georgerussia

If there might be the worst reason to create the world health organization, this must be the one you just mentioned :D Well, if you decide to ignore everything said about it, and prefer just to repeat the same meaningless quote again ang again - it's up to you. There would be nice to have an ignore list. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

When you look in the mirror, you will not see me there - surprise - you'll see yourself! Yes, it will me number one using the criterias based on report. But because the criteria weights are groundless, this "report" has no more value than my report with different criteria. And you have been already shown that; you just decided to ignore it. There are two major parts of those system you didn't even talk about: the much higher "insurance rate", which depends on income, and not on how healthy you are, and the regulated doctor salaries. If you ignore those things, you are effectively talking about taking parts of the system. So did I understand you correcly that all your loud expressions here of how good the French healthcare system is were only based on a WHO report!?!? So let's the government start from you and your company. Could you talk to your colleagues, and tell them that you think they all earn too much, and should work for $2/hour since tomorrow? And again we've got sv3n-type article. So does the Government "not promoting", or they just "should be doing more"? Those are completely different things; you could work more, does it mean you are not working? That's typical example. Someone needs a doctor to explain him that smoking is bad, and leads to cancer? Someone needs a doctor to understand that bad food choices and lack of excercise makes you fat? Is there anyone who doesn't know that mountain hiking is much better for your health than spending the weekend in front of TV? Maybe everyone should be provided a personal nanny to kick their lazy asses to do some hiking before going to bed? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It depends. Not everyone in this world lives in U.S., and in some countries $43/month is more than half of average monthly salary. So from the local court point they made it pretty cruel to order the guy to pay almost 50% of the average monthly income. Again, it depends. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Very similar to Russia. From other side, I know a person whose wife was going to divorce him, and get alimony/support. Instead of being screwed up in a typical "justice" way, he went to the country of origin (I believe it was Turkey), established residency, and filed a divorce there in absence of the second person. Got divorced in six months, and got the children custody. Then he returned to U.S., and served the divorce papers to his now ex-wife. This obviously canceled the divorce filed in U.S. court, as there was no marriage anymore, but she got another hearing, and the child custody was rearranged. He got a job in another coutry, moved there, and got the local court hearing, and the court ordered him to provide child support, and set the payment of $43/month. He said he should be fine as long as his country of residence was not U.S., and was in process of getting the custody back. Haven't heard from him for a year now though - maybe he's in jail :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No. The would be no drugs to sell. P.S. I supposed you have to be 18 to register on dz.com, but it looks like it is not true. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Are you talking to the mirror? Seems to be the case. You have been already explained that this "numero uno" has no real value, and by changing the criterias or weights you could get any country on the top of that list; for example Zimbabwe most likely will be ranked number one if you put the per-person spending as most important. You have been explained that you cannot just take part of any system, and expect it to work in a different system. It is like taking the engine from Boeing, and putting it in your car in hope to get both the benefits of the Boeing and the benefits of the car. It does not work. So could you tell us how much experience you have with French healthcare system? Just to make sure you do understand what you are talking about. This way we could regulate everything. Just tell me what you do, and I'll tell you that the prices you charge (directly or indirectly) are overinflated, and that's the good way to reduce costs if you are just paid $2 per hour. Oops. I could understand when such ideas are produced by my 10-year daughter, but it is really strange to hear them from a mature adult. How exactly are you going to "change the national attitude"? Is it something like "being fat is cool" right now? Doesn't anyone already know what makes you fat, and what does not? And I repeat: that's nice that you always comment only the easiest part of the post, and completely ignore everything else, especially the ones which ask tough questions. You should definitely try politics. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And they still die at the end. So basically the result is the same, no matter are they covered or not. Sure, the person could live in agony, pain or coma several more weeks, but the result is the same - the person dies. Not exactly. The point in the original message was that the people who want such a useless and expensive treatment (i.e. artifically maintaining their "life", and be kept in agony, pain or coma) should be able to pay for that. And it looks reasonable for me if the goal is to cut the costs. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's a good example of how could you manipulate facts to prove your theory. Just to make sure you understand the article - it talks about brandname drugs, not generics. I'm not sure you understand the difference, so I explain. The drugs, as you probably know, are created by scientists, who work hard, and sometime effortless - just see how long it is taking to create a drug which would kick HIV out of T4 cells. Years and billions of dollars are spent on most brandname drugs, and someone has to pay for that. There is research and testing, which costs a lot. Someone has to pay for that, and that's those who buy brandname drugs. However when you make generics, you do not bear all the costs above. They only spend money on manufacturing, and those costs are a tiny fraction in overall drug cost. Then it might be reasonable to regulate the prices for generics - after all, the people who make it did not spend any money on research and testing. However most generics are cheap anyway, and it doesn't seem to be an issue. So could you tell me, how many new brandname drugs were invented in Canada since 1987, so we could get a clue what they control prices for? So what happens if the company does not agree to "regulated" price, and therefore decides NOT to sell their drug in Canada (and they have all the rights to do it)? It's not impossible. A lot of countries, like Russia and China, already "regulate" the prices for movies, music and software in very similar way. After all, it costs only 15 cents to make a copy of Windows, so it doesn't sound right to pay $150 for it. It is easy to regulate costs on something you did not develop. Sure, when you become a doctor, and provide quality service for a half of price - I'll be your first patient. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what about the people who ARE treated, but still dying (and it takes 60% of the overall healthcare costs to cover that treatment)? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, there are other reasons as well. The 60% spending on last three weeks of life seems much more reasonable. I'd let you, and others, who complain about very high salaries of the doctors, to become doctors themselves, and provide the same services for less money. Then, after you have 10-20 years of successful practice, you will have every right to tell us that the doctor salaries are overinflated, and the doctors should be paid less. Before that the value of your words is close to zero. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's nice that you always comment only the easiest part of the post, and completely ignore everything else, especially the ones which ask tough questions. You should definitely try politics. And African countries are able to have healthcare which is even much cheaper, why didn't you use them as example? Did you take into account the salaries in France (including medical personnel salaries)? Did you take into account the number of overweight people, which greatly increases risks for heart problems, and drives medical costs up? Did you take into account life expectancy, diversity in the nation population? What about real availability of healthcare in France, could you come today to the doctor, and get MRI tomorrow? Yes, but there is a lot of other factors which are necessary for it to work. Again, ex-USSR had even cheaper healthcare comparing to France, as doctors were paid $40 a month (like everyone else). How many doctors in U.S. do you know which would be happy to work for the salary French doctors receive? No, because - you will be surprised - they are already in France. And you are in U.S., so to use French healthcare system you need to fly to France, while they do not. *** If you're going to model your healthcare after someone else's it seems france seems like a good candidate.. The problem is that you cannot just get healthcare model from France, the budget planning from UAE, the military power from US and the military spendings from Netherlands, and combine everything. It will not work. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It will not work to stop those who are relocating to another country. They just need to either apply for U.S. passport in advance (as we all know, there is no passport control when you leave U.S.), or apply for a passport from another country - not even necessary the country they are going to relocate. I know the person who has six(!) legal passports and seven driving licenses - and they all are valid. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I have already asked you - when you are trying to regulate "prices", you are regulating salaries. Do you want YOUR salary to be regulated as well if someone (like a homeless or a McDonalds employee) thinks you earn too much? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nope. What was in ex-USSR is exactly the opposite - free healthcare for everyone with no cost. You had to pay for drugs, but it was not expensive, as all the drugs were made locally. Obviously the quality and the affordability suffered - it was easy to get an appointment when you have a sore throat, but if you need cancer treatment or bypass - your changes were not so great if you live outside Moscow. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, the quote above says that there are MORE people dying from cancer in Britain than in U.S. And I believe it, as it is the same in Russia. The "everyone should be able to pay for cancer treatment", where the government spendings are fixed (budget) means one of the following: 1. Cancer treatment is cheap. There will be enough money to treat anyone, but this results that the doctors earn very little, and therefore are not really committed to their job, which results in bad quality of service, and no drugs available. This means that you will be treated, but you'll die anyway unless you're really lucky, and got a good doctor. This happens in Russia. 2. Cancer treatment is expensive. The doctors are paid a lot, the quality of service is very good, and the doctors are striving to improve it as a result of competition. However because there is limited money, not everyone could get that quality service in time. This happens in Britain, and - I suspect - in Canada. Not really. I don't think there is a lot of people who give ALL their profit to save lives on Africans who suffer from some illness - and that means that a lot of people valued their profit more than the life of another human being. Yes, if you ask them. It's free to agree. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I see. That is what I call populist - when you just throw in an idea which "sounds cool" without any thinking whether it could actually work, and how it affects everything. Nope. If you take amount from France, you have to add the price of plane tickets to France as well, and it will cost much more. Otherwise how really are you going to make it work "like in France"? Actually I wonder why didn't you take amounts from some poor African country - probably you would end up with less than $100 a year. This what a good populist would do, like in the good Soviet Union jokes, where the Party called the astronauts and tell them: - Guys, you know, Americans have landed on the Moon. We must show them we're the best - in two months your shuttle should land on the Sun. - Oops... heh.. but sir, the Sun is hot, how're we gonna land there? - You guys think the Party is full of idiots? You think we do not know the Sun is hot? Everything has been settled, when your shuttle is landing on the Sun, it will be night time. Why? We don't have to. We already spend more on public schools than several African countries together. According to you it should be enough for us - as this is enough for them, right? - so no more spendind needed. And everybody has the right to be rich, is this correct? So I would start from this one, and I'm the first in line. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is not possible. So far no country in this world succeed in covering everyone for everything. Theoretically, yes. But practically - in what country with the government healthcare you could get an MRI next day if you think you need it (and your doctor agrees)? Regarding your statement - sex change is basically a medically (mentally) required procedure, not something the person would do just to have extra fun. Liposuction in some cases may be medically required as well. But circumcision, for example, is definitely not medically required. True, you shouldn't be crucified for your hobbies. However other people should not be forced to pay for your hobbies either. The procedure doesn't change, but the number of procedures does, and each procedure costs money. That's where you are wrong. Try to get individual life or disability insurance, and tell them you're skydiving (which you have to). Then compare the rate you'll receive with the rates your buddies pay. You will be surprised. I don't make choice for anyone. I just say loud and clear that I do not want to pay MY money for THEIR choice. And if you make such a choice - be ready to pay for it. After all, should I have a choice what to spend MY money on? The amount of doctors IS limited, as well as the amount of intensive care rooms. Regarding enough doctors around - there is enough patients around as well. The first part "I'm not gonna pay for it" is correct. The second, "why should you get it" is definitely not here. He is not gonna pay for it. I am not gonna pay for it either. If you want to make an expensive choice, and people do not want to pay for it - you should either pay for it yourself, or forget about it. You have all the rights to make any choice for spending your own money, but when you are spending the taxpayers money, you cannot just make any choice, and expect everyone to pay for it. Well, if this is the level of how you understand the situation, I don't think there is anything left to discuss. Could you please at least provide us with numbers - how much could we "chop" off the military funding (and please show us what it going to affect), and show us how it will help towards healthcare. Just to provide you with a basic idea - the country population is 300,000,000; let's get the average health insurance cost as $300 per person per month - keep in mind we're talking about health insurance which covers everything without copays, deductibles or pre-existing conditions, so this number is probably too cheap, but I'm generous. So to insure everyone you're looking for $900 billion dollars a year, which is much more than the whole military budget. Obviously this is just a wild guess, and I'm sure that the real number will be much higher - but at least there is something to compare instead of "chop and give, and everything will be fine". Yes, this is correct. If you make a claim, YOU have to prove it. And THEN if I want to challenge the claim, I'll have to prove it as well. So far it sounds like either you are not being serious, or you have no idea what are you talking about. Sorry, but this is just bullshit. The only number, which could prove something, was healthcare costs per person. Which is basically useless to compare without comparing salaries and taxes - I'm sure you understand that paying $10,000 per year for health insurance in country X looks very expensive as long as you don't know that basic salary in country X starts from $200,000 a year. The rest of article is a mix of emotions, wild guess and non-documented "facts". Actually the problem of such "articles" is that they provide a ready summary for lazy people. Most time this summary is biased, one-sided, and some time the person who provides it has no clue what he or she is talking about. It is better to get the real facts. And we all see the results of this spending. It is not always obvious, for example, The Internet you're now using is the result of military spending those money as well as cell phone and GPS. The OPEC using U.S. dollar currency for selling the oil instead of Euro (and losing money on it) is another part. There is a lot of things which are hard to see. Just check how much any country from your top list spent in healthcare 10 years ago, and how much they spend now. Ok, so now I think we get to the point. So you think the prices should be "fair", and therefore doctor salaries should be also "fair"? What about your own salary? Should it be fair too? What if Safeway cashiers will think your salary is not fair either, and should be cut in half? And just few paragraphs above you told us about the importance of personal choice - does it include the doctor salaries as well? What about procedures which are only partially covered now? For example, if I complain about back pain, and want to have a massage every day - should it be covered completely? Now it is only partially covered (i.e. no more than 12 sessions in a year). You spent 9.5 years in the government-mandated healthcare facility? It looks like you misunderstood the question, so I repeat it: how often had you been treated in your life by any government healthcare facility outside US? I'm not asking how long have you lived outside US, as it is irrelevant. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's good example. But look from the other side: the government-funded healthcare is paid by taxpayers. Why should those who do not do extreme sports (car accidents are different, obviously) pay for the healthcare costs for those who do? Again, this is a private choice, but should all the taxpayers pay for that private choice? Again, if someone wants a private choice - let them get an insurance. And another week, and another week, and it costs $100k a week... It is really easy to judge if you consider the fact that the system has limited resources available. Therefore spending them on having that grandparent living for another week might mean that two children will die because of lack of resources. He is not pushing his choice on everybody else. He is saying that this private choice should not be funded by everyone else. If a person makes a choice - fine, but he has to pay for it. If they are willing to pay $100k a week for that from their own pocket, I have absolutely no objection. I just do not want to pay for their choice. Here we could probably stop. If you want to try to show that we have enough money to maintain government healthcare, prove it with appropriate numbers. The amount of money the budget spends on military has absolutely nothing to do with it. So your theory is already based on assumption, and not facts. Good start. You will not. Price inflation exists in the countries with government health care as well. It is impossible. "Benefits for everyone" will then cover plastic surgery, boob jobs, sex change and so on. You really want to pay for all this? Just a question: how often had you been treated in your life by any government healthcare facility outside US? Just to ensure that you know the stuff you are talking about. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It absolutely does not matter what other gods teach in regard to which god is real. I'll probably go even further, and ask - why there is no credible evidence for the God existence and role, which could be accepted without having the faith FIRST? So far all the evidence you provided is based on faith already, and therefore cannot prove anything. Because there is no valid reason for not to do this, right? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's a nice list of really biased interpretation. No one. I wonder what kind of a doctor you are going to be if you do not know that you are not getting HIV by having sex outside the marriage. And being in marriage will not help you if your spouse was infected by HIV before (via blood transfusion, for example). Using condoms, however, helps greatly even for those who have sex before, and instead of marriage. This comment is just plain wrong. But you will not be infected with most of them just by touching the blood if your skin is not damaged. And if you take this position, could you then explain why the Bible does not tell you that you're unclean if you touch faeces, and do not wash your hands? Well, you provided two examples. The first one is plain wrong, and the second one is close to useless. Are the rest of "rules" in the Bible the same? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you agree that the claim that everyone has free will is groundless? How do you know? Maybe I have no idea how it feels, and have no internal experience. What your claim is based on? This is kind of ignorant assumption. How do you know what my internal experience suggests, if anything? Hint: if your experience suggests something, it does not mean everyone else's experience suggests the same. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I agree with 5% figure. And yes, some people said that it is too low. But in most cases those people belong to those 5% anyway :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A completely free will is useless if you do not have supreme power to implement it. Obviously we do not have all truly free will; actually it varies even between the people in the same society. So could you use your free will to stop being an organic robot, i.e. stop eating, breathing and going to restroom? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Your God is obviously something of irreducible complexity. According to your own words, this is a 100% proof there was a Creator. So who created your God, and who created the creator of your God? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The fact you have a free _will_ does not mean you can really implement it. Try to use your free will to breath under water, for example. Or to kill the AIDS virus in your bloos. It will not work no matter how strong your free will is. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *