Re: Phillip Garrido
- From: Jim Yanik <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Sep 2009 22:40:10 GMT
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
"mrbig" <mrbig@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"mrbig" <mrbig@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
Still terrified of the question? I'll try another: Why do you
think that while the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan etc.
etc. have all managed public healthcare without political
influence interefering with treatment based on a person's
politics, but that if we try it in America then the lefties and
righties will start pulling the plug on each others grandmas?
Is America that much of a third world failed state?
who says their healthcare programs are successful?
I note you deleted my comments about Canadian,UK and Oregon's
I delete a great deal of extraneous nonsense.
It's NOT "nonsense" to note the serious problems their healthcare
systems are -currently- experiencing.
They are not perfect. However as has been amply demonstrated they
have shown better healthcare outcomes at a lower cost. You can cover
your ears but you can't change those facts.
Actually, they have NOT
Compare your survival rates for cancer between Canada and the US
Remove the homicide stats and then compare survival rates in other
areas Use the same definiition for "live birth", and then compare
child mortality data
Adjust for the high treatment rate of preemies and then comapre child
In all cases, when you make the adjustments for differences in basic
definitions, the system in the US, with all it's flaws, including
distorted malpractice insurance costs due to a VERY BADLY FLAWED tort
system, is still better than that of other countries
And let's not forget, the skewed costs where countries like Canada
don't pay the same costs for drugs that the US has to, because of
government extortion with generic drug laws.
When you adjust for that, you would be surprised at what the REAL
costs would be.
And countries like Canada do NOT have ANY REAL investment in new drug
They're just users who scalp the companies that actually take the
risks and make the efforts for new medications
But that is still irrelevent to the question of whether or not a fear
that political leanings will affect the care one receives in a public
Also foolish to believe that things would
change by making such systems National.If anything,they would become
All evidence to the contrary.
you know most people who employ bait and switch, shifting arguments,
moving goal posts usdually do so to an argument that helps their
So why do you do it ?
systems having financial troubles and poor service.
Well most leading health indicators and cost estimates rank the
USA lowest in health outcomes and highest in cost, but that was
not the point. the point was that they seem to have public health
care without political interference as the OP was fearful of.
their "health care" is rationed and has long waits,uses
old,less-effective drugs,and their hospitals have abysmal
conditions.Plus,they deal with far smaller covered populations.
Besides,their populations are conditioned to not quarrel with
their government.That's why they're "subjects".
IOW words you fail to accept the exorbinant costs and awful
US healthcare draws people from many other countries to get better
and better chances of surviving.
I guess you were not aware of Americans seeking treatment in Canada
and even places like Thailand and India? Why am I not surprosed?
What's the ratio of that ?
Americans are going to India and Thailand for things like plastic
ELECTIVE surgery;not critical-need,life-saving surgery.
I know two girls who went to Peru for breast implants,saved a lot of money.
We also LEAD all other nations in creating new and better
Costs are high because of excessive GOVERNMENT regulation
And you prove that by citing governmetn run systems that have lower
It's the government-run system (FDA) that is raising the cost
And let's not forget countries like Canada, who extort the
pharmaceuticals on the cost of drugs by threatening to breach their
patents unless they produce said drugs at so-called "generic" prices
that THEY SET
and lack of tort reform.
Because none of those countries have lawyers....
And you were making a comment earlier about moving goalposts and
straman arguments, like a good hypocrite
Yes they have lawyers
But they have a better tort system that does NOT allow lawsuits to be
brought with little or no risk for the plaintiff, as is sadly the
case in the US
That is why the malpractice insurance in the US is so Exhobitant.
it's a MAJOR factor in forcing doctors and insurance companies to
produce tons of paper, to cover themselves JUST IN CASE , they get
sued down the road.
Hence the HIGH "administrative cost" of medical care in the US.
My doctor(GP)left Florida due to the high insurance rates.
of the American system because... welll if its soicialist it must
No,it just works out that way;History has shown us that.
Actualy history has shown that it is the current American system that
is inferior to the likes of Japan, France, Sweden, Germany, Canada,
Not if you look at some of the REAL factors and correct some of the
basic numbers that are NOT a valid comparison of data.
That doesn't fit in with their worldview.
- Prev by Date: Re: Phillip Garrido
- Next by Date: Re: Communists In The White House
- Previous by thread: Re: Phillip Garrido
- Next by thread: Re: Phillip Garrido