T1B

mvscal wrote: Who says they have to do it alone? I couldn't help but notice that you glided right past the private solution of people organizing themselves and pooling resources to solve their common problems.

you mean like people throwing their money into a giant pot and then take it out of the pot as they need it? fuck dude, if that isn't the very definition of socialism I'd like to know what it is...but the nature of people being what it is, it would never work....somebody is always going to take advantage (s'up Blue Cross)

Why is it that whimpering little pussies like you always go running to the government solve your every scrape and boo-boo?

I don't go running to anybody....I've had to fend for myself since I was 18 years old and never once have I lived off the government tit.....but I certainly don't balk at helping those less fortunate than I am....I know you don't either...believe me, I hate abuse of our welfare system (from both sides) as much as you do....

Wrong. I'm opposed to spending tax dollars on abortion as well.

me too...see, we're a lot more alike than think

Felix wrote:you mean like people throwing their money into a giant pot and then take it out of the pot as they need it? fuck dude, if that isn't the very definition of socialism I'd like to know what it is.

no, that's called insurance. it's a voluntary thing. you don't like the way it's being run, you go elsewhere. socialism, otoh, is mandatory. you pay into it or go to jail for tax evasion.

Felix wrote:and you should learn some compassion for your fellow man, instead of being a fucking asshole all of your life...

And just what the fuck makes you think you're being the least bit "compassionate" you fucking cum-gargler?

First of all, Medicare IS coercive. You turn 65, you're on fucking medicare- period- it's MANDATORY. You had great coverage when you were 64 and a half? Tough shit. Sure, a recent change allows you to divert some of your "premium" to a private, supplemental insurance policy- but that's all it is is a supplement to medicare, and medicare then reduces what they'll pay on your behalf. Prior to just a few years ago, people on medicare didn't even have that limited option- medicare was IT. I'll take mvscal's compassion any day. As for yours, you can shove it up your ass

mvscal wrote: If that's what you think, you should be stood against a wall and shot.

Why did you throw the military under the bus to protect a rapist?

Fucking hack.

Felix wrote:is there a constitutional mandate that the federal government is supposed to take care of our highways... How about telecommunications?

There comes a time when a poster should tuck their tail between their legs, and exit a thread as a self-enforced punishment for KTOA.


Felix, my old internet buddy... now is just such a time.

BTW -- charitable people acting compassionately in their local community kept old people off the streets for say... about the first 170 years of this country or so... rather successfully-BTW.

How's the Socialist Plan working these days?


The more monbey people have, the more charitable they are... this is a VERY well-proven FACT. But commies don't want to part with their own money to do the right thing, and insist on making claims on That Which Does Not Belong To Them to compensate for their own lack of charitable compassion.

Cuda wrote: You turn 65, you're on fucking medicare- period- it's MANDATORY.

it is not....somehow I don't think the Cape Cod Huffingtons even know how to spell medicare, more less use it

medicare, and medicare then reduces what they'll pay on your behalf. Prior to just a few years ago, people on medicare didn't even have that limited option- medicare was IT. I'll take mvscal's compassion any day. As for yours, you can shove it up your ass

that's called negotiated price...that's why lots of doctors don't take medicare or medicaid patients....the government tells them what the service is worth and if they don't like it, they don't participate....nobody is holding a gun to a doctors head forcing them to treat medicaid patients....but doctors that do receive tax benefits and discounts on things non-medicare docs don't...that's the incentive....really, this is abc simple economics, even a waste wad like you can understand

This is delicious...

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer yesterday:
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Now here's a recent SEIU memo:
Action: Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.

Oh, the fucking irony. I wonder why Obamacare opponents are characterized as violent mobs and called un-American (despite the fact that dissent just a few years ago was the best form of patriotism? Yet, pro-Democratic union thugs that attack black conservatives while screaming racial epithets and explicitly call to drown out voices of opposition are ... well, nothing happens to them.

A white cop properly responds to a break-in call and is whipped by the media and the United States federal government, yet, in a real instance of racism and political violence the President is completely off the radar...

The Democrats are becoming more and more unhinged with each passing day.

Felix wrote:that's called negotiated price...that's why lots of doctors don't take medicare or medicaid patients....the government tells them what the service is worth and if they don't like it, they don't participate....

I'm sorry, but what the fuck are you thinking, jagoff? How, in any possible way, is what you described called a "negotiation?" No wonder you're a fucking joke here. You call something "negotiation" and then turn around and describe it as the govt telling doctors to take or leave it. There's no negotiation there.

nobody is holding a gun to a doctors head forcing them to treat medicaid patients....but doctors that do receive tax benefits and discounts on things non-medicare docs don't...that's the incentive....really, this is abc simple economics, even a waste wad like you can understand

Simple economics says it's efficient to impose a government medicare program and to incentivize doctor participation by handing out tax benefits? In what fucking world?

Weasel, how about every other nation on earth, basically. That's right, every developed nation except America has a national health plan. So, you're the one walking around in a coal mine, you ignorant little piss-ant. And let's get this straight--you're vigorously supporting the giant pharmaceutical companies....why?

Seriously, just answer one question: from under what fucking rock have you crawled forth to be such a slimy shill?

Felix wrote:

Cuda wrote: You turn 65, you're on fucking medicare- period- it's MANDATORY.

it is not....somehow I don't think the Cape Cod Huffingtons even know how to spell medicare, more less use it

Of course it's mandatory, you fucking moron- that was one of the big arguments about the whole program back in 1965. It had to be made mandatory, otherwise not enough people were projected to participate in it to justify creating the program in the first place

medicare, and medicare then reduces what they'll pay on your behalf. Prior to just a few years ago, people on medicare didn't even have that limited option- medicare was IT. I'll take mvscal's compassion any day. As for yours, you can shove it up your ass

that's called negotiated price...that's why lots of doctors don't take medicare or medicaid patients....the government tells them what the service is worth and if they don't like it, they don't participate...

did you even stop to think how fucking stupid this statement was before you hit submit? When the government tells providers what they'll pay for their services, then by definition, IT'S NOT A NEGOTIATED PRICE.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Weasel, how about every other nation on earth, basically. That's right, every developed nation except America has a national health plan.

Every other developed nation on earth also pays their clergy with tax money. Do you think we ought to follow their lead there too?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Weasel, how about every other nation on earth, basically. That's right, every developed nation except America has a national health plan. So, you're the one walking around in a coal mine, you ignorant little piss-ant. And let's get this straight--you're vigorously supporting the giant pharmaceutical companies....why?

Seriously, just answer one question: from under what fucking rock have you crawled forth to be such a slimy shill?

Yeah, dipshit, and their health outcomes are worse than ours. You'd only prefer Canada and British health care if you were a dog.

JMak wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Weasel, how about every other nation on earth, basically. That's right, every developed nation except America has a national health plan. So, you're the one walking around in a coal mine, you ignorant little piss-ant. And let's get this straight--you're vigorously supporting the giant pharmaceutical companies....why?

Seriously, just answer one question: from under what fucking rock have you crawled forth to be such a slimy shill?

Yeah, dipshit, and their health outcomes are worse than ours.

By what metric?

I see you've been avoiding the whole "rationing" thing, which I've called you on at least three times in the past couple of days.

When are you going to come clean and stop your incessant lying?

List of countries by life expectancy
Country, Overall life expectancy at birth, Male life expectancy at birth, Female life expectancy at birth
1 Macau ( PRC) 84.379 81.36 87.45
1 2 Andorra 82.67 80.35 85.14
2 3 Japan 82.07 78.73 85.59
3 4 Singapore 81.89 79.29 84.68
4 5 San Marino 81.88 78.43 85.64
6 Hong Kong ( PRC) 81.77 79.07 84.69
7 Gibraltar ( UK)[4] 80.9 78.5 83.3
5 8 France (metropolitan) 80.87 77.68 84.23
6 9 Switzerland 80.62 77.75 83.63
7 10 Sweden 80.63 78.39 83
8 11 Australia 80.62 77.8 83.59
9 13 Iceland 80.43 78.33 82.62
10 14 Canada 80.34 76.98 83.86
11 16 Italy 79.94 77.01 83.07
12 17 Monaco 79.82 75.99 83.85
13 18 Liechtenstein 79.81 76.24 83.4
14 19 Spain 79.78 76.46 83.32
14 19 Norway 79.78 76.46 83.32
14 19 Israel 79.78 76.46 83.32
17 24 Greece 79.38 76.85 82.06
18 25 Austria 79.21 76.32 82.26
19 27 Malta 79.15 76.95 81.47
20 28 Netherlands 79.11 76.52 81.82
21 29 South Korea 79.10 78.10 80.10
22 30 Luxembourg 79.03 75.76 82.52
23 32 New Zealand 78.96 75.97 82.08
24 33 Germany 78.95 75.96 82.11
25 34 Belgium 78.92 75.75 82.24
26 37 United Kingdom 78.7 76.23 81.3
38 European Union 78.7 75.6 82
27 39 Finland 78.66 75.15 82.31
28 40 Jordan 78.55 76.04 81.22
41 Puerto Rico ( US) 78.54 74.6 82.67
29 42 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.17 74.57 82.03
43 Bermuda ( UK) 78.13 76 80.29
44 Saint Helena ( UK) 78.09 75.19 81.15
30 45 United States 78.06 75.15 80.97

List of countries by infant mortality rate

Country or territory,Infant mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births), Under-five mortality rate(deaths/1,000 live births)
1 Iceland 2.9 3.9
2 Singapore 3.0 4.1
3 Japan 3.2 4.2
4 Sweden 3.2 4.0
5 Norway 3.3 4.4
6 Hong Kong 3.7 4.7
7 Finland 3.7 4.7
8 Czech Republic 3.8 4.8
9 Switzerland 4.1 5.1
10 South Korea 4.1 4.8
11 Belgium 4.2 5.3
12 France 4.2 5.2
13 Spain 4.2 5.3
14 Germany 4.3 5.4
15 Denmark 4.4 5.8
16 Austria 4.4 5.4
17 Australia 4.4 5.6
18 Luxembourg 4.5 6.6
19 Netherlands 4.7 5.9
20 Israel 4.7 5.7
21 Slovenia 4.8 6.4
22 United Kingdom 4.8 6.0
23 Canada 4.8 5.9
24 Ireland 4.9 6.2
25 Italy 5.0 6.1
26 Portugal 5.0 6.6
27 New Zealand 5.0 6.4
28 Cuba 5.1 6.5
29 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) 5.2 6.2
30 Brunei 5.5 6.7
31 Cyprus 5.9 6.9
32 New Caledonia 6.1 8.7
33 United States 6.3 7.8

Mikey wrote:List of countries by life expectancy
Country, Overall life expectancy at birth, Male life expectancy at birth, Female life expectancy at birth
1 Macau ( PRC) 84.379 81.36 87.45 etc, etc, etc...

So
Fucking
What?

Mikey wrote:By what metric?

I should have qualified my comment...our health outcomes are generally better. And I'm not talking about the usual and flawed measures like infant mortality or life expectancy which are not valid measures of health care effectiveness. Rather, actual outcomes like cancer survivability.

I see you've been avoiding the whole "rationing" thing, which I've called you on at least three times in the past couple of days.

When are you going to come clean and stop your incessant lying?

I cited precisely what I was talking about...centralized boards that determine which coverages and treatments are available to specific groups. In fact, Obama explicitly described this board during that prime time press conference a few weeks ago.

Mikey...please explain how infant mortality is a valid measure by which to assess the quality of health care. While doing so, please account for the fact that different countries count and report infant mortality differently.

Please explain how life expectancy is a valid measure to assess the quality of health care. While doing so, please account for the fact that10s of thousands of deaths in the US each year have no connection to health care services.

Thank you...in fact, don't bother. You cannot account for these factors. Consequently, this demonstrates that these two measures are not valid measures of health care outcomes.

JMak wrote:

Mikey wrote:By what metric?

I should have qualified my comment...our health outcomes are generally better. And I'm not talking about the usual and flawed measures like infant mortality or life expectancy which are not valid measures of health care effectiveness. Rather, actual outcomes like cancer survivability.

OK I see. This is something that you have a "feeling" about but no actual numbers. After all numbers can only lie. Let's just go by unsubstantiated claims loud mouthed internet bores.

I see you've been avoiding the whole "rationing" thing, which I've called you on at least three times in the past couple of days.

When are you going to come clean and stop your incessant lying?

I cited precisely what I was talking about...centralized boards that determine which coverages and treatments are available to specific groups. In fact, Obama explicitly described this board during that prime time press conference a few weeks ago.

So, your insurance company (assuming you have one) doesn't dictate what procedures, pharmaceuticals and other benefits you're eligible for? How is this any different and not "rationing"?

JMak wrote:Mikey...please explain how infant mortality is a valid measure by which to assess the quality of health care. While doing so, please account for the fact that different countries count and report infant mortality differently.

Please explain how life expectancy is a valid measure to assess the quality of health care. While doing so, please account for the fact that10s of thousands of deaths in the US each year have no connection to health care services.

Thank you...in fact, don't bother. You cannot account for these factors. Consequently, this demonstrates that these two measures are not valid measures of health care outcomes.

Then what's your measure, other than you think so?

You made the claim that the outcomes in the US are "better". On what evidence do you base that claim?

Mikey wrote:OK I see. This is something that you have a "feeling" about but no actualy numbers. After all numbers can only lie. Let's just go by unsubstantiated claims loud mouthed internet bores.

No, it was a fly-by moment responding to a post.

So, your insurance company (assuming you have one) doesn't dictate what procedures, pharmaceuticals and other benefits you're eligible for? How is this any different and not "rationing"?

Hmmm, getting what I pay for versus the government determining that seniors should not be getting stents. You know, like how the NHS works in Britain.

Mikey wrote:Then what's your measure, other than you think so?

I was pointing out that the measures you use are not valid measures. Are you conceding the point?

You made the claim that the outcomes in the US are "better". On what evidence do you base that claim?

For example, fatality rate within 30 days of those diagnosed with a heart attack.

Cancer survival rates.

ICU mortality rates by diagnosed condition.

You know, actual measures that have an actual link to the health care system???

This statistic, unlike the two you and every other libtard, errr, socialized medicine proponent rely on, actually assumes some interaction with a health care system and measures something that a health care system can actually affect.

JMak wrote: You call something "negotiation" and then turn around and describe it as the govt telling doctors to take or leave it. There's no negotiation there.

doctors can tell the government to go fuck themselves if they don't want to accept the prices the government sets.....and the prices aren't some arbitrary number they pull out of a hat

Simple economics says it's efficient to impose a government medicare program and to incentivize doctor participation by handing out tax benefits? In what fucking world?

look hoss, if the doctors don't want to participate they don't have to....what part of that are you having trouble grasping

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGGDOp4uUg

Felix wrote:doctors can tell the government to go fuck themselves if they don't want to accept the prices the government sets.....

How does, in any way, come close to being a "negotiation?" Do you even know what that word means?

look hoss, if the doctors don't want to participate they don't have to....what part of that are you having trouble grasping

More negotiation, eh? LOL.

JMak wrote:

Mikey wrote:Then what's your measure, other than you think so?

I was pointing out that the measures you use are not valid measures. Are you conceding the point?

You made the claim that the outcomes in the US are "better". On what evidence do you base that claim?

For example, fatality rate within 30 days of those diagnosed with a heart attack.

Cancer survival rates.

ICU mortality rates by diagnosed condition.

You know, actual measures that have an actual link to the health care system???

This statistic, unlike the two you and every other libtard, errr, socialized medicine proponent rely on, actually assumes some interaction with a health care system and measures something that a health care system can actually affect.

You gave examples of emergency treatment and treatment of other catastrophic events. That's a legitimate but small part of the health care "system", but not any more a measure of the entire system than infant mortality.

How is life expectancy not a valid gauge of the health care system? Aren't preventive care and the general health of the population valid parameters? Don't those factors comprise the vast majority of people's interactions with the medical system?

Must reads:






vvvvvvv

JMak wrote:
More negotiation, eh? LOL.

you seem to be operating under the assumption that the government is arbitrarily establishing outlandishly low prices.....do you know how the government establishes what they pay for particular procedures? Of course you don't, you just assume the government is lowballing the piss out of everything

Jerkovich wrote:Must reads:

Why, to understand how braindead fuckwits like you "think?"

Sorry I've got better things to waste my time on.

JMak wrote: Now here's a recent SEIU memo:
Action: Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.

Lie much you horrible fucktard?

http://www.seiu2001.org/Healthcare_Town ... Himes.aspx

Weasel, you're a hack, pure and simple. And you still refuse to explain why you're vigorously supporting the giant pharmaceutical companies. These international corporate entities whose sole concern is profit, not "health" in the first place. Your arguments are small minded at best, ignoring and distorting the basic facts which butt-fuck your simplistic arguments as quickly as you post them.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: These international corporate entities whose sole concern is profit, not "health" in the first place.

1 out of every 700 dollars paid on healthcare in the US goes to pay Stephen Hemsley's salary and benefits. That is sick

Mikey wrote:You gave examples of emergency treatment and treatment of other catastrophic events. That's a legitimate but small part of the health care "system", but not any more a measure of the entire system than infant mortality.

You asshole, now you're being dishonest. I gave you some examples of valid measures of health care system effectiveness.

Now, you cited infant mortality as a comparative measure. I told you it was not a valid comparative measure. It's not because its not consistently measured across nations. The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age." While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt in his book "The Tyranny of Numbers: Measurement and Misrule" explained that in Switzerland an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living. This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure. Eberstadt notes that Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation.18 The United Nations Statistics Division notes many other differences. Japan counts only births to Japanese nationals living in Japan, not abroad. Finland, France and Norway, by contrast, do count births to nationals living outside of the country. Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium. Finally, Canada counts births to Canadians living in the U.S., but not Americans living in Canada. In short, many nations count births that are in no way an indication of the efficacy of their own health care systems.

Do you get it, yet? The methods used to count mortality, in these instances cited above, reduces the mortality rate in ways not at all affected by health care effectiveness.

Infant mortality is not a valid measure of health care effectiveness nor to compare health care effectiveness across nations.

How is life expectancy not a valid gauge of the health care system? Aren't preventive care and the general health of the population valid parameters? Don't those factors comprise the vast majority of people's interactions with the medical system?

15,000 murders.
35,000 vehicular fatalities.
How many people died in their sleep?
How many people died before the ambulance showed up?
How many people died in way completely unrelated to the health care system?

These deaths are calculated into the life expectancy statistic despite having no connection to the health care system.

This is why life expectancy is not a valid measure of health care effectiveness. A plethora of factors influence life expectancy, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, income and educational levels.

Felix wrote:

JMak wrote:
More negotiation, eh? LOL.

you seem to be operating under the assumption that the government is arbitrarily establishing outlandishly low prices.....do you know how the government establishes what they pay for particular procedures? Of course you don't, you just assume the government is lowballing the piss out of everything

No, moron...pay attention to what you are saying...you claimed there was negotiation then you described a process that is the complete opposite of negotiation. You buttfucked yourself in the mouth. Now, take responsibility for that or stfu.

Moving Sale wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: These international corporate entities whose sole concern is profit, not "health" in the first place.

1 out of every 700 cells in Kevnic's syphilis addled brain actually fires off live synapses. That is sick

FTFY

Moving Sale wrote:

JMak wrote: Now here's a recent SEIU memo:
Action: Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.

Lie much you horrible fucktard?

http://www.seiu2001.org/Healthcare_Town ... Himes.aspx

I'm not sure how that proves your assertion that I am lying. Help me out.

JMak wrote: No, moron...pay attention to what you are saying...you claimed there was negotiation then you described a process that is the complete opposite of negotiation.

Do you even know what negotiation is?

Moving Sale wrote:

JMak wrote: No, moron...pay attention to what you are saying...you claimed there was negotiation then you described a process that is the complete opposite of negotiation.

Do you even know what negotiation is?

Yes. And what Felix described doesn't fit. Maybe it's a problem with his inability to articulate his thoughts. Maybe it's his confusion about what a negotiation is. I don't know. What is clear is that the examples he described comes no where close to negotiation.

JMak wrote: I'm not sure how that proves your assertion that I am lying. Help me out.

That is because you are an idiot. You quoted the wegpage inaccurately and you knew, or should have known, that it was inaccurate, ergo you are a lying sack of rat shit.

Moving Sale wrote:

JMak wrote: I'm not sure how that proves your assertion that I am lying. Help me out.

That is because you are an idiot. You quoted the wegpage inaccurately and you knew, or should have known, that it was inaccurate, ergo you are a lying sack of rat shit.

I lifted a direct quote. Please explain what was in error.

Edit - you don't see what happened, do you?

The SEIU local changed the wording after the fact, from "come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices" to "come out in strong numbers to counter their voices."

Compare this - before to after.

So. shawty, you gonna come correct or you gonna live in your fantasy world?