LOL. Every time I debate your ass, you quit. Why is that? The internet stompage a tad tough to take I guess. Did I spell OK?Manhattan Buckeye;1228814 wrote:Keep it up Boatshoes, you're getting near Footwedge credibility.
It's a simple fact dude. The US is something like 37th in the world while we have easily the most expensive care.QuakerOats;1229371 wrote:^^^ laughable.
Of course they do. Just a few clicks on the net would prove it. In fact, the US is far down the pecking order as it relates to quality of care. It's the stubborness and the tunnel vision of conservatives that chased yours truly from the Repub party 6 years ago.I Wear Pants;1229360 wrote:Canada has a higher rated healthcare system than we do. You're not paying for quality.
IWP you are better than that. That is pure left wing bias.I Wear Pants;1229386 wrote:It's a simple fact dude. The US is something like 37th in the world while we have easily the most expensive care.
I think we are ranked 37th in healthcare, not hospitals. And I bet they rank us that low because not everyone has healthcare.jmog;1229438 wrote:IWP you are better than that. That is pure left wing bias.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top2000.asp
17 of the top 18 hospitals in the world are in the US.
The first Canadian hospital is 24th.
/discussion
Healthcare, not hospitals.jmog;1229438 wrote:IWP you are better than that. That is pure left wing bias.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top2000.asp
17 of the top 18 hospitals in the world are in the US.
The first Canadian hospital is 24th.
/discussion
All of the issues about "quality" of care aside...there's no reason why medicare can't pay for the high quality care received in the U.S. in the same way the Canadian Health Insurer pays for chemo treatments, etc. that Canadians get in America.jmog;1229438 wrote:IWP you are better than that. That is pure left wing bias.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top2000.asp
17 of the top 18 hospitals in the world are in the US.
The first Canadian hospital is 24th.
/discussion
We rank that low because we count infant mortality rates different than any other country and our typical citizen stuffs their face and becomes extremely obese. Healthcare can't fix stupidity.FatHobbit;1229448 wrote:I think we are ranked 37th in healthcare, not hospitals. And I bet they rank us that low because not everyone has healthcare.
I agree there is a COST issue. The liberals on this thread were talking about QUALITY.BoatShoes;1229452 wrote:All of the issues about "quality" of care aside...there's no reason why medicare can't pay for the high quality care received in the U.S. in the same way the Canadian Health Insurer pays for chemo treatments, etc. that Canadians get in America.
Having the top 17 Hospitals in the world won't matter if all of our economic growth is being eaten alive by the cost...
You can make a cost of health care argument but you weren't. You were arguing about QUALITY. You lost that argument and are now trying to turn it into a cost argument.I Wear Pants;1229451 wrote:Healthcare, not hospitals.
FatHobbit is correct. 17 excellent hospitals do not the best overall healthcare system make.
I didn't lose the argument. You posted that we have 17 excellent hospitals, I don't dispute that. But we do not have the highest quality of healthcare when looking at our overall system.jmog;1229461 wrote:You can make a cost of health care argument but you weren't. You were arguing about QUALITY. You lost that argument and are now trying to turn it into a cost argument.
But that's the point isn't it? We have all of these awesome, top notch healthcare providers and yet we're way less healthy and a ton of people can't afford to use them and this problem is only going to get worse. Having Space Lasers that could instantaneously blast terrorists from orbit would be sweet but if something like that ate up 50% of gdp what good is it?jmog;1229458 wrote:I agree there is a COST issue. The liberals on this thread were talking about QUALITY.
There is no denying we have the best QUALITY when it comes to health providers on the planet.
Go look at a Paul Ryan budget projection and tell me if I'm being extreme. We have a serious long term budget problem and it's totally attributable to healthcare costs. However, it's not often that Conservatives will accept that medicare and other large government payers control costs more so than private payers. Conservatives like to use those facts to argue that we ought to eliminate medicare even though medicare controls costs more than private insurers and thus the healthcare costs would still be an extreme problem.DeyDurkie5;1229468 wrote:boatshoes seems a bit extreme
What are you even trying to argue with this satement?BoatShoes;1229475 wrote:But that's the point isn't it? We have all of these awesome, top notch healthcare providers and yet we're way less healthy and a ton of people can't afford to use them and this problem is only going to get worse. Having Space Lasers that could instantaneously blast terrorists from orbit would be sweet but if something like that ate up 50% of gdp what good is it?
It's pointless to argue with a conservative about the "quality" of healthcare in America. They don't care about any of the points you make. Just point out that the evidence indicates that their solutions won't reduce the cost of healthcare. Exhibit A is medicare advantage which is a poor man's version of the Ryan Plan. They have no solutions to increase access nor control costs. They just marvel at the rich, heroic job creators enjoying "the best quality in the world."I Wear Pants;1229470 wrote:I didn't lose the argument. You posted that we have 17 excellent hospitals, I don't dispute that. But we do not have the highest quality of healthcare when looking at our overall system.
http://www.businessinsider.com/french-healthcare-system-2012-7
An interesting article that makes some of the same points I was saying.
The point is that Conservatives always say..."we have the best healthcare in the world." But, millions of people cannot afford it...millions of people who are not free loaders. They say a plan like Canada's that would allow everyone to be able to afford health care goods and services would blow because it would destroy our super-awesome health care. But, our healthcare system is just too expensive. So expensive that it's going to ruin the economy in the long run. So, from a dollars and cents point of view; it'd probably make more sense to have a system like Canada's because it's cheaper and still pretty good...kind of like we just have an air force because it's cheaper and still pretty good and not my hypothetical space-laser system that would be too expensive and not make us any more safe than the air force which is cheaper and not as good.DeyDurkie5;1229484 wrote:What are you even trying to argue with this satement?
Does anyone ever attribute our being "way less healthy" to the individual choices of independent-thinking people? I mean, diabetes is near-epidemic and for the most part is a preventable disease.BoatShoes;1229475 wrote:But that's the point isn't it? We have all of these awesome, top notch healthcare providers and yet we're way less healthy and a ton of people can't afford to use them and this problem is only going to get worse. Having Space Lasers that could instantaneously blast terrorists from orbit would be sweet but if something like that ate up 50% of gdp what good is it?
Even if you accept that the U.S. has the best quality...Canada and France have pretty good quality, they're healthier and they don't face an economic disaster from health care cost projections.
So, if the cost of having the super-duper very best health care providers in the world is going to ruin our economy and yet we're not even healthier and fewer and fewer people are going to be able to afford it...what's the point?
I don't know that I've heard any conservative argue for that. Although given the reaction to Paul Ryan's plan you would think we were eliminating doctors and hospitals.BoatShoes;1229481 wrote:Go look at a Paul Ryan budget projection and tell me if I'm being extreme. We have a serious long term budget problem and it's totally attributable to healthcare costs. However, it's not often that Conservatives will accept that medicare and other large government payers control costs more so than private payers. Conservatives like to use those facts to argue that we ought to eliminate medicare even though medicare controls costs more than private insurers and thus the healthcare costs would still be an extreme problem.
Why do other nations not have the same problem or at least not in nearly the same frequency?jhay78;1229515 wrote:Does anyone ever attribute our being "way less healthy" to the individual choices of independent-thinking people? I mean, diabetes is near-epidemic and for the most part is a preventable disease.
I don't know that I've heard any conservative argue for that. Although given the reaction to Paul Ryan's plan you would think we were eliminating doctors and hospitals.
Because I live 12 hours away. I do sleep.Footwedge;1229384 wrote:LOL. Every time I debate your ass, you quit. Why is that? The internet stompage a tad tough to take I guess. Did I spell OK?
Care to offer your take on why Americans have lost 39% of their equity since 08? No? I didn't think so.
Actually, pal, you misspelled "Canadiens".Footwedge;1229384 wrote:Did I spell OK?
When in the hell was this not the case?Manhattan Buckeye;1229537 wrote:Because I live 12 hours away. I do sleep.
My take is that the U.S. has become too hostile towards business. Try starting up a company today. Better have you wallet handy.