Trump to halt 'massive' ObamaCare subsidies

[rc508pir]

and yet, Canada has world-famous cardiovascular treatment at the University of Ottawa, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Ottawa_Heart_Institute

One of the top universities in the world, which has pioneered several great innovations in their field.

Also, their outcomes appear to show a different story.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/get_file.php3/id/25/file/OECDInFigures2006-2007.pdf

Life Expectancy

Canada

82.14 years

USA

78.74 years

Infant Mortality

USA

6.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births

Canada

5.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

a ranking by the World Health Organization of health care system performance among 191 member nations, published in 2000, ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th, and the overall health of Canada 35th to the American 72nd.

Here's a good comparison;

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Health

By most measures, Canada's health system is either equivilant or superior to the U.S. one. at less cost and more coverage.

that's not to say Canada's healthcare system is the best in the world amongst nations with universal healthcare. it could always be improved upon. we should take notes from those countries with superior outcomes to Canada. but given how similar we are as countries, it seems like we're getting the short end of the straw. paying more for less.

Infact, the WHO ranks the following top 10 countries for the quality of their health system;

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
...

30 Canada
...

37 USA

All of those countries have higher taxes and much smaller populations. I would absolutely expect their health care systems to be ranked higher. Also note, a lot of those countries populations are in decline, not exploding out of control like the poor in this country.

Secondly, Who cares the WHO ranked them higher. The everyday fact is, none of those countries have better medical care that the US for those that can afford it.

Most people cant afford health insurance because they made poor decisions. IE, Joe Snuffy gets a "good" job driving the **** sucker truck(porta John cleaner truck)(just in case you didn't know), gets hitched to his high school hunny and by the time shes 22 and has four kids, Joe Snuffy realizes he cant afford anything because driving the **** sucker truck isn't such a good job after all. And maybe he thinks, he should have gone to college after all. So now the wife is nagging his *** all the time because he isn't making enough money and tellin him what a loser he is (note, the wife probably wanted to have the kids and just didn't tell her hubby, I don't know how I got pregnant) So The wife decides shes gonna upgrade and divorces him. Nows hes bummed out and goes out drinking to dull his sorrows and meets another pretty young thing. Gets married. She wants kids. He has more kids. He gets in deeper and deeper, and the x-wife is on food stamps

The reality is, Joe Snuffy actually married his high school sweetheart because he knocked her up. The reality is, Joe Snuffy could have had a better life than his decisions lead him to.

We don't need socialized health/universal health. We need better morals, standards and accountability. If there were FAR less people leeching the system, then we might be able to afford universal health, but we don't.

Also note that in a lot of the countries o

 

[dennishoddy]

that's irrelevant.

anecdotal experiences are not substitutes for evidence or primary sources.

It's not anecdotal.
It's first hand experience from a true user of that service.
Your going to disregard that experience and just throw it out the window because you are being fed left wing talking points?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JD8]

O Canada...

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...s_williams_heads_south_for_heart_surgery.html

More wait time woes....

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

You're assuming the proposed "Medicare-for-all" plans would run exactly like Medicare currently runs, and the administrative/bloated-middle-man-insurance costs would remain, which are blatantly false assumptions. I posted the details in previous threads, backed up with evidence, and you ignored it there as well. Strike 1.

And you continue to assume that the proposed "Medicare-for-all" plans would operate like the current VA does, which is laughably incorrect. This point has been addressed in prior threads as well, with evidence that details why it's such a ridiculous strawman, yet you continue the with the "but the VA...but the VA" tirade despite the fact that the proposed plans would be nothing like it. If you're building a strawman with the VA (which is all you're doing), then either (a) you're being totally disingenuous, or (b) know nothing about the proposed plans. Given that those details have been posted before, and you commented on them before, I'm going with (a). Strike 2.

Universal heathcare in most industrialized countries has both (a) less cost in total, including taxes and all costs to individuals, and (b) better health outcomes for the entire society. Mountains of evidence to robustly support (a) and (b) have been posted across multiple threads here. If you intend to be effective in convincing anyone that we should stick with privatized health-care, you'll have to refute those points with evidence. Strike 3.

Thanks for playing, sport.

Easy BIG guy.....let's backup the strawman you've got going yourself.

1. I'm well aware "Medicare for all" wouldn't run exactly like Medicare lol.... fundamentally they are significantly different. However, the entity executing it will remain the same. You posted coulda, shoulda, woulda models which in fact can't account for the variables in the real world. Especially, concerning the U.S. government and it's populous. Again, in the learned and accredited world, your evidence wouldn't cut it. Just because it fits your narrative doesn't mean it's "evidence."

2. What you fail to understand, and I'm not sure why, is that the entity executing healthcare in the VA is the problem. I know you want to ignore this, because it blows your whole theory out of the water. You cannot provide that the U.S. government will provide more efficient healthcare than the private sector (given the chains are off) and the VA is an example. Simply clicking your heels and stating it will be different doesn't make the .gov's incompetency go away. What I'm providing is that the U.S. has a LONG history of not being able to execute programs as efficiently as the private sector.

3. Why did you leave out innovation? Doesn't fit the outcome and cost narrative? https://www.quora.com/What-countrie...-research-and-innovation-in-the-past-20-years
How much does the rest of the world benefit from our drugs we developed? Our procedures? medical devices? etc. I wonder how well other industrialized nations would be doing if we didn't cure polio? Measles? Who is at the forefront of cancer research? Who else benefits from that? I'd hate for you think outside the box when you're looking for a handout but the reality is that we publish more papers, develop more procedures and drugs than anyone. Ya think that factors in the costs of their healthcare? (Don't answer that... it's rhetorical)

Don't thank me for playing, it's my pleasure exposing OSA SJWs.

 

[rc508pir]

that's irrelevant.

anecdotal experiences are not substitutes for evidence or primary sources.

Its absolutely NOT irrelevant. The VA system is bad now. Now put 300 million more people in it. That's exactly how universal health would be

 

[JD8]

http://web.mnstate.edu/robertsb/390/A revolution in healthcare Medicine meets the marketplace.pdf

A report of McKinsey and Co. from 2008 found that between 60,000 and 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care.[69] The same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006)

Hmm. For such a great system we have, doesn't seem like a lot of Americans want to stick around to enjoy it.

Doesn't bode well for the OSA corporate bordello supporters, i guess.

Canada's population = 36.9 million ... 50K travelers.

US population = 323 million ....750K travelers.

Canadian traveler's healthcare is nearly Free and yet they choose to pay and go elsewhere.

The American traveler's healthcare can be expensive and is choosing to shop around in other countries where they can pay CASH. Given I just showed in this thread that the cash model works, even in the current system, in Oklahoma. I'll take it.

 

[D. Hargrove]

The VA is terrible, period. So bad in fact I pay to have other insurance. Oh yeah, my family cannot go to the VA, so there's that also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[YukonGlocker]

O Canada...

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...s_williams_heads_south_for_heart_surgery.html

More wait time woes....

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care



Easy BIG guy.....let's backup the strawman you've got going yourself.

1. I'm well aware "Medicare for all" wouldn't run exactly like Medicare lol.... fundamentally they are significantly different. However, the entity executing it will remain the same. You posted coulda, shoulda, woulda models which in fact can't account for the variables in the real world. Especially, concerning the U.S. government and it's populous. Again, in the learned and accredited world, your evidence wouldn't cut it. Just because it fits your narrative doesn't mean it's "evidence."

2. What you fail to understand, and I'm not sure why, is that the entity executing healthcare in the VA is the problem. I know you want to ignore this, because it blows your whole theory out of the water. You cannot provide that the U.S. government will provide more efficient healthcare than the private sector (given the chains are off) and the VA is an example. Simply clicking your heels and stating it will be different doesn't make the .gov's incompetency go away. What I'm providing is that the U.S. has a LONG history of not being able to execute programs as efficiently as the private sector.

3. Why did you leave out innovation? Doesn't fit the outcome and cost narrative? https://www.quora.com/What-countrie...-research-and-innovation-in-the-past-20-years
How much does the rest of the world benefit from our drugs we developed? Our procedures? medical devices? etc. I wonder how well other industrialized nations would be doing if we didn't cure polio? Measles? Who is at the forefront of cancer research? Who else benefits from that? I'd hate for you think outside the box when you're looking for a handout but the reality is that we publish more papers, develop more procedures and drugs than anyone. Ya think that factors in the costs of their healthcare? (Don't answer that... it's rhetorical)

Don't thank me for playing, it's my pleasure exposing OSA SJWs.

I'm in the learned and accredited world, little guy. Part of my job, now, is determining the best-practices and -standards for scientific training, criteria, and accreditation. Let me know if you'd like a lesson because you certainly need one.

Same old story, same old arguments, different day. Do you have any evidence to refute what we (i.e., the vast majority of the entire world) knows about universal health-care systems, or not? You can yell "I don't trust the government to do it" as much as you'd like, but that does nothing. Regardless, universal health-care is coming, sooner or later. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Exposing SJWs...lmfao!

 

[Glocktogo]

and yet, Canada has world-famous cardiovascular treatment at the University of Ottawa, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Ottawa_Heart_Institute

One of the top universities in the world, which has pioneered several great innovations in their field.

Also, their outcomes appear to show a different story.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/get_file.php3/id/25/file/OECDInFigures2006-2007.pdf

Life Expectancy

Canada

82.14 years

USA

78.74 years

Infant Mortality

USA

6.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births

Canada

5.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

a ranking by the World Health Organization of health care system performance among 191 member nations, published in 2000, ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th, and the overall health of Canada 35th to the American 72nd.

Here's a good comparison;

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Health

By most measures, Canada's health system is either equivilant or superior to the U.S. one. at less cost and more coverage.

that's not to say Canada's healthcare system is the best in the world amongst nations with universal healthcare. it could always be improved upon. we should take notes from those countries with superior outcomes to Canada. but given how similar we are as countries, it seems like we're getting the short end of the straw. paying more for less.

Infact, the WHO ranks the following top 10 countries for the quality of their health system;

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
...

30 Canada
...

37 USA

Two points. One, correlation doesn't equal causation. Second, WHO is an arm of a corrupt socialist organisation that doesn't exactly have a good reputation. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying they aren't necessarily right. That's an important distinction. One I'm not sure you'd be able to grasp, given your limited experience.

 

[Shadowrider]

I'm in the learned and accredited world, little guy. Part of my job, now, is determining the best-practices and -standards for scientific training, criteria, and accreditation. Let me know if you'd like a lesson because you certainly need one.

Same old story, same old arguments, different day. Do you have any evidence to refute what we (i.e., the vast majority of the entire world) knows about universal health-care systems, or not? You can yell "I don't trust the government to do it" as much as you'd like, but that does nothing. Regardless, universal health-care is coming, sooner or later. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Exposing SJWs...lmfao!

I know it's a bitter pill for you but academics ≠ real world. GDP is a pretty good indicator of the productivity and overall wealth of a nation. So which country that has universal healthcare equals or betters the GDP of the USA?

 

[Pokinfun]

I'm in the learned and accredited world, little guy. Part of my job, now, is determining the best-practices and -standards for scientific training, criteria, and accreditation. Let me know if you'd like a lesson because you certainly need one.

Same old story, same old arguments, different day. Do you have any evidence to refute what we (i.e., the vast majority of the entire world) knows about universal health-care systems, or not? You can yell "I don't trust the government to do it" as much as you'd like, but that does nothing. Regardless, universal health-care is coming, sooner or later. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Exposing SJWs...lmfao!

The argument does not have to be any deeper than, is the US a socialist nation or a nation of free citizens.