View Full Version : Dear Sarah Palin:
jester214
10-07-2008, 03:56 PM
Sorry, you can't just dismiss evidence because it doesn't jive with your preconceived notions. Those facts have no reason to lie to you.
I would agree if it was A. Evidence or B. Fact. How do you define the best healthcare in the world? Please, tell me?
The list is educated opinion, with support. Not fact or evidence.
Miss_Luscious
10-07-2008, 04:07 PM
Jester, you are a horrible debater. Just Horrible. You choose what to believe based on whether or not it agrees with you. I'm sure if that link proved your point you would think it was just fine. But since YOU THINK Canada must have worse health care than us you automatically disregard the link totally.
America is not Number 1 all the time you know. We don't always have the best everything and it's OK.
VegasPrincess
10-07-2008, 05:23 PM
Individuals don't have their own schools, unless you count homeschool's which are again very rare. Just like we already have some Gov. funded heathcare.
Private schools are a consortium, if your peers hadn't been there, neither would you. Besides most people can't afford private school, or to go the homeschool route.
Most people can afford healthcare, through their work, or themselves.
Healthcare and education are not comparable. If you took away public schools then the majority of people would have no education.
The majority of people do have healthcare.
So, you recognise that if you took away public schools, the majority of people wouldnt have education but you fail to recognize that without public health care, a large minority of people can not afford coverage...oh, and BTW public school probably isn't much more expensive than paying for your own health care.
This is what I love about the Republican mentality....the lack of concern for issues that don't personally matter to you. Health care is a basic human need and should be provided for on the on a basic level to all Americans...sheesh!
eagle2
10-07-2008, 05:27 PM
I would agree if it was A. Evidence or B. Fact. How do you define the best healthcare in the world? Please, tell me?
The list is educated opinion, with support. Not fact or evidence.
There are certain facts that can be used to determine the quality of healthcare in a country, such as life expectancy, in which the US ranks 29:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
and infant mortality rate, in which the US ranks 33:
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/mortality.html
jester214
10-07-2008, 06:27 PM
Jester, you are a horrible debater. Just Horrible. You choose what to believe based on whether or not it agrees with you. I'm sure if that link proved your point you would think it was just fine. But since YOU THINK Canada must have worse health care than us you automatically disregard the link totally.
America is not Number 1 all the time you know. We don't always have the best everything and it's OK.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf
Give that read.
You aren't a debater. You blindly beleive whatever supports your opinion. I don't beleive America #1, but I also don't think socialized healthcare is right for us, there are 300 Million people in this country! The government can barely handle what's on it's plate as is, do you really think they could take control of healthcare?? Do you have any idea what state Medicare and Medicaid are in?? There's a reason a lot of doctor's don't take it.
jester214
10-07-2008, 06:29 PM
There are certain facts that can be used to determine the quality of healthcare in a country, such as life expectancy, in which the US ranks 29:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
and infant mortality rate, in which the US ranks 33:
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/mortality.html
Live expectancy has many many factors other than Healthcare. Andorra has the highest life expectancy, but I don't see them getting best healthcare status??
The WHO doesn't include imf in there list.
jester214
10-07-2008, 06:36 PM
So, you recognise that if you took away public schools, the majority of people wouldnt have education but you fail to recognize that without public health care, a large minority of people can not afford coverage...oh, and BTW public school probably isn't much more expensive than paying for your own health care.
This is what I love about the Republican mentality....the lack of concern for issues that don't personally matter to you. Health care is a basic human need and should be provided for on the on a basic level to all Americans...sheesh!
If you took away public education, how many people would be out in the cold?? 80%, 90%??
How many people don't have Healthcare?? 10%, 20%??? And who knows how many of those people could afford it, but don't get it...
80-90 versus maybe 15??? The two are not comparable.
I don't understand your last comment in the first paragraph.
It's a good thing I'm not a Republican.;D
I agree, I want everyone to have healthcare. But I don't beleive some kind of socialized medicine is the right way to go in this country,
CKXXX
10-07-2008, 06:56 PM
Do you really believe that only 10% of people in the US dont have adequate healthcare???
jester214
10-07-2008, 07:06 PM
Do you really believe that only 10% of people in the US dont have adequate healthcare???
I've seen sources that were IN FAVOR of socialized medicine quote as low as 15% and that's not all Citizens. When you factor in that a lot of people that don't have it, can afford it... The numbers change...
Miss_Luscious
10-07-2008, 07:10 PM
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf
Give that read.
You aren't a debater. You blindly beleive whatever supports your opinion. I don't beleive America #1, but I also don't think socialized healthcare is right for us, there are 300 Million people in this country! The government can barely handle what's on it's plate as is, do you really think they could take control of healthcare?? Do you have any idea what state Medicare and Medicaid are in?? There's a reason a lot of doctor's don't take it.
I read it. He seems to take issue with the way the WHO ranks by using equality as a factor. I don't see anything that says why America should be higher than they are ranked. Part of a good health care system is the ability for everyone to receive that care aka equality. Why would that be a bad thing to use in raking the various health care systems?
My OPINION is that everyone in America should have health care available to them at a price they can afford or for free if they can't afford it at all. Just because I have private insurance doesn't mean that I can ignore the millions of people that don't. That's called being selfish and it's the worst trait of both Republicans and Libertarians. I can fathom being that uncaring about the people around me with that "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude. I guess it's because I was raised by a dirty Hippie.
And no, I don't blindly follow anything. I do a hell of a lot of research before I go from opinion to stating facts and if there is evidence to the contrary, I will most certainly change my tune. I don't just disregard facts that are inconvenient like you do.
Oh and I have some charts which show how income disparity and health care disparity go hand in hand as well as one that shows how the US gets shit wrong more than anyone else when it comes to diagnosis and such (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this topic but I thought it was interesting).
Why is it OK for poor people to go without basic medial care?
Aubreyyy
10-07-2008, 07:14 PM
I am a pretty good example of this.
I can only be on my parent's insurance when I'm in school 15 hrs. I took a full schedule last semester but it was only 14 hours. (My school counts full schedule as TWELVE hours). Bam- no insurance for me! For the whole YEAR!
Now I'm pregnant. If this was an ectopic preg or something weird, I'd be so fucked. Or if I got in a car wreck!
Now I have to wait until 2009 to go back to school, take a full class more than I need to, just to be insured. B/c theres no way I could afford insurance alone, and I'm not qualified for any jobs in my area with benefits.
jester214
10-07-2008, 07:32 PM
I read it. He seems to take issue with the way the WHO ranks by using equality as a factor. I don't see anything that says why America should be higher than they are ranked. Part of a good health care system is the ability for everyone to receive that care aka equality. Why would that be a bad thing to use in raking the various health care systems?
My OPINION is that everyone in America should have health care available to them at a price they can afford or for free if they can't afford it at all. Just because I have private insurance doesn't mean that I can ignore the millions of people that don't. That's called being selfish and it's the worst trait of both Republicans and Libertarians. I can fathom being that uncaring about the people around me with that "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude. I guess it's because I was raised by a dirty Hippie.
And no, I don't blindly follow anything. I do a hell of a lot of research before I go from opinion to stating facts and if there is evidence to the contrary, I will most certainly change my tune. I don't just disregard facts that are inconvenient like you do.
Oh and I have some charts which show how income disparity and health care disparity go hand in hand as well as one that shows how the US gets shit wrong more than anyone else when it comes to diagnosis and such (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this topic but I thought it was interesting).
Why is it OK for poor people to go without basic medial care?
Read my post 5 above this.
My point was that WHO list is not evidence, it's opinion.
jester214
10-07-2008, 07:36 PM
I am a pretty good example of this.
I can only be on my parent's insurance when I'm in school 15 hrs. I took a full schedule last semester but it was only 14 hours. (My school counts full schedule as TWELVE hours). Bam- no insurance for me! For the whole YEAR!
Now I'm pregnant. If this was an ectopic preg or something weird, I'd be so fucked. Or if I got in a car wreck!
Now I have to wait until 2009 to go back to school, take a full class more than I need to, just to be insured. B/c theres no way I could afford insurance alone, and I'm not qualified for any jobs in my area with benefits.
Off topic, but just look for a suitable online class worth a couple of hours if you need filler hours. Can be pretty cheap, and really easy. I THINK that will cover the heathcare aspect.
Miss_Luscious
10-07-2008, 08:18 PM
Read my post 5 above this.
My point was that WHO list is not evidence, it's opinion.
Fine, lets say that WHO is only an opinion. The FACTS still remain that the US has lower life expectancy and higher infant death rates than countries with UHC. You can't argue with that. Those tow reasons alone are good arguments for UHC but in addition, it is not ok for poor and sick people to go without health care. I don't see how anyone could say that it's ok. If you think the above is just gravy then please please explain your position to me. Why shouldn't EVERYONE have heath care?
Aubreyyy
10-07-2008, 08:18 PM
Jester- the online classes at my school fill up the first two hours of registration. Right now I go to a HUGE community college with people taking classes by internet from all over the state. I tried :) But I thought it was the perfect solution too!
Richard_Head
10-07-2008, 08:56 PM
How is 40+ million people with no health insurance acceptable???
VegasPrincess
10-07-2008, 09:05 PM
Right it's not ten percent of people with no health insurance but I digress...
Jester this is my point to you:
PUBLIC EDUCATION matters to you because you see its value. PUBLIC HEALTHCARE doesn't matter to you, and so therefore since you have your own healthcare you don't give a rats ass about the Americans who are uninsured and don't have any, for whatever reason.
Think twice, people....you could loose your job at any moment, become seriously ill and loose work coverage, anything could happen!
You never know...we need some level of government health care available to everyone... if you dont want it, you can choose to pay for your own, thats why I used the private school example...
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:09 PM
Fine, lets say that WHO is only an opinion. The FACTS still remain that the US has lower life expectancy and higher infant death rates than countries with UHC. You can't argue with that. Those tow reasons alone are good arguments for UHC but in addition, it is not ok for poor and sick people to go without health care. I don't see how anyone could say that it's ok. If you think the above is just gravy then please please explain your position to me. Why shouldn't EVERYONE have heath care?
I don't know that much about infant death rates. Life expectancy really doesn't have the much to do with healthcare.
I don't think anyone should go without healthcare, I want everyone to be insure IF THEY WANT TO BE. I just don't beleive that some massive socialized healthcare system is right for this country.
UtahMike
10-07-2008, 09:11 PM
Last November, I asked the Canadian members of SW to comment on the quality of their health care. Here is a link to that thread.
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102843
BTW, just today, I had to wait hours to be seen at a doctor's office right here in the good old USA, with two different insurance policies backing me up. Guess it doesn't happen just in Canada.
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:11 PM
Jester- the online classes at my school fill up the first two hours of registration. Right now I go to a HUGE community college with people taking classes by internet from all over the state. I tried :) But I thought it was the perfect solution too!
Can you latch on to any online classes anywhere else? My cousin had a similar issue and he got onto a internet class associated with another school.
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:13 PM
Last November, I asked the Canadian members of SW to comment on the quality of their health care. Here is a link to that thread.
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102843
BTW, just today, I had to wait hours to be seen at a doctor's office right here in the good old USA, with two different insurance policies backing me up. Guess it doesn't happen just in Canada.
Last time I went I was in and out in half an hour. I suggest you find a new doc. The reason is different.
VegasPrincess
10-07-2008, 09:15 PM
^^^
You're missing the point, nobody's fucking talking about YOUR situation. Yes, some people in America have good health care, that doesnt mean that MOST do. You should count yourself lucky, but not assume that everybody has access to the same...
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:18 PM
Right it's not ten percent of people with no health insurance but I digress...
Jester this is my point to you:
PUBLIC EDUCATION matters to you because you see its value. PUBLIC HEALTHCARE doesn't matter to you, and so therefore since you have your own healthcare you don't give a rats ass about the Americans who are uninsured and don't have any, for whatever reason.
Think twice, people....you could loose your job at any moment, become seriously ill and loose work coverage, anything could happen!
You never know...we need some level of government health care available to everyone... if you dont want it, you can choose to pay for your own, thats why I used the private school example...
Actually I care greatly about uninsured anyone, not just Americans. First charity I donate to every year, for the last 6 years, has been a local free clinic open to anyone, no questions asked. I've volunteered there a few times, I want everyone to have healthcare.
What I don't want is a massive socialized healthcare system that changes everything and puts MORE into the already FULL hands of the Government, when I'm confident they can't handle it.
SnakeBabe
10-07-2008, 09:22 PM
... You should count yourself lucky, but not assume that everybody has access to the same...
I’m kind of wondering why is it luck to have health care and why don’t all have access to it?
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:25 PM
^^^
You're missing the point, nobody's fucking talking about YOUR situation. Yes, some people in America have good health care, that doesnt mean that MOST do. You should count yourself lucky, but not assume that everybody has access to the same...
I was responding directly to UtahMike and his implication that waiting in Canada is comparable to the two hours he had to wait.
VegasPrincess
10-07-2008, 09:29 PM
I’m kind of wondering why is it luck to have health care and why don’t all have access to it?
That's what I'm saying....
Richard_Head
10-07-2008, 09:32 PM
I don't think anyone should go without healthcare, I want everyone to be insure IF THEY WANT TO BE. Do you really think people don't want to be insured?
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:42 PM
Do you really think people don't want to be insured?
Sure. My Uncle is unisured, and he makes twice as much as I do. He can afford it, but he doesn't have it. There are plenty of people that don't have insurance, BUT can afford it.
If they don't have it, but they can afford it. I'd say they don't want it.
VegasPrincess
10-07-2008, 09:43 PM
^^^
I can't afford it, but I make too much money to qualify for government aid in getting it. Do I not want it?
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:48 PM
^^^
I can't afford it, but I make too much money to qualify for government aid in getting it. Do I not want it?
That wasn't my point, are you and Richard collaborating to twist my words, or do you guys just read about half the post then run and fire somthing off?
In my opinion, I think one of the things that should be done is raise the amount that qualifies people.
Imagine you had enough money to go buy health insurance, but instead you decide you'd rather have a new car and just go without insurance. I think that's fine, plenty of people do that. If you add in gov. healthcare available to everyone these people are, of course, gonna get their car AND the gov. insurance. I don't like that. That's not what we need.
VegasPrincess
10-07-2008, 09:53 PM
^^^^
That's not been put on the table by your candidate, so its a moot point.
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:54 PM
^^^^
That's not been put on the table by your candidate, so its a moot point.
Who is my candidate? Tell me which of the two people running I've ever voted for?? Answer me that.
Richard_Head
10-07-2008, 09:55 PM
Sure. My Uncle is unisured, and he makes twice as much as I do. He can afford it, but he doesn't have it. There are plenty of people that don't have insurance, BUT can afford it.
If they don't have it, but they can afford it. I'd say they don't want it.I'm guessing he's in the minority then. I know many people without insurance, none of them are going without because they don't want it, they are going without because they can't afford it or because they don't qualify.
jester214
10-07-2008, 09:56 PM
I'm guessing he's in the minority then. I know many people without insurance, none of them are going without because they don't want it, they are going without because they can't afford it or because they don't qualify.
Well I read a Wall Street journal article not to long ago that would disagree with you... I'll put my weight in that.
Richard_Head
10-07-2008, 10:15 PM
Well I read a Wall Street journal article not to long ago that would disagree with you... I'll put my weight in that.Do you have a link?
TheSexKitten
10-07-2008, 10:24 PM
Plus, a comprehensively covered population would cause less burden on the medical system in general anyway...
jester214
10-07-2008, 10:30 PM
It was in the print version, I don't have the online version.
jester214
10-07-2008, 10:32 PM
Not what I was looking for, but it gets the point across.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=16014
Richard_Head
10-07-2008, 11:09 PM
Not what I was looking for, but it gets the point across.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=16014No, I still don't think it gets the point across. It still boils down to costs. Why not have health insurance otherwise? What would be the benefit other than saving money? Even if I accepted the argument and agreed that half the people who are not insured are people who do not want insurance (or don't realize that they do qualify for some sort of free health insurance) that still leaves some 20+ million people with no health insurance. I repeat 20 million people. That's still not acceptable.
dangerousdiva
10-08-2008, 01:57 AM
Plus, a comprehensively covered population would cause less burden on the medical system in general anyway...
That is simply not true.
There's a whole other side to health care that everyone seems to be missing, the doctors.
Under a centralized system there would be more patients seeking care. Which means a need for more doctors to treat them. Currently, we have an immediate shortage of doctors (primary care physicians being one of the most scarce and the type of healthcare used the most) and scarcity overall is predicted to get worse. Since it takes 8-10 + years to even train a doctor, there is no quick fix.
Healthcare cost is far more complex than just paying for insurance, a big part of the cost goes into educating and training doctors.
A centralized system will have doctors working MORE for LESS. Working conditions like that sure won't attract more students that are smart enough and dedicated enough to spend 10 + years ( not to mention 100k -200k of student debt) in education and training to settle for a government wage, while working their ass off.
Look at public school teachers, who are underpaid but at least they only spent 4-5 years in education and training and still get three months vacation a year!
Canada and Great Britain are not good examples for health care reform, both are in crisis. So I do doubt the validity of the healthcare rankings mentioned earlier in this thread (where did they get their info and what criteria was used to evaluate it?). Canada’s doctor-patient ratio is among the worst of any industrialized nation: with just 2.2 physicians per thousand people.
scroll down to read comments
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/18/yv-doctorshortage-questions.html
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080306_34621_34621
This is not a simple solution but just saying that everyone has a moral right to health care does not fix a huge problem. Expanding coverage is easy but managing cost is not. Before coverage can be expanded the system needs to be restructured.
Has anyone even considered how centralized health care would effect the people who are actually going to be treating the patients and how they feel about it?
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/05/12/daily80.html
http://birmingham.medicalnewsinc.com/news.php?viewStory=1161
Coverage without the ability to find a doctor is worthless.
miabella
10-08-2008, 02:07 AM
canada and britain are also tinier. they also aren't so kind about insuring non-citizens.
healthcare in america is complicated by the fact that america is way bigger than the 'perfect' countries it is compared to. canada has 1/10 the population, but the same level of resource-income. easy enough to care for 10 percent of the people on the same resource-money america has to use to care for, well, 10x more people.
and it's not actually that easy in canada, if you don't live in the few areas where the population is concentrated. canada is about as physically large as america, but most (certainly above 75%) canadians live literally an hour or two's drive from the US border.
america would be comparable if most americans lived within an hour or two of canada, concentrated mainly in the upper midwest. which is one of the smaller-population areas, overall, actually.
meh, healthcare. nobody wants to honestly compare equally sized populations and resource-access. it's all 'america should be like australia/canada/etc, with its 4 million/30 people, which is totally equivalent to america's 300 million!'
Miss_Luscious
10-08-2008, 02:40 AM
I don't know that much about infant death rates. Life expectancy really doesn't have the much to do with healthcare.
How does life expectancy not have much to do with health care? The better health care you get, the longer you live.
TheSexKitten
10-08-2008, 08:34 AM
That is simply not true.
There's a whole other side to health care that everyone seems to be missing, the doctors.
Under a centralized system there would be more patients seeking care. Which means a need for more doctors to treat them. Currently, we have an immediate shortage of doctors (primary care physicians being one of the most scarce and the type of healthcare used the most) and scarcity overall is predicted to get worse.
I am more than aware of the effect it would have on doctors. :) You said it yourself in bold, that's the result of how badly the system mistreats doctors as it is.
They pay huge proportions of their income for malpractice insurance because juries keep awarding ridiculous sums of money in the many malpractice suits that take place each year. A general practitioner, the backbone of medicine, does nothing more than serve as a funnel to specialists, adopting an "in and out" style of service out of necessity due to how they get paid by the insurance companies. General practitioners go 50k-200k in debt and make usually only around 90k. That hardly seems fair!
If doctors do receive specialization, then they really have to watch their asses because the US is so sue-happy. And either way, medical school does not need to cost what it costs. There has been inflation in the cost of tuition.
Yes, in Canada and other places, doctors receive less pay for a larger (expected---they can only do so much) volume of work, effectively encouraging doctors to leave the country in search of better wages and discouraging new generations of doctors from cropping back up.
The key here is about compromise, balance. We all need to find a way to make sure the most important people in healthcare are taken care of somehow.
Lucy in the Sky
10-08-2008, 08:50 AM
Not what I was looking for, but it gets the point across.
Both that and CATO are super far right think tanks and are funded by Big Pharm, Big Tobacco. Those groups have major money motivated agenda's that are the opposite to affordable healthcare.
jester214
10-08-2008, 09:57 AM
No, I still don't think it gets the point across. It still boils down to costs. Why not have health insurance otherwise? What would be the benefit other than saving money? Even if I accepted the argument and agreed that half the people who are not insured are people who do not want insurance (or don't realize that they do qualify for some sort of free health insurance) that still leaves some 20+ million people with no health insurance. I repeat 20 million people. That's still not acceptable.
Then do something to cover those 20 million, and those 20 million alone.
jester214
10-08-2008, 10:00 AM
How does life expectancy not have much to do with health care? The better health care you get, the longer you live.
Life expectancy is based on a bunch of factors. And when the difference between us and the number one country is less than 6 years, I find it hard to beleive that Healthcare is that much of a factor.
jester214
10-08-2008, 10:04 AM
Both that and CATO are super far right think tanks and are funded by Big Pharm, Big Tobacco. Those groups have major money motivated agenda's that are the opposite to affordable healthcare.
CATO received less than 2% of it's budget from corporations last year. It's Big Tobacco connections were in the early 90's.
Besides you still can argue the issues with WHO's list.
Eric Stoner
10-08-2008, 10:45 AM
Do you really believe that only 10% of people in the US dont have adequate healthcare???
If that. The poor and elderly have Medicare and Medicaid. Many young people decide not to have health insurance.
The primary group in this country without any health insurance is ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. It's a problem because they get primary care at hospitals , using
E.R.'s in lieu of G.P.'s and then they don't pay. And the hospitals can't collect so they have to eat it and pass along the costs to everyone else.
I am NOT saying that there are not a large number of uninsured people. There are BUT if you take out the illegals and the young who CHOOSE not to buy coverage you're down to worrying about maybe 10 million people with NO COVERAGE whatsoever.
The BIGGER problem is the current and rising costs of health care coupled with the retirement of millions of baby-boomers going into Medicare.
Eric Stoner
10-08-2008, 10:50 AM
^^^
You're missing the point, nobody's fucking talking about YOUR situation. Yes, some people in America have good health care, that doesnt mean that MOST do. You should count yourself lucky, but not assume that everybody has access to the same...
Are you saying that EVERYBODY is entitled to the same level of health care ?
Health care is NOT a "right" listed in the Constitution. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to give everyone the same level of health care ?
Eric Stoner
10-08-2008, 10:55 AM
Btw, let's keep in mind that Canada has 33 million people and Australia has 20 million. We have over 300 million. Neither Can. or Aus. has anything remotely resembling the number of illegal immigrants that we do. Both have far fewer poor people than we do. Both are resource rich in proportion to their populations. i don't know about Australia and haven't been able to find too many economic stats
but Canada has higher taxes; higher unemployment and lower economic growth than we do.