Here's an example what Nationalized Health Care can become.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7529454/Hospital-wards-to-shut-in-secret-NHS-cuts.html
British NHS Documents Reveal Secret Plans To Close Hospital Wards And Cut Patient Services...
I always knew that
Side Score: 9
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
|
Wow, you don't give up. Once again link The UK has much, much better healthcare than the US. Also link And as this clearly shows, the US pays more than twice as much as the UK for way way worse healthcare. So explain to me exactly what this article, which consequently is about something that probably won't even happen, has to do with the US healthcare debate. Side: Wait..., What? No!
2
points
What does matter who has better care? Ummm, we ARE discussing health care right? Better care is the entire point of the exercise. And ALL health care systems ration care. Yes, even the US. The difference is in how they do it and what results they acheive. And if you think you know of any system that doesn't ration care please do point me at the fantasy utopia that has unlimited medical resources to lavish on it's citizens for the asking. I'd very much like to emigrate there. Side: Wait..., What? No!
I don't agree with you 100% on this argument, but I find downvoting to be bullshit. So, here is an upvote. As for your sources, I have a few issues with them. The WHO report is somewhat of a good indicator but has parts that are a bit misleading that cause the overall statistics too not be as accurate as they could be. 1. As you mentioned, one of the ways we get screwed over because of cost but at the same time we end up with being ranked number one in responsiveness. 2. One of the measurements is "Distribution of Health in the Populations". The reason this one makes us look bad is because while the rich people of this country have the best health care in the world the poorer class only has satisfactory. Yet, a country that has crappy health care for all its citizens would rank higher then us seeing as the range is not as large. 3. Life expectancy does not have a direct correlation to overall health care and infant mortality is not an accurate indicator. Here in America we have a lot of fat fucks who spend their time eating at Burger King. Because of this they die young from a heart attacked, or stroke, or some other illness caused by their weight. So, you can have the best health care system in the world but if the people living in the country smoke, drink, and are 250+lbs then the doctors can only do so much to help them. Infant mortality is a hard statistic to chart seeing as every country has different views on what counts as life. In America if a baby is born alive then it is counted as living regardless of its weight or how long it lives. However, in countries like France the baby must weigh a certain amount for it to be considered living. Though the report from the Center of Disease and Prevention did note that if the guidelines were adjusted that America could improve even though their ratings would not look as bad as they are right now. Side: I always knew that
1. It's odd you should mention this one, because the reason we are number one in responsiveness is due to a government law that you can't let someone die in the waiting room due to lack of insurance... like a goverment take over or something. 2. The healthy do this often. While in large part if you have a lot of money you get great care, if you have average income you have just as much chance of an insurance company droping you as the next person. People don't realize their insurance actually sucks until they need it, thus all this hubub. Maybe if you have the opportunity to actually get treated then the care is good, that isn't the problem, I'm not talking about the doctors themselves. I'm talking about the insurance. This is the only country in the Western world where you can pay a company month after month for years for your care, only to be legally dropped when you need it so they can save some money. This = crappy care. Crappy insurance would be more accurate a description I suppose, but the results ultimately are the same. 3. As for other causes for shorter life span, there's another chart linked on the top of the WHO world healthcare rankings. It lists countries by preventable deaths ie, nothing to do with being a fat American, and the UK (the country in question that I guess must be a socialist nation which is weird because they have elections and free speech and everything) still ranks better. As for the infant mortality, I don't see where you got this information. I don't have a link. Finally, even if we are say ranked 25th with a different ranking system instead of the 37th, we still should be 1. Especially since we pay more than twice as much for our healthcare. Much of the reason we are not ranked 1 is because insurance companies are more concerned about making money than saving lives. All this bill does is make the insurance companies actually insure the people who pay them, and forces them to spend 85% instead of 10% on healthcare. There won't be a single government doctor, government hospital, death panel, or anything else. Joe lives in fantasy land and his arguments are ridiculous. A minority of angry scared people complained about the exact same thing when it came to social security and medicare. Today every old person loves those things, and almost every person who isn't old yet realizes they will love them when they are too old to work. Same here, two or three years down the line the 45% still waking up in cold sweats over the evil government doctor hiding in their closet will turn into something like 10 or 15% - the same people who will always be against government no matter how many times they drive on government paid for roads or aren't eating tainted beef because of government laws. But there's nothing you can do to help those kinds of people (ie the Joes of the world) Side: Wait..., What? No!
|
