Lucky... 0 #26 December 26, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote We have officially taken the first step to a lesser quality health care system. It will be difficult to be worse than 37th among the developed world (the US' current rank w/r/t healthcare). Current rank w/r/t socialized healthcare, you mean. No, I wrote what I meant. And I wrote what the comparison actually *is*. Is there a problem with that? So you now admit that 36 nations with socialized healthcare are doing better than the USA. I guess we're getting somewhere. I've always admitted that 36 countries scored higher on a scale based on the desirability of socialized medicine, yes. I don't know why you think that's something new. I've also always noted that the USA takes top rank in the only criterion in the study that actually shows how well the docs and hospitals are doing their jobs. It's a good thing you haven't changed, Mike. The usual no source cited, so I have to look up your RW rag by myself. Turns out it's the NCPA. National Center for Policy Analysis; a self-proclaimed non-partisan rag, where they denounce the inheritance tax and other non-partisan goodies like that. What a crock. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18329 Oh, I love their reference to the Heritage Foundation too - even a larger RW rag than the one you cited. If you can't understand that posting extremist rags is BS, you never will. Try posting truely objective data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteI've also always noted that the USA takes top rank in the only criterion in the study that actually shows how well the docs and hospitals are doing their jobs. Just a quick analysis of your source reveals that the US, despite having 50% more neonatal specialists than Canada and 100% more than Great Britain, as well as 15% more intensive care beds than Canada and 200% more than Great Britain, the US has the same neonatal mortality rates as Canada and United Kingdom. That certainly does not indicate higher effectiveness or higher efficiency in the US system. So, that invalidates any and all other criteria of care that the US may lead in? Bullshit. Your bias is showing.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteI've also always noted that the USA takes top rank in the only criterion in the study that actually shows how well the docs and hospitals are doing their jobs. Just a quick analysis of your source reveals that the US, despite having 50% more neonatal specialists than Canada and 100% more than Great Britain, as well as 15% more intensive care beds than Canada and 200% more than Great Britain, the US has the same neonatal mortality rates as Canada and United Kingdom. That certainly does not indicate higher effectiveness or higher efficiency in the US system. To be fair, your source does provide some pretty graphics; it just doesn't support your assertion. Not to mention his source is as credible as the Heritage Foundation rag. Mike is notorious for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 December 26, 2009 QuoteIt's a good thing you haven't changed, Mike. The usual no source cited, so I have to look up your RW rag by myself. And neither have you - still crying when people don't do your homework for you. I'm not going to repeat the links 25 times just to make you happy. QuoteTurns out it's the NCPA. National Center for Policy Analysis; a self-proclaimed non-partisan rag, where they denounce the inheritance tax and other non-partisan goodies like that. What a crock. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18329 So disprove the data. And, BTW...that wasn't where I got the graphic from. But since you mention it, maybe you can show us just WHERE on that page the graphic is? A screenshot will suffice. I know that'll cut into the 'ZOMG the Repubs are all NAZI' stuff that you have to put in EVERY SINGLE POST you make, but give it a try. QuoteIf you can't understand that posting extremist rags is BS, you never will. Try posting truely objective data. Says mr. huff'n'puff sig. Bring some data to refute what I provided and we'll talk.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 December 26, 2009 QuoteAnd neither have you - still crying when people don't do your homework for you. I'm not going to repeat the links 25 times just to make you happy. You didn't post the link once, you just post a page and hope we miss the RW rag stamp on the bottom. I'm not necc saying it's bad data, just don't feed us data from BS sources. It's your cite = your homework. QuoteSo disprove the data. I didn't provide it, you did, you provide better source. QuoteSays mr. huff'n'puff sig. Bring some data to refute what I provided and we'll talk. I've never commented upon the accuracy of it, just the source is something that Hannity would cite, which makes it a joke from its inception. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd neither have you - still crying when people don't do your homework for you. I'm not going to repeat the links 25 times just to make you happy. You didn't post the link once, you just post a page and hope we miss the RW rag stamp on the bottom. I'm not necc saying it's bad data, just don't feed us data from BS sources. It's your cite = your homework. Actually, I've posted the link several times before - if you don't the source of the data, well, then it just SUCKS to be you. QuoteQuoteSo disprove the data. I didn't provide it, you did, you provide better source. Like the page you "said" it came from, that doesn't have the graphic on it at all, perhaps? QuoteQuoteSays mr. huff'n'puff sig. Bring some data to refute what I provided and we'll talk. I've never commented upon the accuracy of it, just the source is something that Hannity would cite, which makes it a joke from its inception. Yeah, whatever.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 December 26, 2009 QuoteActually, I've posted the link several times before - if you don't the source of the data, well, then it just SUCKS to be you. I don't shadow you, so I didn't know / care. Point is, it's a RW rag and you are notorious for posting them. QuoteLike the page you "said" it came from, that doesn't have the graphic on it at all, perhaps? It has the rag I posted: NCPA. A RW rag. QuoteYeah, whatever. Now we're talking. Again, it's a RW rag, it's meaningless to me and all should ignore it. I recall a recent RW rag (Cato institute) I read said FDR tripled taxes, when it was Hoover with the Revenue Act of 1932 who raised them 260%. So these are repositories of misinformation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 December 27, 2009 Yeah, whatever.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 December 27, 2009 QuoteYeah, whatever. Now that's a cogent reply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteYeah, whatever. Now that's a cogent reply. Value given for value received - in other words, it's all your post was worth in regards to a reply.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, whatever. Now that's a cogent reply. Value given for value received - in other words, it's all your post was worth in regards to a reply. Just keep on trying to spoon-feed us your RW rags. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, whatever. Now that's a cogent reply. Value given for value received - in other words, it's all your post was worth in regards to a reply. Just keep on trying to spoon-feed us your RW rags. When you can't refute the data, attack the source - it's all you have.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, whatever. Now that's a cogent reply. Value given for value received - in other words, it's all your post was worth in regards to a reply. Just keep on trying to spoon-feed us your RW rags. When you can't refute the data, attack the source - it's all you have. I'm not attacking the source, I'm just saying it's typical Mike to give us a RW rag site. BTW, I think you have the def for ad hominem out of whack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #39 December 27, 2009 QuoteSo, that invalidates any and all other criteria of care that the US may lead in? Like cancer survival rates? Screening for breast cancer in women over 50 can “clearly save lives,” but overscreening, particularly in prostate cancer, may be harmful, because some tumors never develop into something dangerous. Then people are “cured of a cancer they didn’t need to be cured of,” [American Cancer Society Chief Medical Officer Otis] Brawley said. It's probably a cat's probably just a case of Dr. Brawley's bias showing, though, right?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo, that invalidates any and all other criteria of care that the US may lead in? Like cancer survival rates? Screening for breast cancer in women over 50 can “clearly save lives,” but overscreening, particularly in prostate cancer, may be harmful, because some tumors never develop into something dangerous. Then people are “cured of a cancer they didn’t need to be cured of,” [American Cancer Society Chief Medical Officer Otis] Brawley said. It's probably a cat's probably just a case of Dr. Brawley's bias showing, though, right? *rolls eyes* If the tumors "aren't dangerous", why are they being removed? Could it possibly be due to the 'defensive medicine' mindset that excessive malpractice suits have engendered? Sounds like the good Doctor hasn't read the recommendations from his own organization.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #41 December 27, 2009 QuoteIf the tumors "aren't dangerous", why are they being removed? Could it possibly be due to the 'defensive medicine' mindset that excessive malpractice suits have engendered? <sarcasm>I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it's profitable to remove them and the cost can be passed on to insurance companies.</sarcasm> QuoteSounds like the good Doctor hasn't read the recommendations from his own organization. Perhaps you should inform him about best practices w/r/t cancer screenings, since you are obviously so much better informed than he is on the subject.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #42 December 27, 2009 You know, I can't follow all the back and forth between you guys, it's numbing. And this thread is offtrack already. How about this.... I eat healthy I excersise I treat my body well If I'm sick and it's going to cost $700,000 to save me, then I'm ok with dying. How abouts I don't pay for healthcare Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #43 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe fallacy in that argument about the effectiveness of healthcare SYSTEMS is plain to see. Yup, it sure IS, isn't it? The graphic is meaningless as posted since it gives no indication of the methodology used to collect (or invent) the numbers and the source is illegible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #44 December 27, 2009 Quote QuoteUnless you can show that doctors can enforce lifestyle choices in Scandinavia but not in the USA your statement with respect to a comparison between nations is absolutely meaningless. I don't give a flying FUCK about your comparison between nations, John - that was all YOUR invention, not mine. . So why are you posting red herring responses to comparisons between nations, then? Enquiring minds want to know. Fact is, western Europe and Scandinavia have longer lifes expectancies than the USA, and nothing you have posted about lifestyles indicates any reason to believe that lifestyle is the reason for the difference.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe fallacy in that argument about the effectiveness of healthcare SYSTEMS is plain to see. Yup, it sure IS, isn't it? The graphic is meaningless as posted since it gives no indication of the methodology used to collect (or invent) the numbers and the source is illegible. Not to mention the source is EXTREMELY biased RW. This is classic Mike. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe fallacy in that argument about the effectiveness of healthcare SYSTEMS is plain to see. Yup, it sure IS, isn't it? The graphic is meaningless as posted since it gives no indication of the methodology used to collect (or invent) the numbers and the source is illegible. No, it's legible, it's this RW rag: http://www.ncpa.org/ It's basically the Heritage Foundation, or teh Cato Institute Hannity favorites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 December 28, 2009 QuoteFact is, western Europe and Scandinavia have longer lifes expectancies than the USA, and nothing you have posted about lifestyles indicates any reason to believe that lifestyle is the reason for the difference. Then maybe you should have read the links I provided to the CDC, AHA, etc... instead of just ASSuming you knew better than them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #48 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteFact is, western Europe and Scandinavia have longer lifes expectancies than the USA, and nothing you have posted about lifestyles indicates any reason to believe that lifestyle is the reason for the difference. Then maybe you should have read the links I provided to the CDC, AHA, etc... instead of just ASSuming you knew better than them. The one who didn't read appears to be you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteFact is, western Europe and Scandinavia have longer lifes expectancies than the USA, and nothing you have posted about lifestyles indicates any reason to believe that lifestyle is the reason for the difference. Then maybe you should have read the links I provided to the CDC, AHA, etc... instead of just ASSuming you knew better than them. The one who didn't read appears to be you. I think I'll take CDC's word over yours - sorry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #50 December 29, 2009 Quote WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Didn't quite raise that bar with this one did you?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
