Not a right

Sorry guys - you cannot pinpoint the cause of the recession on ONE factor. Simple cause - logical fallacy. There were numerous causes - it was the perfect storm, so to speak. Housing, wars, employment, wages, etc.....

There was not ONE cause or another.

mrmadcow said:

exactly my point. government red tape is 1 of the biggest problem w/ health care in the US

spoken like a true socialist.do you think that the wealthy will really pay it or will they pass it on as another cost of doing business?add a 25% tax to gas corperations (to pay for healthcare)and see what happens to the cost of gas
considering the wealthiest 1% pay most of the taxes,maybe the poorest should start picking up their fair share of the tab?

Click to expand...

The biggest trick the rich ever played on the middle class was to convince them to blame the POOR for their problems. You, my friend, have been duped.

jrh72582 said:

Sorry guys - you cannot pinpoint the cause of the recession on ONE factor. Simple cause - logical fallacy. There were numerous causes - it was the perfect storm, so to speak. Housing, wars, employment, wages, etc.....

There was not ONE cause or another.

Click to expand...

I agree somewhat, but I believe sub prime lending was the catalyst.

If health care is so important that government should supply and regulate it, then why not have government control the food supply as well? After all, isn't hunger more important than health care? If we can't trust the private sector to provide health care, how can we trust the the managers at Ralph's, Albertson's and A&P to provide food? Don't we have the basic human right to a steak?

Vi

Daniele Capezzone: Policymakers should "confront [Europe's] backward health care systems and unleash the powers of medical research" to provide new preventive and lifesaving medicines to people across the nations, Capezzone, president of the productivity committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, writes in a Journal opinion piece. Capezzone writes that the U.S. spends about 78% of global biotechnology research funds, whereas Europe spends about 16%, which gives U.S. residents better access to new treatments. Access to preventive medicines not only saves lives, but it also saves money, Capezzone writes. Capezzone concludes that European countries should start by "expanding drug budgets" and should "deregulate the pharmaceutical industry," as well as give "medical researchers tax incentives to slow the brain drain to the U.S."

CrackerJax said:

Daniele Capezzone: Policymakers should "confront [Europe's] backward health care systems and unleash the powers of medical research" to provide new preventive and lifesaving medicines to people across the nations, Capezzone, president of the productivity committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, writes in a Journal opinion piece. Capezzone writes that the U.S. spends about 78% of global biotechnology research funds, whereas Europe spends about 16%, which gives U.S. residents better access to new treatments. Access to preventive medicines not only saves lives, but it also saves money, Capezzone writes. Capezzone concludes that European countries should start by "expanding drug budgets" and should "deregulate the pharmaceutical industry," as well as give "medical researchers tax incentives to slow the brain drain to the U.S."

Click to expand...

you obviously didnt read the link I provided...

web.wm.edu/cwa/Pellegrino.pdf?svr=www SEE PAGE 16
economics.harvard.edu/faculty/.../The American Healthcare System.pdf

Woe, Canada!

Posted 08/20/2009 06:31 PM ET

Medical Care: A leaked report shows that Vancouver's health authority is considering cutting thousands of surgeries to balance the budget. However organized, government-run health care inevitably leads to rationing.
Defenders of ObamaCare continually point out that their plan is not like Canada's, that holding that country's system up as an example of impending medical doom is invalid. Canada's system is different. Instead of having a single national plan, Canada's national health insurance, a kind of public option, is composed of 13 interlocking provincial and territorial plans, all framed under the Canada Health Act.
But based on a report leaked to the Vancouver Sun, this is a distinction without a difference. Even if you break it up into smaller pieces, it's still state-run medical insurance with decisions on who gets care, based on cost and funding, not need. That is called rationing.
According to the leaked document, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting next month and to cut 6,250 surgeries. They include 24% of cases scheduled from September to March and 10% of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.
The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery and 11 other specialized areas. Brian Brodie, a Canadian doctor and president of the British Columbia Medical Association, has called the proposed surgical cuts a "nightmare."
"Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery?" he asks. "I can't think of a worse place."
Dr. Anne Doig, the new president of the Canadian Medical Association, says it's clear Canadians are getting less than optimal care. "We all agree that the system is imploding. We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," she told the Canadian Press.


As we have noted, roughly 900,000 patients of all ages are waiting for beds in Canada, according to the Fraser Institute. More than four times as many MRI units per capita are in the U.S. as in Canada, and we have twice as many CT scanners.
Canada's perfectly planned and cost-effective system had no room at the inn for Ava Isabella Stinson, born in Hamilton, Ontario. Of necessity she had to be sent across the border to a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital to receive critically needed neonatal care. She had no time to be put on a Canadian waiting list.
At the American hospital, Stinson got the care she needed under a system President Obama has labeled "unsustainable."
A similar situation exists in Britain under the National Health Service. There, local health care "trusts" supervise medical delivery. Under the NHS system, about 1,000 victims of rare forms of cancer were denied drug treatment the past three years, according to an analysis by the Rare Cancers Forum printed in the London Telegraph.
Stella Pendleton, executive director of the charity, said: "The NHS is forcing desperate patients into the cruel situation where the chances of their being given the treatment they need depend on where they live. No patient should be denied a treatment recommended by a doctor simply because the cancer it treats is too rare for the medicine to be licensed."
Yet this is what inevitably happens under all forms of socialized medicine. This is why Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament from Britain, has called the NHS a "60-year mistake" and encouraged Americans to "ponder our example and tremble."
When asked about ObamaCare on Fox News, Hannan said: "I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system."
So do we.
Some still say that what has happened in Britain and Canada can't happen here, that ObamaCare is too different.
Frankly, we'd like a second opinion.

so you choose to ignore page 16 of my link then??? Faced with the facts you digress, as usual. Ranked 666656 lol!!!

Woomeister said:

I dont KEEP saying anything, people earning above the higher earnings threshold (like myself) pay 40% tax.

Click to expand...

didnt mean you personally just everyone who is for free healthcare seems to forget the money has to come from somewhere.
is that 40% all taxes and "contributions"? I have heard the # is over 50% for anyone above the median income.

Woomeister said:

Waiting times are low-fact. 18 weeks to have a non-emergency operation is a problem??? How??? Unheard of in America???

Click to expand...

4-5 months is ridiculous to wait for a hip replacement! this isnt cosmetic surgery we are talking about.but I suppose if you are used to 2nd rate care,it seems OK.

Woomeister said:

There are 60 million people in America who wouldnt be able to get many types of operation as they have no insurance, that wouldnt happen in the UK.

Click to expand...

sounds like you are relying on "internet stories and media rubbish". we have a program called medicaid that pays for health care for the poor & lower middleclass.Had I had an accident when w/out healthcare,I would have been out of work & would have qualified.
what we have is 60 million people who either have not neeeded healthcare so have not signed up for medicare or can afford healthcare but have decided not to carry it.

Woomeister said:

The median waiting time for lung cancer is 60 days, lol, where do you get that from??? You dont live here you rely on internet stories and media rubbish to come up with this!

Click to expand...

try clicking on the link, it came from the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

ViRedd said:

If health care is so important that government should supply and regulate it, then why not have government control the food supply as well? After all, isn't hunger more important than health care? If we can't trust the private sector to provide health care, how can we trust the the managers at Ralph's, Albertson's and A&P to provide food? Don't we have the basic human right to a steak?

Vi

Click to expand...

Ummmmmmm......the government does subsidize food in the US. So, in essence, they already DO control the food supply.

mrmadcow said:

didnt mean you personally just everyone who is for free healthcare seems to forget the money has to come from somewhere.
is that 40% all taxes and "contributions"? I have heard the # is over 50% for anyone above the median income.


4-5 months is ridiculous to wait for a hip replacement! this isnt cosmetic surgery we are talking about.but I suppose if you are used to 2nd rate care,it seems OK.

sounds like you are relying on "internet stories and media rubbish". we have a program called medicaid that pays for health care for the poor & lower middleclass.Had I had an accident when w/out healthcare,I would have been out of work & would have qualified.
what we have is 60 million people who either have not neeeded healthcare so have not signed up for medicare or can afford healthcare but have decided not to carry it.


try clicking on the link, it came from the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

Click to expand...

Have you looked at the links I provided?????????

At the end of the day Nationalism is coming into this argument and is obviously going to be a point of contention. I have said the NHS is by not perfect by any means but is not as bad as 'you have heard'. I have always had excellent fast treatment when needed and so have all my family, especially my mother-in-law whose breast cancer was diagnosed at routine screening and was cured 8 months later after a partial removal (3 days after biopsy result) and chemo and radiotherapy. She gets blood tests taken every 6 weeks now and will do for ever more. Beating up the NHS will not take away the fact that the American healthcare system is expensive sporadic and needs fixing. If your own Harvard professors think so then maybe they have something.

Woomeister said:

At the end of the day Nationalism is coming into this argument and is obviously going to be a point of contention. I have said the NHS is by not perfect by any means but is not as bad as 'you have heard'. I have always had excellent fast treatment when needed and so have all my family, especially my mother-in-law whose breast cancer was diagnosed at routine screening and was cured 8 months later after a partial removal (3 days after biopsy result) and chemo and radiotherapy. She gets blood tests taken every 6 weeks now and will do for ever more. Beating up the NHS will not take away the fact that the American healthcare system is expensive sporadic and needs fixing. If your own Harvard professors think so then maybe they have something.

Click to expand...

Again, well-said. You're 100% correct - don't let the unrelenting assault of dis-information sway you. You are correct.

NHS is going broke and is broken. Rationing care by cost as opposed to need is Orwellian. One by one the socialized health care countries are facing a crisis. They can't pay for the "FREE" health care. They have killed medical innovation in their markets. They lack the finest equipment available...... no we need not follow them down that long dark tunnel.

you read the links yet? Ignorance is bliss.

CrackerJax said:

NHS is going broke and is broken. Rationing care by cost as opposed to need is Orwellian. One by one the socialized health care countries are facing a crisis. They can't pay for the "FREE" health care. They have killed medical innovation in their markets. They lack the finest equipment available...... no we need not follow them down that long dark tunnel.

Click to expand...

Okay, and what about all the uninsured 18 year olds with cervical cancer who cannot get insurance because of the whole pre-existing condition bullshit? Insurance companies CANNOT hide behind tenuous rules and vague definitions.

web.wm.edu/cwa/Pellegrino.pdf?svr=www SEE PAGE 16
economics.harvard.edu/faculty/.../The American Healthcare System.pdf
__________________

Yes, I looked at your link. Time is nice, but WHAT care are they getting? The right care? The best care? No, they (you) are not.....not by any stretch. If you contracted cancer and had the economic means, you'd be wise to jump the pond.

Read on.............


5-Yr. Cancer Survival Rates: US Dominates Europe


Based upon period survival data for 2000-02 from 47 European cancer registries, 5-year survival rates were found to be higher in the U.S. than in a European composite for cancer at all major sites (see table above, click to enlarge). For men (all sites combined), 47.3% of Europeans survived 5 years, compared to 66.3% of Americans. For women, the contrast was 55.8% vs. 62.9%. The male survival difference was much greater than the female primarily because of the very large difference in survival rates from prostate cancer.

Thus, the US appears to screen more vigorously for cancer than Europe and people in the US who are diagnosed with cancer have higher 5-year survival probabilities.

Europe has many differing health care systems some of which are no better than African countries, so this direct comparison has probably been devised by someone trying to make America look good! the links I privided are provided by your professors not mine.