Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-13-2009, 08:25 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Oh yeah, the World Health Organization, now there's a reliable source of information.
Oh, pick and choose what you argue with. Its fine with me.

But the US Cancer Statistic Group and the Canadian Cancer Society are no good?
and the other source, the CIA Factbook for disease control?
and since when did WHO not become a reliable source?

What would be a satisfactory source of information for you?

You argue with numbers, but show NO evidence to argue, none.
You can only say that you aren't going to accept numbers, and that army medical sucks.

These aren't studies, these are figured from reported cases of cancer,
and reported deaths. It isn't some poll.

You can look up the number for days, and basically all you're going to say is, since you were in the Army, and it sucked,
then it must not work anywhere. And even though no numbers support your claims, that our health care MUST be better.
Show me a single statistic to prove our healthcare system is better....

When you say you refuse to accept ANY numbers you're basically saying you refuse to accept evidence,
moreover, you don't give any examples of something you would accept as evidence.
So you're admitting your mind cannot be changed, and you are not open to change.
When we are no longer open to the idea of change, or open to learning new things, we're wasting space.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-13-2009, 08:37 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger
Oh, pick and choose what you argue with. Its fine with me.

But the US Cancer Statistic Group and the Canadian Cancer Society are no good?
and the other source, the CIA Factbook for disease control?
and since when did WHO not become a reliable source?

What would be a satisfactory source of information for you?

You argue with numbers, but show NO evidence to argue, none.
You can only say that you aren't going to accept numbers, and that army medical sucks.

These aren't studies, these are figured from reported cases of cancer,
and reported deaths. It isn't some poll.

You can look up the number for days, and basically all you're going to say is, since you were in the Army, and it sucked,
then it must not work anywhere. And even though no numbers support your claims, that our health care MUST be better.
Show me a single statistic to prove our healthcare system is better....

When you say you refuse to accept ANY numbers you're basically saying you refuse to accept evidence,
moreover, you don't give any examples of something you would accept as evidence.
So you're admitting your mind cannot be changed, and you are not open to change.
When we are no longer open to the idea of change, or open to learning new things, we're wasting space.
I don't believe that any world organization has the best interests of the United States in mind. These big worldwide government agencies only want control over every aspect of our lives. I'm more concerned that the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us under our Constitution are preserved.

Again, we became the most powerful nation in the world without nationalized health care, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that we suddenly need it now. It's all just paranoia and fear-mongering.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-13-2009, 08:45 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger
When we are no longer open to the idea of change, or open to learning new things, we're wasting space.
One last thing, nice bit of open-mindedness there. Anyone who disagrees with you is suddenly not worthy of living?

If I don't believe that doctors or scientists are qualified to make those decisions, then I definitely don't believe that you are.

If you are so convinced that government run healthcare is a good idea, then go move to a country that provides it. Don't try to force it on people who don't want it and who would prefer to make their own decisions about their lives and their children's lives, rather than put all of their trust into some bloated government bureaucracy.

I guess "freedom of choice" only applies if you want to murder a baby.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-13-2009, 09:35 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger
They are not TOLD thats how many they can see.
They are funded by DONATION and that is all they can afford to see.

The government doesn't fund a free clinic in every county, sorry.
In fact, I do not know of ANY government funded ones.
Where do you live and I shall enlighten you?


Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-13-2009, 09:36 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger





Am I reading that wrong or have we got Canada beat on the Cancer front?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-13-2009, 09:47 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
Am I reading that wrong or have we got Canada beat on the Cancer front?
In some forms of cancer, Americans seem to be healthier. Overall, though, I'm not seeing enough variance in those numbers to make me believe that a complete overhaul of our healthcare system is required. Now, if the instances in America were 2 or 3 times higher than Canada, then you could make the point that something needs to be done here; but 2 percentage points here, half a percentage point there is not enough to convince me.

Besides, the Canadian population (as of 2008) was about 33 million people. The US population, in 2008, was 303 million, almost ten times more people. Thus, measuring percentages like this is deceptive.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-13-2009, 09:52 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger
You heard?
You heard from who?

(First number is US, the USA, the second is Canada)

U.S. Canada
Life Expectancy (Male) 74.8 77.4
Life Expectancy (Female) 80.1 82.4
Infant Mortality/1000 live births 6.8 5.3
Obesity Rate (Male) 31.1 17.0
Obesity Rate (Female) 32.2 19.0

HC spending as % of GDP (2005) 16.0% 10.4%
Atom, you seriously have to consider the source and how the information is reported. None of them report the same.

For example in the Infant Mortality rate:

Part of Canada's guidelines for reporting

Quote:

Definition: Number of infants who die in the first year of life, expressed as a rate per 1,000 live births.

A long-established measure, not only of child health, but also of the well-being of a society. Reflects the level of mortality, health status, and health care of a population, and the effectiveness of preventive care and the attention paid to maternal and child health.

Source: Canadian Vital Statistics Database, Statistics Canada

1.4 Perinatal Mortality Rate

Definition: Annual number of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths (deaths in the first week of life) per 1,000 total births (includes stillbirths). Stillbirths are defined here as gestational age of 28 or more weeks. Unknown gestational age is excluded in both numerator and denominator.

The probability that a fetus considered to be viable will be stillborn or will die before the end of the first week of life. Reflects standards of obstetric and pediatric care, as well as the effectiveness of public health initiatives.

Source: Canadian Vital Statistics Database, Statistics Canada
1.5, 1.6

Part of the US guidelines for reporting

Quote:
Fetal death refers to the spontaneous intrauterine death of a fetus at any time during pregnancy. Fetal deaths later in pregnancy (at 20 weeks of gestation or more, or 28 weeks or more, for example) are also sometimes referred to as stillbirths. In the United States, State laws require the reporting of fetal deaths, and Federal law mandates national collection and publication of fetal death data. Most states report fetal deaths of 20 weeks of gestation or more and/or 350 grams birthweight. However, a few states report fetal deaths for all periods of gestation. Fetal death data is published annually by the National Center for Health Statistics, in reports and as individual-record data files.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-13-2009, 09:59 PM
Black Mamba
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Again, I'm speaking as someone who spent over 10 years under a form of free healthcare, in the US Army. From my experiences, it's not worth the price.
Here, here!

I've been under the free healthcare via the Navy for soon to be 20 yrs and that stops at 23. Am I glad? You bet your bottom dollar I am! Military healthcare sucks. As a retired dependent, we get treated horrible. Even the retirees get treated pretty bad (although slightly better then their dependents). Active duty for the most part gets better treatment. They don't know how lucky they are until they hit retiree status. So in the words of my Dad, " I (he) served 20 f-ing years for my country. I am a f-ing veteran. And this is how I get treated?"

Here's a few examples:

I never got a MRI on my knee down because of the price. The doctors assumed that I just tore a tendon, wrapped me up, and sent me home. They thought it was too costly to do the procedure.

I had to wait for almost two years to finally get some momentum on my ab issues. And now I wait again for 3 going on 4 months to get another injection. Heck I have to hunt these people done to get an appointment still. "Oh I'll call you to set an appointment up." BS!

My poor Mom came close to losing her sight and on the verge of heart attack because these idiots at the Naval Hospital waited on her paper work. In addition, we got even more idiots for doctors who don't want to anything for her carpal tunnel.

Then a lot of the doctors there don't give a rats hoot about you after surgery. You have to go through hell just to get a follow up.

If this nationalized healthcare is anything similar to what the military offers, then God bless us.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
You would have to read this article to understand that ranking systems. They tell how they set it up and how they grade it. For instance, on ranking is based on what they think is fair. lol. I'm not sure who gets to decide. Also, we ranked #1 in two of their categories. You have to understand quite a bit about the WHO to understand these rankings. Also, keep in mind that the WHO wants nationalized health care. They have more power and influence with National health care countries.



http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_...lth_ranks.html

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

Reminder that WHO bases some of their rankings on the opinion of the people. If you have people with higher expectations then that info is subjective.


Take this comment for instance:
people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system

How many poor people are going to say that they recieved the same treatment that a rich man would have, whether they actually did or not?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-13-2009, 10:31 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is online now
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
Do you pay a percentage of your income or a set amount?
Percentage of Income.

We pay whats called "Income Tax" which I reckon is close to a quarter of what I earn every month. Then we pay a tiny ammount on something called National Insurance, which is for our State Pension when we retire.

Those monies you never see, the Government takes it right out your pay packet.

Then you have to pay a monthly sum to the Council for "Council Tax" that goes on things like emergency services, waste disposal etc.

If you own a car, you also pay "road tax" if you own a TV you must pay for a Liscense also.

I get paid about 1K a month (just under) 200 right away on Income and Nation, 100 right away for Council, about 400 for rent, 50 for TV/Broadband/licsence...then I got Water, Gas, Electricity say it all equals another 50.

200 pounds per month is left to live on. I live off £30 per week, which gets rid of 100 instantly, I now pay 30 for the Gym again each month. That leaves me with a margin of error round about £50 per month. for ANYTHING else...everytime I go to the cinema...that might be 10 (do that once a month) every time I have my hair shaved another 5...then what if I have to...for example go to Cage Glaidators...well..damn it...out come the savings...

Plus...cost of living is so much more in the UK then the US, and Harrogate Area is extremely expensive on top of that.

its a nightmare...and then they tell me no interest on savings because of the recession which wasnt MY fault
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.