Health Care

You really buy into the criteria used in these rankings?

I find you amazingly gullible.

I'll cover my expenses for my health. You cover yours. We'll get along fine.

Here is why you believe that drivel...

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2010/06/29/if_you_believe_america_has_lousy_health_care,_heres_why

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/blog/2010/01/best-health-care-in-the-world-not-us-not-the-us.html

"Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?"

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2610&query=TOC

Spin away friends

One thing not considered is the fact that the overwhelming majority of new technologies,treatments,and procedures are developed right here in the U.S. because due to the one payer system price controls there is no incentive for R&D. Europe begins using them first because their system is not hindered by the FDA and the other multitudes of alphabet beuracracies that our system is hindered by.

voiceofreason wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/blog/2010/01/best-health-care-in-the-world-not-us-not-the-us.html

"Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?"

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2610&query=TOC

Spin away friends

Again, research the funding for all of the websites quoted, the "experts" quoted and the criteria used for the comparison. It's all based on big lies and bigger union, Soros and Gore money.

And your sources are far from being the corp. healthcare shills?????

Guess it depends on whose money you think is cleaner right????

voiceofreason wrote:

Guess it depends on whose money you think is cleaner right????

Ya 2% PROFIT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOO evil and dirty

http://www.campaignmoney.org/pressroom/2009/06/08/senators-who-signed-letter-opposing-public-health-plan-took-17-7-million-in-campaign-cash-from-health-care-

"The Senators have collectively taken $17.7 million from insurance and health care interests, according to data analyzed at the Center for Responsive Politics website, opensecrets.org. That amounts to nearly $2 million per Senator over their careers."



“Americans want a government that is responsive to our needs, not a Congress that listens to its donors from the insurance and health care industry,” commented David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund. “These Senators appear to be carrying water for their donors at the expense of advancing health care reform.”



"All nine Senators sit on the Senate Finance Committee, which is actively engaged in debating health care reform. The nine signers include Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), John Ensign (R-Nev.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), and John Cornyn (R-Texas). Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the committee’s only Republican Senator not to sign. Sen. Snowe has taken $1.1 million from the same interests, less than all but two of the signers."


Spin away Lemmings

No Yonni 2% profit ain't bad... $50.00 for an advil??? Thats clean???


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/30/poll-suggests-health-care-reform-becoming-more-popular/?fbid=TOV2IJzsu1y

voiceofreason wrote:

And your sources are far from being the corp. healthcare shills?????

Guess it depends on whose money you think is cleaner right????

Yes. It depends on what the end goal of the donors is. That's all. Soros wants one world government. The unions want to eliminate the free market system. Al Gore wants to profit from the AGW hoax.

The medical industry in America wants to be able to keep the technological edge they currently have by staying a free market. Once the gov't controls that industry, their drive to be the best will wither and die since there will be no incentive to be the best or first.

That's what has happened to the teaching profession. Being tenured lessens the drive to excel. That's what happened to the UAW as well. Both have collectivist ends in mind.

Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I believe the money spent lobbying to keep creeping collectivism at bay makes the health industry's donations money well spent and everything spent by Soros, the AGW hoax profiteers, and the unions is filthy.

Yep keep them lobbyists funnelling the cash..... After the Court Ruling we'll have our politicians wearing suits that look like NASCAR Drivers...

Speaking of not seeking any type of improvement or a better way
just keep doing exactly what we have been..


What is the definition of insanity???

voiceofreason wrote:

Yep keep them lobbyists funnelling the cash..... After the Court Ruling we'll have our politicians wearing suits that look like NASCAR Drivers...

Speaking of not seeking any type of improvement or a better way
just keep doing exactly what we have been..


What is the definition of insanity???

I don't see that America needs to follow in the footsteps of Europe, South America or any other BIG WELFARE STATE.

Why do you?

fatbass wrote:

The medical industry in America wants to be able to keep the technological edge they currently have by staying a free market. Once the gov't controls that industry, their drive to be the best will wither and die since there will be no incentive to be the best or first. I know I'm being nit picky here, but your assertion the medical industry has been anything close to a free market in the last 100 years is not accurate. You can say it was closer to a free market, but the single biggest reason health care costs are so high is because of government regulations. Crony capitalism has existed in the medical industry for decades, from the number of doctors allowed to be licensed at any given time, to the research grants given to the pharmaceutical companies for research, to the limit on how many health care facilities can be based on population. Rationing the amount of health care personnel and the health care facilities artificially drives up the demand for services which drives up the costs.

That's what has happened to the teaching profession. Being tenured lessens the drive to excel. That's what happened to the UAW as well. Both have collectivist ends in mind.

Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I believe the money spent lobbying to keep creeping collectivism at bay makes the health industry's donations money well spent and everything spent by Soros, the AGW hoax profiteers, and the unions is filthy. Dancing with the enemy now? My how the tides have turned.

Here is what one "greedy company" does

Quote :

Healing for…those in need
One Day of Charity Care at Intermountain Healthcare
By Greg Poulsen
Senior Vice President

On one day, August 21st of last year, 79 people without the ability to pay visited an Intermountain emergency room. We had 243 who received outpatient care at an Intermountain facility and 190 patients who couldn’t pay spent that night in an Intermountain hospital bed.

Eleven patients were treated for cancer, two had open heart surgery, six babies were born, a cleft palate was repaired, two patients were admitted with pneumonia, two people had their gall bladders removed, and two passed kidney stones.

Thirteen were treated for severe back pain, and one needed a spinal fusion.

Two heart attacks were treated successfully, three people were treated for food poisoning, and seven were treated for extensive cuts or wounds.

One very premature infant was admitted to the newborn intensive care unit.

One young man was treated for rabies.

One finger was reattached, and two patients with drug overdoses were brought by ambulance, three children with strep throat were treated, and eighteen bones were set.

In all, more than 500 people that were unable to pay received care on August 21st. It was a very unusual day for each of those people, but it was not unusual for Intermountain—the financial assistance provided was much like any other day.

The care was provided throughout Utah, to people in cities large and small. Nearly 100,000 dollars worth of care was provided to residents of Salt Lake City, 30,000 more for the people of West Jordan, and more than 55,000 dollars was provided for residents of Cedar City.

Residents of smaller communities also received care that day. A man from Coalville had a crushed hand repaired at a cost of 4,200 dollars, and a woman from Panguitch was treated for an acute eye infection at a cost of 77 dollars.

Overall, approximately $460,000 of care was provided to our neighbors who didn’t have the ability to pay.

From our first day of operation in 1975, Intermountain has made community stewardship part of our mission. We are committed to serving the diverse needs of the young and old, rich and poor, and those living in urban and rural communities, with sensitivity to cultural differences. Throughout our history we’ve worked independently and with community partners to care for the underserved, and we remain committed to providing generally available medical services to everyone in our service area, regardless of their ability to pay.

Of course, it’s important that people do pay when they can. Rising charity care and financial assistance costs put a significant strain on available resources. Still, in the 365 days in 2009, Intermountain provided financial assistance in more than 255,000 cases where people were unable to pay. That care totaled $154 million dollars—and this does not include “bad debt.”

The next day, on August 22, the people who needed financial assistance changed, and the care they needed was different, but the caring continued as it does every day. Putting ‘healing for life’ into practice for those who need us defines who we are, and builds a stronger community for the people we serve.

What a bunch of evil greedy plicks!

proutdoors wrote:

fatbass wrote:

The medical industry in America wants to be able to keep the technological edge they currently have by staying a free market. Once the gov't controls that industry, their drive to be the best will wither and die since there will be no incentive to be the best or first. I know I'm being nit picky here, but your assertion the medical industry has been anything close to a free market in the last 100 years is not accurate. You can say it was closer to a free market, but the single biggest reason health care costs are so high is because of government regulations. Crony capitalism has existed in the medical industry for decades, from the number of doctors allowed to be licensed at any given time, to the research grants given to the pharmaceutical companies for research, to the limit on how many health care facilities can be based on population. Rationing the amount of health care personnel and the health care facilities artificially drives up the demand for services which drives up the costs.

That's what has happened to the teaching profession. Being tenured lessens the drive to excel. That's what happened to the UAW as well. Both have collectivist ends in mind.

Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I believe the money spent lobbying to keep creeping collectivism at bay makes the health industry's donations money well spent and everything spent by Soros, the AGW hoax profiteers, and the unions is filthy. Dancing with the enemy now? My how the tides have turned.

Ummm...can't argue with the first red response but do you truly disagree in your second?

fatbass wrote:

Ummm...can't argue with the first red response but do you truly disagree in your second?

Yes I can, and here's why: Dancing with the devil, even if it is a 'lesser' devil is begging for a few charred fingers. Lobbyists do ONE thing, they represent special interests, not your/my interests, not the state's interests, and not the nation's interests. The fallout from siding with lobbyists when they are "the enemy of my enemy" is that you give them power ,and as sure as the day turns to night, this 'Allie' WILL turn on you and bite you in the ass when you let your guard down. Lobbyists push for regulations, and regulations work against the free market. The free market is essential to sustained individual liberty and sustained individual prosperity.

Good God my friend your eyes have to be brown!!!! Do ya honestly believe in an unregulated free for all????

Get my waders case the shit is going to get deeper really quick

proutdoors wrote:

fatbass wrote:

Ummm...can't argue with the first red response but do you truly disagree in your second?

Yes I can, and here's why: Dancing with the devil, even if it is a 'lesser' devil is begging for a few charred fingers. Lobbyists do ONE thing, they represent special interests, not your/my interests, not the state's interests, and not the nation's interests. The fallout from siding with lobbyists when they are "the enemy of my enemy" is that you give them power ,and as sure as the day turns to night, this 'Allie' WILL turn on you and bite you in the ass when you let your guard down. Lobbyists push for regulations, and regulations work against the free market. The free market is essential to sustained individual liberty and sustained individual prosperity.

Lobbyists also push to STOP regulations so you're argument is invalid. As long as money is spent to slow down the encroachment of overt collectivism, we strict Constitutionalists can develop the means to re-establish that cornerstone of all that is good in the meantime. I.e., WE need "useful idiots" as well.

fatbass wrote:

Lobbyists also push to STOP regulations so you're argument is invalid. As long as money is spent to slow down the encroachment of overt collectivism, we strict Constitutionalists can develop the means to re-establish that cornerstone of all that is good in the meantime. I.e., WE need "useful idiots" as well.

I have to concede your point and agree with this post.

voiceofsocialism, I damn sure do believe in the free market! The government having its fingers in EVERY sector of the economy sure isn't working, so I contend a market driven economy couldn't do worse than the train wreck we have right now. I can't see how a market driven economy could have $13 TRILLION dollars hanging over us that has NO way of being paid, so how could the market make it worse?

extremist view, ya sure???

voiceofreason wrote:

extremist view, ya sure???

That's the best defense you can come up with for government intrusion in the economic realm? Please tell me you got better game than this.

You are the one with the extremist view all I asked is if you were prepared to back up NO REGULATIONS or not

voiceofreason wrote:

You are the one with the extremist view all I asked is if you were prepared to back up NO REGULATIONS or not

Absolutely! Now that we got that out of the way, what now?