losing their lives are unlucky. really cancer is 50/50 until it is removed or kills you. no stats can truly be made on this one (imo). | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
If you actually read the article, all it states is that Europe had a faster diagnosis, but USA had better treatment. Our treatment won't get any worse, just better diagnostics will be easier to access. Beyond that - Cancer survival rate isn't exactly a great measure of healthcare on a whole, ESPECIALLY, when that sad excuse for a graph clumps up all of Europe into one block. Then, when compared to Canada, they talk about 'common cancers' so I don't even know what the fuck that is. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Sure, we have good food up here and global warming made our generally heinous winter very bearable. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
Get a brain Fox news junkie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit conservative think tank. On March 22 2010 14:49 Railz wrote:...ESPECIALLY, when that sad excuse for a graph clumps up all of Europe into one block. Then, when compared to Canada, they talk about 'common cancers' so I don't even know what the fuck that is. Europe = ONE COUNTRY. DUH. User was warned for this post. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On March 22 2010 15:00 keV. wrote: Get a brain Fox news junkie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit conservative think tank. Europe = ONE COUNTRY. DUH. Wow, even when I was bashing the report he gave, I didn't even bother to look it up. I knew something was up when they grouped Europe up like that. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On March 22 2010 15:00 keV. wrote: Get a brain Fox news junkie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit conservative think tank. ... Isn't the term "think tank" a pretty badass euphemism? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/21/baby-killer-yelled-at-bart-stupak_n_507718.html | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 22 2010 13:03 xDaunt wrote: No, just one side is to blame. The republicans offered plenty of ideas such as tort reform and cross-state competition, among other things. However, the democrats were not interested. Even the most partisan democrat would have to admit that the republicans were not given much of a chance to incorporate anything into the bill. It was drafted behind closed doors, exclusively by democrats. Obama and the democrats could have passed a health care bill very easily last year had they drafted a more moderate bill. Plenty of republicans would have jumped ship. Instead, the most liberal democrats drafted this piece of garbage that no one really likes. For better or for worse, the democrats own this bill. Republicans are not against health care reform. They just (unsurprisingly) have very different ideas on how to accomplish it. The most liberal democrats wanted and still want a single payer or public health system. Obviously they didn't draft the current bill, because that's not what the current bill is. Republicans never showed any interest in voting for any health reform bill that involved any public dollars, under any circumstances. If the Republican stance had been "we'll vote for subsidized, mandatory coverage in return for tort reform and cross state competition" then the thing would have been done, or could have been done, very quickly. When it became clear that Republicans would only vote for a bill that was primarily drafted by Republicans (ie, they got confused about what "minority party" means) they became irrelevant to the process. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 22 2010 12:32 0neder wrote: Just great. A tax hike in a recession, which not even good keynesians would support, and no real reform other than more bureaucracy... People of America, behold your 'change.' In strict economic terms, the recession ended six months ago, and the first taxes won't go into effect until 2012. If we still haven't seen significant economic growth in two years, it can hardly be blamed on the health reform bill, unless the taxes are time traveling. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 22 2010 12:31 TanGeng wrote: I don't think it'll console the young and healthy who are even more screwed now. Unless they also happen to be atypically wealthy for young people, they aren't going to be screwed at all. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
You're taxed either way. Either to the Government or to the Health Insurance. From an economic standpoint, it makes no sense to stay in the status-quo while complaining that the new reform is going to bankrupt America. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2010 13:03 xDaunt wrote: No, they threw out ideas and drew up their own independent plans but they were never going to sit down and compromise or work in any of those ideas with the majority party's plan. It was a political calculation put into place on certain issues as soon as Obama was elected.No, just one side is to blame. The republicans offered plenty of ideas such as tort reform and cross-state competition, among other things. However, the democrats were not interested. Even the most partisan democrat would have to admit that the republicans were not given much of a chance to incorporate anything into the bill. It was drafted behind closed doors, exclusively by democrats. Obama and the democrats could have passed a health care bill very easily last year had they drafted a more moderate bill. Plenty of republicans would have jumped ship. Instead, the most liberal democrats drafted this piece of garbage that no one really likes. For better or for worse, the democrats own this bill. Republicans are not against health care reform. They just (unsurprisingly) have very different ideas on how to accomplish it. I had meetings with several of them throughout the week and it was made clear that the primary issue was not ideology. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10834 Posts
or Welcome to socialist hell :p. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 22 2010 16:36 Jibba wrote: No, they threw out ideas and drew up their own independent plans but they were never going to sit down and compromise or work in any of those ideas with the majority party's plan. It was a political calculation put into place on certain issues as soon as Obama was elected. I had meetings with several of them throughout the week and it was made clear that the primary issue was not ideology. I have no doubt that the hardcore republican party hacks made a pure political calculation in opposing health care at all costs. However, that does not change the fact that Obama could very easily have targeted several of the moderate republicans (Snowe, Graham, McCain, etc), incorporated their ideas, and gotten some form of health care passed with republican support very easily last year. Seriously, Bush had Ted Kennedy write large chunks his "No Child Left Behind" bill. Do you think Obama could not have done something similar had he had any inclination of doing so? Conversely, do you think that some of those more moderate republican senators would not have jumped at a chance to really participate in the health care overhaul? Just look at what Schumer and Graham are doing now with immigration reform. This may surprise you, but most republicans are not necessarily against the use of public dollars in health care. Most agree that the government should provide a basic level of insurance/service for everyone, and then individuals can go out and buy better, supplemental insurance if they so choose. | ||
|
bdams19
United States1316 Posts
| ||
|
Denotate
Canada294 Posts
On March 22 2010 20:32 Velr wrote: Congratulations. Actually this one bill has kinda allready *justified* Obamas presidency? or Welcome to socialist hell :p. LOL. I don't know about you Switzerland, but I love my socialist hell! | ||
|
Sadist
United States7310 Posts
On March 22 2010 23:33 xDaunt wrote: I have no doubt that the hardcore republican party hacks made a pure political calculation in opposing health care at all costs. However, that does not change the fact that Obama could very easily have targeted several of the moderate republicans (Snowe, Graham, McCain, etc), incorporated their ideas, and gotten some form of health care passed with republican support very easily last year. Seriously, Bush had Ted Kennedy write large chunks his "No Child Left Behind" bill. Do you think Obama could not have done something similar had he had any inclination of doing so? Conversely, do you think that some of those more moderate republican senators would not have jumped at a chance to really participate in the health care overhaul? Just look at what Schumer and Graham are doing now with immigration reform. This may surprise you, but most republicans are not necessarily against the use of public dollars in health care. Most agree that the government should provide a basic level of insurance/service for everyone, and then individuals can go out and buy better, supplemental insurance if they so choose. no way in hell. Not with a democrat majority. The democrats are at least reasonable even if you disagree with them. The republicans play politics better than anyone in the US. Theres no way in hell any of them were going to sign on because theyd be losing their seat in the next elections. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On March 22 2010 23:52 Sadist wrote: no way in hell. Not with a democrat majority. The democrats are at least reasonable even if you disagree with them. The republicans play politics better than anyone in the US. Theres no way in hell any of them were going to sign on because theyd be losing their seat in the next elections. Isn't this kind of disingenuous? I mean, you can't be the majority AND the victim at the same time can you? If the republicans were the best, they'd be the majority. Both parties play politics to the best of their abilities and do whatever it takes to win. There are some few individuals on each side who are true, noble, and principled idealists, but the parties as a whole are a dung heap. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Out of 178 not a single one considered it might be an alright bill? It's pathetic when parties vote in such a fashion. Congratulations to Obama, let's hope it works out well. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 23 2010 00:13 Klive5ive wrote: Wow, it really says a lot for the credibility of democracy when EVERY single republican voted against. Out of 178 not a single one considered it might be an alright bill? It's pathetic when parties vote in such a fashion. Congratulations to Obama, let's hope it works out well. I don't know how closely you follow American politics, but not many democrats even think that it is an "alright" bill. The most liberal democrats hate it because there's no public option. The more moderate democrats hate it because it's a fiscal disaster in the making. Why do you think that there's all this talk of "fix it" follow-up bills? Everyone knows that what's been passed absolutely sucks. Why would a republican cast a vote for a crappy bill that he/she had no input in drafting? Again, if Obama wanted republican votes, he could have gotten them. It would have taken actual "statesmanship" and some biparisanship. So far, he has employed neither during the first year and a quarter of his presidency. That's entirely his fault. Let's be honest: you can't entirely ignore the desires of the opposing party and expect it to support your initiatives. | ||
| ||
