Tsunami Warning

[Gipper]

You brought up elder care. If these countries are so poor at it, one wonders why they live years longer on average than we do. Same thing with your single reference to a baby who died. When you consider that in the US 6.3 out of 1000 infants dies in the US versus 4.8 in the UK, you have to wonder how many horror stories you are ignoring in your own country.

I have little doubt that if these statistics backed up your side of the debate you'd be more than happy to use them.

Why do libs always change the subject when their argument is defeated?

 

[citizenzen]

Why do libs always change the subject when their argument is defeated?

Once again you've claimed I changed the subject when I talked about exactly the matter discussed in the previous threads.

Someone once said of dogtowner that when he says you've changed the subject, that just means he has not argument and has given up. I think we can add you that club, Gip.

 

[Stalin]

I have lived in two countries that both have a universal health care system - New Zealand and the UK. In both countries, a significant proportion of the government budget goes toward health. In both countries there is a significant private sector that is ofetn financed as part of an employment deal. Doctors often work in both sectors.

The first, and most important thing is, if you are in an emergency, or life-threatening condition, the care is available, and free, so the cost is not a factor, in this decision. In emergency wards throughout the country, no one is turned away, but their treatment is based on priority.

I am sorry, but I refuse to believe in a country as educated and civilized as the US their are "death panels". This is so obviously propaganda that I am surprised that is still around.

No-one ion either country seriously questions the existence of a universal health care, apart from people with an ideological axe to grind.

Comrade Stalin

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Wrong...

The public option was never liked by most Americans which is why the Dems dropped it. Do you get all your information from Media Matters?

you do know that your link did not even say what % supported the Public option right?

 

[Gipper]

you do know that your link did not even say what % supported the Public option right?

Yes, the public option had initial support, but the devil is always in the details. And the devil was the holy grail of Dem politics. The Dems demanded coverage for baby murder and illegals. This of course did not sit well with most Americans (excepting you and those like you) and is now not even being considered. But, I am glad you lefties keep ignoring the well of the people cause pay back is hell.

Here from Rasmussen back in December.

The so-called “public option” is not in the Senate bill that passed early this morning, but liberal Democrats in the House, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are hoping for at least some modified version of government-backed health insurance to compete with private insurers. However, it is not likely to be included due to the fierce opposition of some Senate Democrats. If even one Democrat in the Senate votes against the bill, it will not pass without Republican support.

Forty percent (40%) of voters now favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. But 48% oppose such an option.

However, 63% of voters say it is more important to guarantee that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage than it is to give consumers the choice of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option. Thirty percent (30%) think the “public option” is more important. These numbers are unchanged from early October.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...s_abortion_proof_of_citizenship_public_option

And here is an interesting take on HC from Michael Barone. He likens the Dems pushing Obamacare to the Dems pushing slavery back in 1854 (they never change do they?). The result was a new party - the Republicans and they won big. Lets hope history repeats itself.

We cannot say with assurance that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was unpopular -- Dr. Gallup didn't start polling until 81 years later. But the results of the next election were pretty convincing. The Republican Party was suddenly created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the 1854-55 elections transformed the Democrats' 159-71 majority to a 108-83 Republican margin. Democrats didn't win a majority of House seats for the next 20 years.

On the health care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010 elections as they did in 1854.

 

[Gipper]

Once again you've claimed I changed the subject when I talked about exactly the matter discussed in the previous threads.

Someone once said of dogtowner that when he says you've changed the subject, that just means he has not argument and has given up. I think we can add you that club, Gip.

Sorry but you did change the subject. You posted life expectancy rates and now you talk about elder care. They are two different subjects.

But, it does not matter. Would you prefer a nursing home in say Greece over a one in the USA? If so, export yourself.

How does one continue to believe socialized medicine effective when so much evidence exists to the contrary?

 

[citizenzen]

When you are old or incur serious health problems, the Euro and Canadian socialistic health care plans fail miserably.

Gip, you introduced the issue of elder care. If it is as miserable as you portray, then it would affect life expectancy. You need to explain how if it is so poor, how people manage to live years longer than we do.

 

[citizenzen]

How does one continue to believe socialized medicine effective when so much evidence exists to the contrary?

How does one ignore all the evidence that it works and pretends that evidence doesn't exist? It's just another of life's mysteries, eh?

 

[rationalist]

Try using shorter words.

 

[Gipper]

Gip, you introduced the issue of elder care. If it is as miserable as you portray, then it would affect life expectancy. You need to explain how if it is so poor, how people manage to live years longer than we do.

Okay. Fair enough. Now go back and read the posts I made in this thread and read the articles I posted.

And again, the life expectancy numbers you posted are lies. Many socialist nations misrepresent life expectancy and do not include the same factors we do. Such as homicide, infanticide, and accidental deaths.

 

[citizenzen]

And again, the life expectancy numbers you posted are lies.

Lies?! Have I been taken in by those damned socialists again?!

Holy cow, Gip! Thanks for setting me straight. I almost fell right into their trap!

 

[citizenzen]

And again, the life expectancy numbers you posted are lies.

So in order to ferret out these lies I began my sleuthing at the Central Intelligence Agency's website. Here's what the CIA had to say about the statistics...

This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. The entry includes total population as well as the male and female components. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.​

Hmmm... nothing about "lies" there at all. It leads me to wonder... why does the CIA HATE America?

 

[dogtowner]

So in order to ferret out these lies I began my sleuthing at the Central Intelligence Agency's website. Here's what the CIA had to say about the statistics...

This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. The entry includes total population as well as the male and female components. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.​

Hmmm... nothing about "lies" there at all. It leads me to wonder... why does the CIA HATE America?

well perhaps more apples and oranges.

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]

 

[citizenzen]

well perhaps more apples and oranges.

I couldn't help but notice the last line of your quote...

However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.​

No, it might just be the healthcare system.

 

[dogtowner]

I couldn't help but notice the last line of your quote...

However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.​

No, it might just be the healthcare system.

fried chicken doesn't help