No, universal health care is a bad idea. It would make things MUCH worse. It's not free either and it doesn't cover 100%.

 

Tell my mother how great her health care is, and most of her friends. They'll have a few choice words for you.

 

Read his post again...he says that the current health care system is BROKEN, not GREAT.

Read his post again...he says that the current health care system is BROKEN, not GREAT.

Which I am trying to explain to you both that it will be completely broke if we continue to have to treat illegals. Why do you think health care is so expensive?

No, universal health care is a bad idea. It would make things MUCH worse. It's not free either and it doesn't cover 100%.

 

Tell my mother how great her health care is, and most of her friends. They'll have a few choice words for you.

 

I did not make any of the claims you suggest I did.

 

never said it was free

you don't know what it would cover

 

the current system is bad - and it is based on a capitalist system. Your mother might actually like a universal/socialist system better

I did not make any of the claims you suggest I did.

 

never said it was free

you don't know what it would cover

 

the current system is bad - and it is based on a capitalist system. Your mother might actually like a universal/socialist system better

Ask Canadians.

Do you think France's health care covers 100%? Do you think it's cheap? Do you realize what the taxes for this would be?

I did not make any of the claims you suggest I did.

 

never said it was free

you don't know what it would cover

 

the current system is bad - and it is based on a capitalist system. Your mother might actually like a universal/socialist system better

 

If, by capitalist system, you mean a system of governmental pandering to insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyist, then, yeah, I guess so.

Which I am trying to explain to you both that it will be completely broke if we continue to have to treat illegals. Why do you think health care is so expensive?

 

Which is yet another reason to implement a program in which illegals begin to pay taxes as a guest worker or whatever you want to call it. :thumb:

Depends on the crime. Murder, absolutely, but then they shouldn't be alive IMO

.

 

When were you given the intelliegence and authority to determine who recieves medical treatment or not.

 

I honestly dont care what happens in other countries, because there not my country. I still believe in the America that goes by its own path. Who will take care of anyone, reguardless of Race, ethnicity or national origin.

 

I will say this,Everyone in this world deserves the best healthcare! When you base healthcare levels on money, then you begin to put a price on people's life.

The current healthcare system isn't perfect, but it isn't broke either. Show me a system that is perfect, especially one with nationalized health care. Our health system is the best in the world. Now we need to figure out how to make it more accesible without breaking it.

The current healthcare system isn't perfect, but it isn't broke either. Show me a system that is perfect, especially one with nationalized health care. Our health system is the best in the world. Now we need to figure out how to make it more accesible without breaking it.

Oh?

Oh?

Yes, unless you'd like to provide a better example that doesn't train their doctors in the U.S., has a higher rate of testing, leads in medical innovations, etc.

Yes, unless you'd like to provide a better example that doesn't train their doctors in the U.S., has a higher rate of testing, leads in medical innovations, etc.

Well, training is training. You should say that we have the best 'training health care system' if that's your point. Or the best 'R&D health care system.'

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678

The U.S. health system is the most expensive in the world, but comparative analyses consistently show the United States underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. This report, which includes information from primary care physicians about their medical practices and views of their countries' health systems, confirms the patient survey findings discussed in previous editions of Mirror, Mirror. It also includes information on health care outcomes that were featured in the U.S. health system scorecard issued by the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System.

 

Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity. The 2007 edition includes data from the six countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care.

 

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health insurance systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their long-term "medical home." It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. substantially underperforms other countries on measures of access to care and equity in health care between populations with above-average and below average incomes.

Here's an excellent article by Paul Krugman on the issue of international comparisons to US healthcare in the current political climate. Some highlights:

You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.

 

So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.

 

Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.

 

As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: “The Clinton health care plan” — which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans — “has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system.” Of course, this hasn’t stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears.

 

At one level, what Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are doing here is engaging in time-honored scare tactics. For generations, conservatives have denounced every attempt to ensure that Americans receive needed health care, from Medicare to S-chip, as “socialized medicine.”

Part of the strategy has always involved claiming that health reform is suspect because it’s un-American, and exaggerating health care problems in other countries — usually on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes or fraudulent statistics. Opponents of reform also make a practice of lumping all forms of government intervention together, pretending that having the government pay some health care bills is just the same as having the government take over the whole health care system.

The Commonwealth Fund is anything but unbiased. Their sole purpose is to push universal healthcare.

 

Lets look at a more telling cancer than your prostate example. The incidence in the United States for breast cancer is 101.1 new cases per 100,000 women, the highest in the world. The incidence rate in the two most touted nationalized health care systems, Canada and the UK, are 84.3 and 87.2 respectively. HOWEVER, the mortality rate for breast cancer in the United States, Canada and the UK are 19.0, 21.1 and 24.3 per 100,000 respectively. So while you have a lower chance of contracting breast cancer in Canada and the UK, you have a much higher chance of dying from breast cancer in those two countries than you do in the U.S. And thats the difference that matters.

The Commonwealth Fund is anything but unbiased. Their sole purpose is to push universal healthcare.

 

Lets look at a more telling cancer than your prostate example. The incidence in the United States for breast cancer is 101.1 new cases per 100,000 women, the highest in the world. The incidence rate in the two most touted nationalized health care systems, Canada and the UK, are 84.3 and 87.2 respectively. HOWEVER, the mortality rate for breast cancer in the United States, Canada and the UK are 19.0, 21.1 and 24.3 per 100,000 respectively. So while you have a lower chance of contracting breast cancer in Canada and the UK, you have a much higher chance of dying from breast cancer in those two countries than you do in the U.S. And thats the difference that matters.

Yes, as this articlre from the CSM points out, the US leads in breast cancer treatment. But...

 

NEW YORK – Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as other countries, but it turns out that they're not getting twice the quality for the price when they go to the doctor or hospital.

 

In the first international comparison of healthcare quality, researchers found that of the five countries studied, none is consistently the best or the worst. For instance, Australia had the best breast-cancer screening, but the worst survival rates for childhood leukemia. This was best in Canada, but that country had the worst heart-attack survival rates. And while the United States led the way in five-year survival rates from breast cancer, it was the worst for kidney transplants.

 

The conclusion: Each country has something to learn from the others.

"This affords the potential for unprecedented international collaboration ... that will allow countries to identify specific areas where they can improve," says Arnold Epstein, chairman of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Harvard University's School of Public Health in Boston. [ Editor's note: In the original version, the quote was misstated and misattributed.]

Obviously not alarming, we're average... except that we spend so much to be average.

 

 

The Commonwealthfund is hardly the first or only study to find that the US is wasting its money on healthcare. The WHO stated that years ago. We were, what, 35th in that?

Yes, as this articlre from the CSM points out, the US leads in breast cancer treatment. But...

 

Obviously not alarming, we're average... except that we spend so much to be average.

 

 

The Commonwealthfund is hardly the first or only study to find that the US is wasting its money on healthcare. The WHO stated that years ago. We were, what, 35th in that?

 

Was that before John Entwhistle died or Keith Moon? Was it with all four members?

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist levity. :lol: