Page 29 of 143 FirstFirst ... 1924252627282930313233343979129 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 2855
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #561  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Have you actually been to Germany and the UK--There are no spikes in malpractice and no one waits a year for medical services.
    Hospitals with a year-long waiting list - Telegraph
  2. #562  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I invested quite a bit of time taking some of your points seriously only to come up empty when I actually looked into your 'data'. When I pointed out that your 'data' was not actually data, but interpreted results from separate surveys
    Yes, once you decided that "survey data isn't data", I had decided that it wasn't worth continuing to engage with you further. I can see my earlier decision was indeed the correct one.
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #563  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Originally Posted by zelgo
    And by the way, about 50% of drugs are from companies outside the US.

    Why do you think that is?


    Could it be that there are enterprising people and smart researchers outside the US too??? Imagine that--people just as smart as us all around the globe!
    Hmm, I would have expected something a little more obvious: like the fact that the US is only 5% of the worlds population. Now, lets see, 5% of the worlds population make, by your estimate, 50% of the worlds pharmaceuticals.

    Hmm...
  4. #564  
    You were not suppose to find that. Similar data is there for England and Canada. In the USA though, there is no year-long party.

  5. #565  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Note, the wait is for NON-emergent treatment--like a face lift or a breast implant. Also note that these are specific hospitals and that this was in 2007. The UK has been working on the issue diligently.
    true, also it has to be said in the UK NHS system the quality of service (and waitinglists) vary between regions.
    Where I live the service is pretty good, when I needed to get a mole removed I was expecting a waitinglist, but my doctor got an appointment within 2 weeks which was lots faster than I expected.
    Also the ante and post natal care is pretty good (I just became a dad for the 2nd time) including free dentalcare for pregnant women/new moms.
    All in all for me there is no reason to go private since the extra cost dont weight up to the benefits (but then again I hardly ever visit the doctor).

    but once again your milage may vary if you live in a different region..
    But in the end it is 'free' medidal care for all, which is a good starting point IMHO
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  6. #566  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yet, somehow, in Canada and the UK, they wouldn't trade their healthcare systems for anything. There would be rioting in the streets if you went back to the private insurance system.

    We, on the other hand, hate our system!

    Could it be that in the UK and Canada, things aren't as bad as conservatives here like to portray...
    Just a slight correction.....YOU hate our system. I don't hate our system. Not sure you can speak for everyone in the US or not....I guess you can....but not sure how you can. I speak to many who are quite happy with their plan they have now. Is it perfect, no way....just as UK's and Canada's system isn't....but is Big Government the only answer? Not in my opinion. It appears that the government is the only answer you have for problems that people have. It's just the difference between liberals and conservatives and we won't change each other's mind on that. I think we will agree on that!
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #567  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Does the length of my military service have any impact on health care? Or any other relevance, other than an implication that I'm an anti-war protester and Socialist?

    It sounds like another distraction from the issue, and an effort to portray an ideological disagreement as a referendum on "American-ness".
    I didn't imply that you were, or call you any of those things. I didn't imply anything. I asked a direct question. You might wish to calm down and try not being so shrill and defensive all the time.

    I just wanted to check and see if you'd earned the right to speak on our military's behalf, or knew enough about thier needs and concerns to speak for them.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #568  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Note, the wait is for NON-emergent treatment--like a face lift or a breast implant. There is NO wait for emergent care. Also note that these are specific hospitals and that this was in 2007. The UK has been working on the issue diligently.
    Now you're just being disingenuous. To characterize elective treatments as merely cosmetic is just silly. What about angioplasty or hip and other joint replacements? These things can not only prolong life but reduce debilitating pain and limitations in mobility. But, hey, we don't really need those.

    If you don't want UK's system, don't take it. Try Germany's, Frances, Italy's, or Taiwan's--all have better outcomes than we do; all have better access to doctors and hospitals than we do; all are much less expensive than ours--and unlike our system--NO WAITS! Taiwan even has more MRIs and CT Scans per capita than we do--NO WAITS!
    All of those countries you mentioned are facing their own reforms because the governments can't pay for them. If I were forced to choose I would probably go with something like the French model because at least there's some room for private insurance and, oddly, they seem to have less industry regulation.
    Last edited by groovy; 07/23/2009 at 11:42 AM.
  9. #569  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I didn't imply that you were, or call you any of those things. I didn't imply anything. I asked a direct question. You might wish to calm down and try not being so shrill and defensive all the time.

    I just wanted to check and see if you'd earned the right to speak on our military's behalf, or knew enough about thier needs and concerns to speak for them.
    Did I speak for the concerns of the military ever? I don't recall doing so. If you can find a statement in which I did, please let me know. My comment about supporting our military (a) was a joke, as evidenced by the fact that I said "tongue in cheek" in the post itself, and (b) even if it wasn't, I wasn't aware that only those in military service were allowed to make a statement in support of the troops. As I said, an attempt to distract, to paint me as less "American", as evidenced by the next post, accusing me of being an anti-war protester, while others fight for my rights.

    Distractions, distractions... it's been that way about health care reform since the Truman administration.
    Last edited by Bujin; 07/23/2009 at 11:11 AM.
  10. #570  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Yes, once you decided that "survey data isn't data", I had decided that it wasn't worth continuing to engage with you further.
    You are creating that stance out of whole cloth. I never said survey data was not data. In statistics, one must be able to make a differentiation between raw survey results (data) and the conclusions that might be drawn from those results (information). Let's say that you use simple Likert-scale questions (where agreement and disagreement with a statement are coded from 1-5 or 1-10 commonly). The raw data might show that out of X respondents, Y people answered 5, Z people answered 4, etc. We can then make statements like [(Y+Z)/X]*100 percent agreed with the question. The statements that we draw from the data are usually where the real value lies. However, if the data doesn't support it, then its value is false.

    I said the original statement in question was not the survey data, which it wasn't. It was an interpretation of results from a separate survey conducted by a separate entity. I also said that the survey data which supposedly was the source of the statement did not not support the statement. I then inquired whether you actually read the survey data which the statement was supposedly based upon or if you meant to cite a different survey. You then created this straw man where I was just one of the ideologues not buying into the data because it didn't support my ideology. I clarified that I had actually read the data and didn't see anything particularly wrong with the data or methodology, but that it did not in fact support your point that I could find.
    I can see my earlier decision was indeed the correct one.
    If your goal was to avoid having to support your point, I suppose that could be a valid stance.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #571  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Who's saying anything about big government with the new healthcare proposals???

    It just wants to cover the uninsured and look at comparative effectiveness of different drugs and procedures. It's about bring our costs down and increasing our healthcare quality--Why do conservatives keep spouting lies that it will enlarge our government?? (Of course these same conservatives didn't say a thing when Bush enlarged our government by 4 times with Homeland Security...)

    Here is a survey of American's regarding our healthcare system: 80% are dissatisfied with the cost and 54% are dissatisfied with the quality.

    http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7572.pdf

    Other surveys have shown that we tend to give our own system a C- grade or below.

    Yes, Americans really hate our own system--which is why politicians are spending poilitical capital to even try to deal with the problem.
    You would have fried me had I used a 2006 poll to back up any of my statements. What you fail to mention is that as Americans actually learn FACTS about the plans out there, they are losing faith in them (Poll: Public support for Obama on healthcare dips to 49% - Los Angeles Times) and are starting to like their current plans much better.

    Again, I have not said that health care doesn't need to be repaired, all I'm saying is that a "universal" health care plan is not the only solution. Obama dodged many questions last night in his "press conference" (his press conferences are actually just speeches broken up to try and fit the questions) and one being the ultimate goal, which is to run the private plans out of busines. He denied that, but try competing against a government funded anything and they will beat you every time from a financial stand point. The government can lose money and still stay around becaue then they just go to their shareholders (that would be us) and force us to "invest" (that is taxes) more to keep their money losing business in business.

    If it was just about the truly uninsured (rather than folks that shouldn't be lumped into that mythical 47 million figure) I think more Americans would possibly be on board. However, I think Americans are seeing what this really is, a take over of the whole system by the Government and most Americans really don't want that based on their experiences with other social programs.
  12. #572  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Where is the government running healthcare in Obama's health plan?? Stop spreading this lie to scare people.

    In the European single-payer plans, they do limit medicine types--but based on what works and doesn't work. There's tons of research behind every move.

    In the US, the drug companies are busy creating new, very expensive drugs that don't really work any better than older, cheaper drugs--they wine and dine doctors so they prescribe them.

    By the way, have you looked at YOUR drug plan? Like most Americans, you probably don't even have one... If you do, your drugs are limited too. For the drugs that aren't limited, you pay less of a co-pay for the ones the insurance company favors--so you are more likely to request the cheaper one.

    Yes, there's rationing here too already.
    LOL...yes....I have looked at my drug plan. I have an HSA plan and so I look at the medications I occasionally have to take quite closely. Trust me, when costs come from your pocket you look at such things quite closely and make sure you get the right medication, but the least expensive medication. I am fortunate that I only have to take a $5.60 generic medication each month (though the doctor originally prescribed an $85 per month brand name).

    But, I also am quite aware that certain medications either need approval first or even have a limit on how many you can get. You see, some people would get a prescription and sell the pills on the black market, so insurance companies had to try and discourage this. It is a step that is annoying to some, but there are reasons. It's also to prevent the abuse of medications. My point was that I believe, based on what I hear people say, that some people believe they will not be restricted on medications or treatments if the wonderful government is in control of our healthcare, and that simply isn't true. Apparently you agree with me on that. We have progress!
  13. Clack's Avatar
    Posts
    251 Posts
    Global Posts
    262 Global Posts
    #573  
    Look to England to find out just what Socialized medicine will cost you and your loved ones.
    "We must not contradict, but instruct him that contradicts us; for a madman is not cured by another running mad also." - Dr. An Wang
  14. #574  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    No, actually I read them, checked them against the bill itself, and found that they were just plain wrong. Not "a different interpretation", but simply dead wrong.
    Which is more than you did before you posted them as "truth"

    You didn't need to read 1017 pages, but perhaps the actual bullets would have been a minimal effort. It's okay - I know it's easier to simply follow along than to check facts for yourself.
    If you'll refer to posts 585 and 593, I did another "cut and paste" where I prove I was correct and you, apparently, didn't read the full text (which I don't really blame you, it's not a fun read). My only error was having the wrong pages (I will take full blame for that), but the words inside HR 3200 back up the statements I originally listed.
  15. Clack's Avatar
    Posts
    251 Posts
    Global Posts
    262 Global Posts
    #575  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    An angioplasty is NOT an elective procedure. Joint replacements are elective depending how emergently they are needed.
    Joint replacement is not an elective proceedure. The priority, however, is how much function has been lost in the existing joint.

    And lets not get start on abortion. The rights of that proceedure would change faster than a breeze through the male locker room at a high school gym.

    Socialied Health care is a bad idea who's time has long passed.
    "We must not contradict, but instruct him that contradicts us; for a madman is not cured by another running mad also." - Dr. An Wang
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #576  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    An angioplasty is NOT an elective procedure.
    Not necessarily but it often is, in fact, elective.

    More later...
  17. #577  
    You spoke of a 2 week wait period to remove a mole. I had one removed the same day I went in to the doctor. Called for an appointment on Tuesday, in on Wednesday, mole gone Wednesday and life continued. Service like this is routine system wide and does not vary between regions.

    We all speak of the pro's and con's. I have heard interviews of real live humans living in countries - in fact a female from Canada testifying in front of our illustrious Congress about the long wait time she had in Canada, a trip to the US for an exam, back to Canada to have surgery done by her doctor, her doctor refusing to look at the medical record from the US, her subsequent trip back to the US for treatment.

    We also see the US citizen testify about lack of treatment and really that is not the norm at all. I know no one who has been refused service. However, look at Chicago University, home of Mrs Michelle Obama and her famous initiative - they actually refused service to POOR patients and NONINSURED patients! Yeah, proven fact. In fact, when Barry got his Senate seat she got a pay raise!!!!!!! Goodness, if that is not just great. Their game has continued since that time and continues to this day. The left says whatever is necessary to get what it wants and DOES not deliver on its statements. Barry has a record of this. His last speech about it being deficit neutral - no effect on the budget or the American consumer - his own Congressional Office money people (not related to Microsoft) state just the opposite.

    In my case, many of you in this topic area are aware that my wife has lung cancer, the cancer spread to the liver and so forth. The company that provides medical oxygen for her existence does so under the insurance plan from the company I work for. That plan provides for a home concentrator and an unlimited supply of portable oxygen tanks to use as needed (going out, appointements, et cetera). My out of pocket expense with this company under this insurance plan is $24 a month. Without this coverage (provided by my company with a $254 per month portion out of my wages), my out of pocket expense on only the concentrator is $400 a month. With the government approved coverage I was advised by the company: either the concentrator or the tanks (and only a limited supply) - not both and that with an out of pocket cost of $200 a month. So you tell me - which works. The government type does not work. The insurance and subsequent TDI provided to my wife from the company she worked for did (it allowed concentrator and tanks) with a higher cost than my insurance and MY insurance provides even better coverage. The government insurance does not. The government insurance means that with no portable oxygen = no going out for anything in anything short of an ambulance ride, which with no insurance is over $1,500 per ride; her insurance $90 per ride and substantially lower with the insurance I currently have.

    So - you tell me which is better. Government? Mine? Put your glasses on and do not stutter like the president does.


    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    true, also it has to be said in the UK NHS system the quality of service (and waitinglists) vary between regions.
    Where I live the service is pretty good, when I needed to get a mole removed I was expecting a waitinglist, but my doctor got an appointment within 2 weeks which was lots faster than I expected.
    Also the ante and post natal care is pretty good (I just became a dad for the 2nd time) including free dentalcare for pregnant women/new moms.
    All in all for me there is no reason to go private since the extra cost dont weight up to the benefits (but then again I hardly ever visit the doctor).

    but once again your milage may vary if you live in a different region..
    But in the end it is 'free' medidal care for all, which is a good starting point IMHO
  18. #578  
    A longer, healthier life? How so if it takes weeks, months or longer to get treatment? how is that better? It is not and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    A longer, healthier life, perhaps?
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #579  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    It's elective after you've died from the heart attack?

    It's not considered elective in Europe as it isn't here.
    With all due respect, you seem to be very emphatic about this but apparently not well-informed. Look it up.
  20. #580  
    Drug coverage? You speak of that. Europe limits it on cost. When quality of life enters the scope, then drug coverage drops drastically - that is the bottom line. You speak of drugs that do not work created in the USA? Ok, but my wife has used some of those drugs and all but one worked very well. The other one did not - at least though the treatment with other drugs did not stop. Government running health care in Obama's health plan? Ain't no lies being spread at all. Czars created left/right that answer only to him. What he states he wants is not going to happen - only words to get what he wants and needs - a legacy.

    As for the drug plan - most do have them. When in Florida my coverage had it and so did my wife. Here in paradise I had drug coverage, my wife did not. But frankly, even though the expenses for her until moved to my coverage where high, at no time were we ever denied any medication in the treatment of her lung cancer. Never. One of those medications was a pill that hit at $3,000 per prescription for a 3 month period ($9,000) with no drug coverage that I paid for out of my pocket by making payments for it. No problem at all. None. So really, stop scaring people.



    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Where is the government running healthcare in Obama's health plan?? Stop spreading this lie to scare people.

    In the European single-payer plans, they do limit medicine types--but based on what works and doesn't work. There's tons of research behind every move.

    In the US, the drug companies are busy creating new, very expensive drugs that don't really work any better than older, cheaper drugs--they wine and dine doctors so they prescribe them.

    By the way, have you looked at YOUR drug plan? Like most Americans, you probably don't even have one... If you do, your drugs are limited too. For the drugs that aren't limited, you pay less of a co-pay for the ones the insurance company favors--so you are more likely to request the cheaper one.

    Yes, there's rationing here too already.

Posting Permissions