FMBI Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Link For the last 20 years, it's been known that the US gets awful health care when compared to other countries. I'm glad we didn't disappoint this time. Of course, on the other hand, we're probably somewhere below 37th in worldwide rankings now.. I'd hate to get overtaken by Ukraine or Poland. Sorta gives you a good feeling to know that all the countries with evil socialized medicine are doing better than us, for less cost, but John McCain wants to expand "private choice" even more because of Canada, the oft-quoted model of socialized medicine failure.
darkhosis Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Link For the last 20 years, it's been known that the US gets awful health care when compared to other countries. I'm glad we didn't disappoint this time. Of course, on the other hand, we're probably somewhere below 37th in worldwide rankings now.. I'd hate to get overtaken by Ukraine or Poland. Sorta gives you a good feeling to know that all the countries with evil socialized medicine are doing better than us, for less cost, but John McCain wants to expand "private choice" even more because of Canada, the oft-quoted model of socialized medicine failure.US has just about the best health care in the world, you just have to pay for it.
Dav Posted July 18, 2008 Report Posted July 18, 2008 yes free for all healthcare like we have in the UK is a dirty communist thing to do, and you dont want to help the poor like the commie enamy would now do you? All hail america, where if you cant afford heathcare at least you get to die free!...
FMBI Posted July 18, 2008 Author Report Posted July 18, 2008 US has just about the best health care in the world, you just have to pay for it. Not really. That's the most annoying misconception. As a result of our healthcare policies, we have routinely showed up near the bottom, even for those who do pay. I'm sure you heard about the study where they compared us to the other anglophone countries and we ended up worse than NZ? Of course, who am I to complain.. even if I remember my mom setting a routine appointment a month and a half ahead of time when I was a kid.
»Lynx Posted July 18, 2008 Report Posted July 18, 2008 NHS sucks !@#$%^&* - but I am paying for private healthcare, as I simply use it as a loophole to get much cheaper gym access. If I do happen to fall ill for something serious, I'll definitely use it over the NHS. -Lynx
SeVeR Posted July 19, 2008 Report Posted July 19, 2008 (edited) There is nothing wrong with the NHS unless you're a !@#$%^&* who wants to go and see the doctor every couple of months for a bruised kneecap or a toothache. When i need a doctor i REALLY need a doctor, and when i really need a doctor the NHS is quick, free and effective. EDIT: Oh and U.K. is 18th, Canada 30th, and.... Cuba 39th Edited July 19, 2008 by SeVeR
Bak Posted July 19, 2008 Report Posted July 19, 2008 socialized medicine is a good idea. doctors will still get paid a lot, and we'll get excellent preventative care.
»Blocks Posted July 19, 2008 Report Posted July 19, 2008 Regardless of what the solution is, it's a problem when money weighs into personal medical decisions.
»D1st0rt Posted July 19, 2008 Report Posted July 19, 2008 socialized medicine is a good idea. doctors will still get paid a lot, and we'll get excellent preventative care.hahaha Also in reference to the thread !@#$%^&*le, liquid gasoline doesn't combust at room temperature (only the fumes)
darkhosis Posted July 19, 2008 Report Posted July 19, 2008 (edited) There is nothing wrong with the NHS unless you're a !@#$%^&* who wants to go and see the doctor every couple of months for a bruised kneecap or a toothache. When i need a doctor i REALLY need a doctor, and when i really need a doctor the NHS is quick, free and effective. EDIT: Oh and U.K. is 18th, Canada 30th, and.... Cuba 39th yah, pretty much. when you really need to see a doctor, you'll see one.. but lots of the time it ends up costing the taxpayers 10x more than if the person was able to see them when they should have originally. this isnt always health cares fault tho, theres plenty of ppl with insurance that put !@#$%^&* off for so long that it becomes a severe issue rather than something more moderate. anyway, i actually agree there should be some sort of nationalized health care. id just change the statement that US gets awful health care to "some people in the US get awful health care", probably over 65% of the population would get "top 10" on whatever list was quoted in the first post unless maybe it's one of those liberal whacko groups publishing the stats, didnt look at it. ps: the cuba thing is pretty amusing Edited July 19, 2008 by darkhosis
FMBI Posted July 19, 2008 Author Report Posted July 19, 2008 id just change the statement that US gets awful health care to "some people in the US get awful health care", probably over 65% of the population would get "top 10" on whatever list was quoted in the first post unless maybe it's one of those liberal whacko groups publishing the stats, didnt look at it. ps: the cuba thing is pretty amusing It's a liberal whacko group, all right.. the WHO. And, as far as the Cuba thing goes, yes, Michael Moore is a sexy butt(hole), and yes, Cuba does suffer from rampant poverty and selective care, but if you can get their care, it's pretty good. A lot like ours, in fact, just ahead of the curve.
AstroProdigy Posted July 20, 2008 Report Posted July 20, 2008 The study was published in 2000. We're bound to be way lower in the list by now. We have had Bush at the helm for almost 8 years after all.
»Blocks Posted July 20, 2008 Report Posted July 20, 2008 It's a liberal whacko group, all right.. the WHO.You just shot yourself in the foot right there. I mean, look at these guys! http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m222/legoblocks/misc/who001copy-764268.jpg I wouldn't trust any health care statistics coming from them!
AstroProdigy Posted July 20, 2008 Report Posted July 20, 2008 I hope you're joking because that's a picture of the Who, a band, not the WHO, an acronym for the World Health Organization. If you weren't joking then LOL!
NBVegita Posted July 23, 2008 Report Posted July 23, 2008 We're bound to be way lower in the list by now. We have had Bush at the helm for almost 8 years after all. Interesting you say that, what health care policies has Bush enacted that have hurt our health care quality?
SeVeR Posted July 23, 2008 Report Posted July 23, 2008 Could be his lack of policies. But i don't know.
FMBI Posted July 23, 2008 Author Report Posted July 23, 2008 We're bound to be way lower in the list by now. We have had Bush at the helm for almost 8 years after all. Interesting you say that, what health care policies has Bush enacted that have hurt our health care quality? Canada. Ban. Ring a bell? And, as Sever said, his lack of policies was also a major factor. Ignoring the problem for 8 years, while demanding a boost in "same ol', same ol'" spending isn't exactly the best way to do things.
NBVegita Posted July 24, 2008 Report Posted July 24, 2008 And, as Sever said, his lack of policies was also a major factor. Ignoring the problem for 8 years, while demanding a boost in "same ol', same ol'" spending isn't exactly the best way to do things. So then the problem also dually lies in the Clinton administration.
darkhosis Posted July 24, 2008 Report Posted July 24, 2008 It's a liberal whacko group, all right.. the WHO.You just shot yourself in the foot right there. I mean, look at these guys! http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m222/legoblocks/misc/who001copy-764268.jpg I wouldn't trust any health care statistics coming from them!Me neither. Especially since those ASSS started working for the UN.
AstroProdigy Posted July 25, 2008 Report Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) And, as Sever said, his lack of policies was also a major factor. Ignoring the problem for 8 years, while demanding a boost in "same ol', same ol'" spending isn't exactly the best way to do things. So then the problem also dually lies in the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration made plenty of mistakes too, but that doesn't life Bush from blame. Besides some of the problems are a result of massive Republican resistance during the Clinton years to anything other than cutting and/or privatizing the already existing system further. It's the same busted ideology that constantly repeats "government is bad" to itself until its blue in the face so when they have power they turn it into a self fulfilling prophecy. Also Bill Clinton was famed as a compromiser. In this case he should have never compromised with Republicans since their only purpose was to bust the system to justify making it entirely privatized, but then again he didn't have much choice with their majority. Edited July 25, 2008 by AstroProdigy
NBVegita Posted July 25, 2008 Report Posted July 25, 2008 So then the problem also dually lies in the Clinton administration.
Recommended Posts