queencitybuckeye;1131993 wrote:You forgot this from the same site:

"However, the content on this website has not been reviewed or prepared by medical professionals and is not intended as a substitute for advise obtained from a licensed medical professional."

IOW, you found something on the internet that supports your position, you as usual don't give a damn whether it's true or not.

Again, you are a liar.

It's hopeless. You can't convince people like him. He's never experienced India or China. I have. Yeah, you'll get cheap "care", whether its good I suppose it depends on your definition of such. I can buy the entire seasons of The Sopranos or Breaking Bad on dvd in Beijing or Mumbai for 5% of the cost of what it will be in the USA, I just have to ignore the shaky cam, the sounds that don't match up to lips, the hilarious different opening credits (in my friend's - he's German who travels to China often, boot of Breaking Bad every other dvd has a different studio opening), or my particular favorite, when some dvds have the INTERPOL warning, yet others don't. They are boots - that's why they are cheap. You can't cheap out on quality whether its dvd tv shows/movies or healthcare. I'm almost tempted to offer Footwedge one of my USA free flights to go to India and check out the "quality" of medicine.

Congressman Rogers(Michigan) says it all/2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Manhattan Buckeye;1134267 wrote:No, she's the regional manager in charge of 46 countries, she's in charge of the sales reps. You don't know what you are talking about.

India is in her region. So is Australia. Only a grade A idiot who's never left the country and sits on the toilet reading left-wing magazines daily would even put those countries in the same breath as the U.S.

Once again, the U.S. has the best health care in the world. There's no question about it.

Haha. Nice. Made me chuckle. Sorry about the nerve I hit. If I need any bypass surgery, I'll take you up on your frequent flyer mileage package to India....

gut;1134238 wrote:So paying doctors less is somehow going to incentivize more students to take on massive med school debt?

Um....docs will be paid on whatever the market will bear. Ever hear of that concept? Again, the number of docs per capita in America is already below that of Europe and Canada. Oh...and the docs in that socialist utopia in Europe average 200K per year. There is no shortage of docs there either.,

Manhattan Buckeye;1134267 wrote:No, she's the regional manager in charge of 46 countries
.

I didn't know anyone was in charge of 46 countries. Even Obama can't make that claim.

Footwedge;1134348 wrote:Um....docs will be paid on whatever the market will bear. Ever hear of that concept?

You are obviously unfamiliar with how large insurance providers operate. It flips the free market system making the provider the supplier of patients. Between that and skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs, many doctors decide other careers are more lucrative. And they are generally right, because after insurance and student loan repayments $200k would net them low six figures, if that.

Footwedge;1134348 wrote:Um....docs will be paid on whatever the market will bear. Ever hear of that concept? Again, the number of docs per capita in America is already below that of Europe and Canada. Oh...and the docs in that socialist utopia in Europe average 200K per year. There is no shortage of docs there either.,

No they don't.

Looks like they average about 100k. I'd love to see Footwedge wiggle his way out of this one.

Footwedge;1134350 wrote:I didn't know anyone was in charge of 46 countries. Even Obama can't make that claim.

Eastern Europe, all of Asia (besides China, Japan and North Korea), many parts of Africa and the Asian Pacific area (that means Aussie and New Zealand for people without passports, i.e. you). It's 46. And it includes some jurisdictions she can't travel in, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. It's a big region. She's in Prague right now, anything else you want to ask? If you think I'm lying I can have one of the mods figure out my IP address, some of them can even check my FB page - my wife is in Prague.

And again, the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world. Any idiot in the industry knows this.

fish82;1134403 wrote:No they don't.

Unless there is an incredible number of Dutch doctors, Footie has been caught in yet another lie.

queencitybuckeye;1134428 wrote:Unless there is an incredible number of Dutch doctors, Footie has been caught in yet another lie.

Is it a lie or ignorance. In what other industry is quality product produced at a cheap cost to the consumer, with the producer rewarded highly and said product is provided in an efficient manner? It simply doesn't happen. It's an economic impossibility.

Manhattan Buckeye;1134438 wrote:Is it a lie or ignorance. In what other industry is quality product produced at a cheap cost to the consumer, with the producer rewarded highly and said product is provided in an efficient manner? It simply doesn't happen. It's an economic impossibility.

Aw now....you're thinking like a greedy capitalist again. When Big Government steps in to make it more inefficient, then it will be an economic possibility.

fish82;1134403 wrote:No they don't.

Your chart reflects 2004...not 2012. Also...you need to understand what "purchasing power parities" mean...as stated at the top of your chart.

sleeper;1134411 wrote:Looks like they average about 100k. I'd love to see Footwedge wiggle his way out of this one.

See how easy that was? You being a business major should understand that incomes in Europe have increased against that of Americans over the past 8 years.

queencitybuckeye;1134428 wrote:Unless there is an incredible number of Dutch doctors, Footie has been caught in yet another lie.

You haven't been banned yet for ad hominem? How do you do it? Maybe PTown and LJ have changed this place to reflect basement rules.

I find it amusing...that the only time you ever "contribute" here is to bash people and call them names. Pretty remarkable considering you are the self proclaimed resident 1%er here.

Footwedge;1134789 wrote:Your chart reflects 2004...not 2012. Also...you need to understand what "purchasing power parities" mean...as stated at the top of your chart.

Then show a link from 2012. Easy enough, right? I've looked up quite a few...I can't find one showing European doctors averaging anywhere close to $200K. If you have one, feel free to post it up.

I know full well what "purchasing power parities" are. They don't make up for the vast difference in the numbers. The 2nd column, Ratio to Per Capita GDP clearly illustrates that.

Here's another one, with just straight salaries in USD.




And another: http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml

Again, none of the European countries are anywhere close to $200K, let alone all of Europe averaging that.

Footwedge;1134795 wrote:You haven't been banned yet for ad hominem? How do you do it? Maybe PTown and LJ have changed this place to reflect basement rules.

Pointing out a liar telling yet another lie is neither ad hominem nor a violation of forum rules.

I find it amusing...that the only time you ever "contribute" here is to bash people and call them names.

Not true. Another lie.

Pretty remarkable considering you are the self proclaimed resident 1%er here.

I've proclaimed no such thing. That's a minimum of four lies on this topic. It's possible I've missed some. You're just incapable of telling the truth, aren't you?

Footwedge;1134792 wrote:See how easy that was? You being a business major should understand that incomes in Europe have increased against that of Americans over the past 8 years.

Great. You made a claim and have not backed it up. I don't care if the data was from the 1500's, you have proven nothing other being wrong. Enjoy!

Did Kagan tip off obama on the preliminary court vote, and thus he is out sermonizing ??

These people are the most inept, but dangerous, bunch in the U.S. history.

Nov.'12 cannot arrive soon enough.

QuakerOats;1135393 wrote:Did Kagan tip off obama on the preliminary court vote, and thus he is out sermonizing ??

These people are the most inept, but dangerous, bunch in the U.S. history.

Nov.'12 cannot arrive soon enough.

I think this might be a strategic misstep on the part of Obama. Surveys have shown over half of the country opposes Obamakare. If he takes a strong stance against that, not only does it further fan those flames but it will also highlight the long-term impact he can have naming more SC justices.

QuakerOats;1135393 wrote:Did Kagan tip off obama on the preliminary court vote, and thus he is out sermonizing ??

These people are the most inept, but dangerous, bunch in the U.S. history.

Nov.'12 cannot arrive soon enough.

FDR would be proud:

http://www.wyzant.com/Help/History/HPOL/FDR/Chat/

Obama truly is a piece of work...the arrogance. Perhaps we should call him "The Great Divider". He's live now railing against the GOP budget. Ummm, you're budget got shot down like 402-0.
"Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate" under GOP budget. I shat you not, that's the caption on CNN.

From a WSJ article:
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), among the first to argue that the mandate to buy insurance was unconstitutional, responded, "It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.'"

James Simon, a professor at New York Law School, said, "I can't think of a president anticipating a court decision as Mr. Obama has done and basically arguing in favor" of his side. Mr. Simon, the author of several books on conflicts between presidents and the court, said, "Jefferson was very angry at the Marshall Court, but he [complained] in private," as did most other presidents.

President Franklin Roosevelt "usually waited until they handed down a decision" before fulminating against the court, Mr. Simon said, such as when FDR blasted a 1935 ruling striking down portions of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Mr. Obama's inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.

gut;1135535 wrote:Obama truly is a piece of work...the arrogance. Perhaps we should call him "The Great Divider". He's live now railing against the GOP budget. Ummm, you're budget got shot down like 402-0.
"Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate" under GOP budget. I shat you not, that's the caption on CNN.

From a WSJ article:
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), among the first to argue that the mandate to buy insurance was unconstitutional, responded, "It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.'"

James Simon, a professor at New York Law School, said, "I can't think of a president anticipating a court decision as Mr. Obama has done and basically arguing in favor" of his side. Mr. Simon, the author of several books on conflicts between presidents and the court, said, "Jefferson was very angry at the Marshall Court, but he [complained] in private," as did most other presidents.

President Franklin Roosevelt "usually waited until they handed down a decision" before fulminating against the court, Mr. Simon said, such as when FDR blasted a 1935 ruling striking down portions of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Mr. Obama's inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.

Pretty Ironic coming from Orrin Hatch considering he was one of the first cats to co-sponsor a bill with an individual mandate...

Also, it's not like he scheduled a speech to talk about it. He answered two questions from the press. Nitpicking here. I'd be more concerned about why he tried to reason with a party who passed a budget bill that had fewer discretionary spending cuts than what he offered in the debt ceiling debate.

BoatShoes;1135546 wrote: I'd be more concerned about why he tried to reason with a party who passed a budget bill that had fewer discretionary spending cuts than what he offered in the debt ceiling debate.

Because they weren't real cuts but kicking the can down the road. And part accounting trickery, much like was used to deceive on the real cost of Obamacare.

His budget lost 414-0. FOUR HUNDRED FOURTEEN to ZERO. A little less than a year ago, the Senate shot down his budget 97-0. This is a guy who hasn't come remotely close to a solution. Even the idiots in Washington won't side with his fiscal plans.

gut;1135552 wrote:Because they weren't real cuts but kicking the can down the road. And part accounting trickery, much like was used to deceive on the real cost of Obamacare.

His budget lost 414-0. FOUR HUNDRED FOURTEEN to ZERO. A little less than a year ago, the Senate shot down his budget 97-0. This is a guy who hasn't come remotely close to a solution. Even the idiots in Washington won't side with his fiscal plans.

So you're sitting here lambasting his offer to Boehner for not having real cuts, despite having more cuts than the Ryan Budget. President Obama's offer was repudiated largely by the tea party types of the Republican Party...who then, the majority of which, went on to vote for Paul Ryan budget, which had fewer cuts than BHO's offer...and you talk about BHO not having a plan.

BHO had a plan that was rejected by people who then agreed to accept a plan with fewer cuts and who are trying to get out of the cuts they already agreed to! His budget this year was political because he already gave Republicans his best offer and they refused to be reasonable. Nevermind of course that BHO's budget is actually more pro-growth than the Ryan Plan given our current economic scenario.