[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Unaware wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s common sense. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that everyone can be provided top notch medical care, using the best uncurbed medical advances, with timely access to a supply of doctors that aren’t falling even further behind the demand. And, and, make it cheaper. And, and, the government can keep up with the costs. There’s a reason it sounds like utopian fantasy.
I’d like to hear them tell us the trade-offs in their own words, honestly. You all aren’t Santa Claus, so shoot straight with us. What are the trade offs?
Fair argument.
Can I ask though; does everyone currently have access to top notch medical care with a timely access to an unlimited supply of doctors? No, of course not. There is already rationing of health care, already a limited supply of doctors, and it’s already more expensive than the care found in most other industrialized nations, yet without that seeming to have any affect on our general health or life expectancy.
Now, obviously there are other factors involved. Obesity is an epidemic in the sates, the “Baby boomers” are all approaching senior citizenship (the most expensive bracket of the population in terms of health care), etc…
But people act like what we’ve got now is so wonderful, when it’s not. Change needs to occur, and while personally I like the idea of a public option (or maybe even simpler, just the option to buy into Medicare for all citizens), I’m open to hearing other legitimate suggestions. So far I haven’t heard any from the public option opposers (the political ones, not the ones on this site), only fear mongering, misinformation, and downright lies.
When controlled for accidents and cultural issues such as violence, don’t we have the best life expectancy?
no that we spend huge amounts of money per person more than other nations, particularly Canada and Europe and for the most part outside of high tech procedures (where we are very good) we don’t have any better health outcomes than they do.
were spending more and more and not getting any better returns. we give people a bunch of scans for head aches and broken toes because docs are afraid they’ll get sued and it shuts patients up and people think “well i might as well since insurance will cover it!”
we may have decent health care here, but were incredibly inefficient.
Now you are just making stuff up.
"(Cancer)Survival in the USA is high on a global scale "
The thing with cancer is detecting it ASAP. If you catch it early, your chances of beating it are much better, but if you wait until it’s terminal stage 4, you’re fucked. So if you have to wait in line to be seen, like my grandfather, by the time you are seen it’s too late. [/quote]
I know Britain’s record on cancer survival is not great but at the same time I should point out that both my parents recently had cancer scares: both were seen by a Doctor within two weeks, which I don’t think is too bad. My Mother is also someone who has overcome breast cancer, so although the NHS can do a lot better on this, people are aware of it and improvements are starting to be made.
[quote]majicka wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Unaware wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s common sense. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that everyone can be provided top notch medical care, using the best uncurbed medical advances, with timely access to a supply of doctors that aren’t falling even further behind the demand. And, and, make it cheaper. And, and, the government can keep up with the costs. There’s a reason it sounds like utopian fantasy.
I’d like to hear them tell us the trade-offs in their own words, honestly. You all aren’t Santa Claus, so shoot straight with us. What are the trade offs?
Fair argument.
Can I ask though; does everyone currently have access to top notch medical care with a timely access to an unlimited supply of doctors? No, of course not. There is already rationing of health care, already a limited supply of doctors, and it’s already more expensive than the care found in most other industrialized nations, yet without that seeming to have any affect on our general health or life expectancy.
Now, obviously there are other factors involved. Obesity is an epidemic in the sates, the “Baby boomers” are all approaching senior citizenship (the most expensive bracket of the population in terms of health care), etc…
But people act like what we’ve got now is so wonderful, when it’s not. Change needs to occur, and while personally I like the idea of a public option (or maybe even simpler, just the option to buy into Medicare for all citizens), I’m open to hearing other legitimate suggestions. So far I haven’t heard any from the public option opposers (the political ones, not the ones on this site), only fear mongering, misinformation, and downright lies.
When controlled for accidents and cultural issues such as violence, don’t we have the best life expectancy?
no that we spend huge amounts of money per person more than other nations, particularly Canada and Europe and for the most part outside of high tech procedures (where we are very good) we don’t have any better health outcomes than they do.
were spending more and more and not getting any better returns. we give people a bunch of scans for head aches and broken toes because docs are afraid they’ll get sued and it shuts patients up and people think “well i might as well since insurance will cover it!”
we may have decent health care here, but were incredibly inefficient.
Now you are just making stuff up.
"(Cancer)Survival in the USA is high on a global scale "
The thing with cancer is detecting it ASAP. If you catch it early, your chances of beating it are much better, but if you wait until it’s terminal stage 4, you’re fucked. So if you have to wait in line to be seen, like my grandfather, by the time you are seen it’s too late.
I know Britain’s record on cancer survival is not great but at the same time I should point out that both my parents recently had cancer scares: both were seen by a Doctor within two weeks, which I don’t think is too bad. My Mother is also someone who has overcome breast cancer, so although the NHS can do a lot better on this, people are aware of it and improvements are starting to be made.[/quote]
With who’s money? In case you haven’t looked, the country is broke. You can’t tax “rich” people anymore, they’re already leaving in droves.
I also find it amazing people discount numbers with personal anecdotes. The guy claimed that we don’t get anymore for the money which is a lie. No one said the NHS is medieval, but the fact is you ARE MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM CANCER ONCE DIAGNOSED. You can’t argue with that. And no, trying doesn’t count.
[quote]Unaware wrote:
majicka wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Unaware wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s common sense. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that everyone can be provided top notch medical care, using the best uncurbed medical advances, with timely access to a supply of doctors that aren’t falling even further behind the demand. And, and, make it cheaper. And, and, the government can keep up with the costs. There’s a reason it sounds like utopian fantasy.
I’d like to hear them tell us the trade-offs in their own words, honestly. You all aren’t Santa Claus, so shoot straight with us. What are the trade offs?
Fair argument.
Can I ask though; does everyone currently have access to top notch medical care with a timely access to an unlimited supply of doctors? No, of course not. There is already rationing of health care, already a limited supply of doctors, and it’s already more expensive than the care found in most other industrialized nations, yet without that seeming to have any affect on our general health or life expectancy.
Now, obviously there are other factors involved. Obesity is an epidemic in the sates, the “Baby boomers” are all approaching senior citizenship (the most expensive bracket of the population in terms of health care), etc…
But people act like what we’ve got now is so wonderful, when it’s not. Change needs to occur, and while personally I like the idea of a public option (or maybe even simpler, just the option to buy into Medicare for all citizens), I’m open to hearing other legitimate suggestions. So far I haven’t heard any from the public option opposers (the political ones, not the ones on this site), only fear mongering, misinformation, and downright lies.
When controlled for accidents and cultural issues such as violence, don’t we have the best life expectancy?
no that we spend huge amounts of money per person more than other nations, particularly Canada and Europe and for the most part outside of high tech procedures (where we are very good) we don’t have any better health outcomes than they do.
were spending more and more and not getting any better returns. we give people a bunch of scans for head aches and broken toes because docs are afraid they’ll get sued and it shuts patients up and people think “well i might as well since insurance will cover it!”
we may have decent health care here, but were incredibly inefficient.
Now you are just making stuff up.
"(Cancer)Survival in the USA is high on a global scale "
The thing with cancer is detecting it ASAP. If you catch it early, your chances of beating it are much better, but if you wait until it’s terminal stage 4, you’re fucked. So if you have to wait in line to be seen, like my grandfather, by the time you are seen it’s too late.
I know Britain’s record on cancer survival is not great but at the same time I should point out that both my parents recently had cancer scares: both were seen by a Doctor within two weeks, which I don’t think is too bad. My Mother is also someone who has overcome breast cancer, so although the NHS can do a lot better on this, people are aware of it and improvements are starting to be made.
With who’s money? In case you haven’t looked, the country is broke. You can’t tax “rich” people anymore, they’re already leaving in droves.
I also find it amazing people discount numbers with personal anecdotes. The guy claimed that we don’t get anymore for the money which is a lie. No one said the NHS is medieval, but the fact is you ARE MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM CANCER ONCE DIAGNOSED. You can’t argue with that. And no, trying doesn’t count.
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to discount numbers at all. I was pointing out that CANCER DIAGNOSIS has recently been made a priority within the NHS, hence my personal anecdote of my parents being seen within two weeks. Because of this, the what is the validity of out-of-date findings?
[quote]Unaware wrote:
In case you haven’t looked, the country is broke. You can’t tax “rich” people anymore, they’re already leaving in droves.
[/quote]
Really? Sources, please.
[quote]majicka wrote:
Unaware wrote:
In case you haven’t looked, the country is broke. You can’t tax “rich” people anymore, they’re already leaving in droves.
Really? Sources, please.
[/quote]
“At the end of December 2008, general government debt was £750.3 billion”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125115257255854987.html
http://www.wealth-bulletin.com/home/content/1054524345/
This is not even including the effect of the companies that decide to headquarter other places to avoid the draconian tax laws here. And when the banks get fucked by the government they’ll move and take all their high salary employees with them.
[quote]majicka wrote:
Unaware wrote:
majicka wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Unaware wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s common sense. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that everyone can be provided top notch medical care, using the best uncurbed medical advances, with timely access to a supply of doctors that aren’t falling even further behind the demand. And, and, make it cheaper. And, and, the government can keep up with the costs. There’s a reason it sounds like utopian fantasy.
I’d like to hear them tell us the trade-offs in their own words, honestly. You all aren’t Santa Claus, so shoot straight with us. What are the trade offs?
Fair argument.
Can I ask though; does everyone currently have access to top notch medical care with a timely access to an unlimited supply of doctors? No, of course not. There is already rationing of health care, already a limited supply of doctors, and it’s already more expensive than the care found in most other industrialized nations, yet without that seeming to have any affect on our general health or life expectancy.
Now, obviously there are other factors involved. Obesity is an epidemic in the sates, the “Baby boomers” are all approaching senior citizenship (the most expensive bracket of the population in terms of health care), etc…
But people act like what we’ve got now is so wonderful, when it’s not. Change needs to occur, and while personally I like the idea of a public option (or maybe even simpler, just the option to buy into Medicare for all citizens), I’m open to hearing other legitimate suggestions. So far I haven’t heard any from the public option opposers (the political ones, not the ones on this site), only fear mongering, misinformation, and downright lies.
When controlled for accidents and cultural issues such as violence, don’t we have the best life expectancy?
no that we spend huge amounts of money per person more than other nations, particularly Canada and Europe and for the most part outside of high tech procedures (where we are very good) we don’t have any better health outcomes than they do.
were spending more and more and not getting any better returns. we give people a bunch of scans for head aches and broken toes because docs are afraid they’ll get sued and it shuts patients up and people think “well i might as well since insurance will cover it!”
we may have decent health care here, but were incredibly inefficient.
Now you are just making stuff up.
"(Cancer)Survival in the USA is high on a global scale "
The thing with cancer is detecting it ASAP. If you catch it early, your chances of beating it are much better, but if you wait until it’s terminal stage 4, you’re fucked. So if you have to wait in line to be seen, like my grandfather, by the time you are seen it’s too late.
I know Britain’s record on cancer survival is not great but at the same time I should point out that both my parents recently had cancer scares: both were seen by a Doctor within two weeks, which I don’t think is too bad. My Mother is also someone who has overcome breast cancer, so although the NHS can do a lot better on this, people are aware of it and improvements are starting to be made.
With who’s money? In case you haven’t looked, the country is broke. You can’t tax “rich” people anymore, they’re already leaving in droves.
I also find it amazing people discount numbers with personal anecdotes. The guy claimed that we don’t get anymore for the money which is a lie. No one said the NHS is medieval, but the fact is you ARE MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM CANCER ONCE DIAGNOSED. You can’t argue with that. And no, trying doesn’t count.
I wasn’t trying to discount numbers at all. I was pointing out that CANCER DIAGNOSIS has recently been made a priority within the NHS, hence my personal anecdote of my parents being seen within two weeks. Because of this, the what is the validity of out-of-date findings?[/quote]
How are they out of date? The study was published in 2008.
So if the insurance companies announce tomorrow they are going to tackle the number of uninsured, all statistics regarding uninsured people are now out of date? The crime reports are out of date because labor is working on it?
Facts aren’t “out of date” because you are trying to fix something.
[quote]Unaware wrote:
majicka wrote:
Unaware wrote:
majicka wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Unaware wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s common sense. To suggest otherwise, is to suggest that everyone can be provided top notch medical care, using the best uncurbed medical advances, with timely access to a supply of doctors that aren’t falling even further behind the demand. And, and, make it cheaper. And, and, the government can keep up with the costs. There’s a reason it sounds like utopian fantasy.
I’d like to hear them tell us the trade-offs in their own words, honestly. You all aren’t Santa Claus, so shoot straight with us. What are the trade offs?
Fair argument.
Can I ask though; does everyone currently have access to top notch medical care with a timely access to an unlimited supply of doctors? No, of course not. There is already rationing of health care, already a limited supply of doctors, and it’s already more expensive than the care found in most other industrialized nations, yet without that seeming to have any affect on our general health or life expectancy.
Now, obviously there are other factors involved. Obesity is an epidemic in the sates, the “Baby boomers” are all approaching senior citizenship (the most expensive bracket of the population in terms of health care), etc…
But people act like what we’ve got now is so wonderful, when it’s not. Change needs to occur, and while personally I like the idea of a public option (or maybe even simpler, just the option to buy into Medicare for all citizens), I’m open to hearing other legitimate suggestions. So far I haven’t heard any from the public option opposers (the political ones, not the ones on this site), only fear mongering, misinformation, and downright lies.
When controlled for accidents and cultural issues such as violence, don’t we have the best life expectancy?
no that we spend huge amounts of money per person more than other nations, particularly Canada and Europe and for the most part outside of high tech procedures (where we are very good) we don’t have any better health outcomes than they do.
were spending more and more and not getting any better returns. we give people a bunch of scans for head aches and broken toes because docs are afraid they’ll get sued and it shuts patients up and people think “well i might as well since insurance will cover it!”
we may have decent health care here, but were incredibly inefficient.
Now you are just making stuff up.
"(Cancer)Survival in the USA is high on a global scale "
The thing with cancer is detecting it ASAP. If you catch it early, your chances of beating it are much better, but if you wait until it’s terminal stage 4, you’re fucked. So if you have to wait in line to be seen, like my grandfather, by the time you are seen it’s too late.
I know Britain’s record on cancer survival is not great but at the same time I should point out that both my parents recently had cancer scares: both were seen by a Doctor within two weeks, which I don’t think is too bad. My Mother is also someone who has overcome breast cancer, so although the NHS can do a lot better on this, people are aware of it and improvements are starting to be made.
With who’s money? In case you haven’t looked, the country is broke. You can’t tax “rich” people anymore, they’re already leaving in droves.
I also find it amazing people discount numbers with personal anecdotes. The guy claimed that we don’t get anymore for the money which is a lie. No one said the NHS is medieval, but the fact is you ARE MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM CANCER ONCE DIAGNOSED. You can’t argue with that. And no, trying doesn’t count.
I wasn’t trying to discount numbers at all. I was pointing out that CANCER DIAGNOSIS has recently been made a priority within the NHS, hence my personal anecdote of my parents being seen within two weeks. Because of this, the what is the validity of out-of-date findings?
How are they out of date? The study was published in 2008.
So if the insurance companies announce tomorrow they are going to tackle the number of uninsured, all statistics regarding uninsured people are now out of date? The crime reports are out of date because labor is working on it?
Facts aren’t “out of date” because you are trying to fix something.
[/quote]
Did you see how old the data used is?
[quote]majicka wrote:
Did you see how old the data used is?[/quote]
Yes I did. Do you have a more recent one that shows a change?
Heres one from 2000-2002.
“Cancer-service infrastructure, prevention and screening programmes, access to diagnostic and treatment facilities, tumour-site-specific protocols, multidisciplinary management, application of evidence-based clinical guidelines, and recruitment to clinical trials probably account for most of the differences that we noted in outcomes.”