Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by dblack View Post
    Do you really think that the only options are to concede to a government takeover of health care or shut up and die? I realize this is what they're selling (government/corporate collusion is your only hope!!!!), but I think it's a very bad 'option'.
    What else is there? How do I get my career back since it has been shipped overseas and how do I make enough money to pay the tens of thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes to deal with my new "gift"? I am thirty fucking nine years old and have a stress related heart condition, no job, exhausted savings and barely making ends meet on paltry unemployment combined with intermittent work in fields like landscaping, construction and fucking dog sitting. I used to make nearly 80k per year as a creative professional and paid my own way never asking for anything. Now I am fucking poor...literally. I was just getting back on my feet after a series of unfortunate events in my life and the wind hath been sucked form my sails.

    I am sorry but it seems you are advocating handing power over to corporations. I would rather have a "bigger" government that protects me from this bullshit than a corporate model that tells to to just die if I cannot afford to pay for my own healthcare.

    The real joke is on you because universal healthcare is active now in the form of charity care. I have to wait as long a 7 hours at the hospital because that many people are using it right now and all that cost comes right out of the taxpayer's pocket.

    UHC will merge medicare and medicaid and eliminate health insurance companies which will streamline the process, bring costs down because profit would not factor in. Most people would pay far less in taxes per year than they would in medical expenses each year. They would not have to go bankrupt when a family member comes down with cancer like my stepfather did when my mother died of cancer in 1992 and like my brother-in-law did when my sister died in 2010. They would not face financial turmoil in the event of a serious accident. Americans would actually go to the doctor more for things like preventative care which also limits costs long-term.

    I am also open to making people pay medical surcharges for things like drug addiction and obesity or any other condition resulting form people taking poor care of themselves to offset their costs but a univesalr heallthcare system makes sense. It takes the profit out of the equation. It would also mean that the goverbemtn would have to take over ALL medical research....none of that should be subject to patent law. If a cure for cancer is discovered....all Americans should have access just for being a citizen and paying taxes without having to take extra money out of pocket.

    But I digress, if people insist on not having UHC, I will be content to get continued free healthcare on their dime via charity care, because I want to live and I will do whatever I have to withing my means. You cannot deny me my survival.

    ?


    • #92
      Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

      Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors - Telegraph

      Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

      Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

      Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

      The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "outrageous" and "disgraceful".
      About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

      Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.

      ?


      • #93
        Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

        Originally posted by Mrs. M View Post
        Oh geez....:rolleyes:
        A poster saying that the anti-single payer position amounts to "shut up and die" is not being hyperbolic, but a poster telling how it actually is under single-payer is being hyperbolic. Got it.

        ?


        • #94
          Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

          Originally posted by adaher View Post
          Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors - Telegraph

          Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

          Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

          Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

          The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "outrageous" and "disgraceful".
          About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

          Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
          And this is suppose to confirm that the US government will "help you along"?

          ?


          • #95
            Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

            As long as we keep away from a single-payer system, we won't have the government encouraging people to just go away to save the system money. Unlike the NHS:

            Sentenced to death on the NHS - Telegraph

            In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

            Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

            But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

            As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

            “Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

            ?


            • #96
              Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

              And I left out because I can't find the links anymore the story of a woman who was conscious yet determined to be beyond help. She was denied water. She had to call the police to get water. The nurses responded by taking her phone away.

              Or the poll of doctors that determined that doctors won't tell patients of treatments that could save their lives if they aren't covered by the NHS. Wouldn't want the patients to know they are dying because of the government.

              ?


              • #97
                Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                By affordability, yes. Single payer wins hands down. However, the continental European systems, which are multi-payer, seem to have the best mix of affordability and good outcomes. You need the competition from for profit health care to keep the government honest.

                I'm not a fan of anecdotes either. I prefer data. and when we look at actual data, we find again that single-payer systems are inferior to multi-payer systems in almost every respect. The love of single-payer, much like the love of free market health care, is 99% ideological, 1% empirical.

                ?


                • #98
                  Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                  Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                  ahoy adaher,

                  if ye could do me the courtesy, please link the comparative studies. i'd kinda favor a single payor system, which also had leeway fer them to afford more, to have more. kinda like our schools here in America. everyone has public schools, but if ye have the monies, ye can go to a better private school...the thing is, everyone has access to some kinda school.

                  i've an open mind, matey, and i likes to learn new things and gain perspective - lets see them studies.

                  - MeadHallPirate
                  The 'for profit' private insurance we have now is not based on sound economic theory. Anyone with a hint of understanding of a market transaction can see that the patient does not have leverage in the transaction. And there is a built in conflict in our current system. The incentive for the patient is to get the best care. The incentive for the insurance provider is to find a way to deny care to increase profit.

                  If a patient is diagnosed with cancer and denied coverage for treatment, what is the patient's leverage? 'I will take my business elsewhere...IN ANOTHER LIFE???'

                  Insurance corporations know they can't compete with a government plan. The Medicare program that we have is a government-run program that has administrative expenses around 3%. Private insurance corporation administrative expense is around 20-30%.

                  America’s Health Care System at the Bottom of the Heap

                  A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

                  Mortality Rates

                  The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

                  Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

                  1. Ireland
                  2. United Kingdom
                  3. New Zealand
                  4. Austria
                  5. Australia
                  6. Italy
                  7. Finland
                  8. Japan
                  9. Spain
                  10. Sweden
                  11. Canada
                  12. Netherlands
                  13. France
                  14. Norway
                  15. Greece
                  16. Germany
                  17. USA
                  18. Portugal
                  19. Switzerland

                  America ranks number one in cost per GDP but ranks 17th out of 19 industrialized countries in mortality rates. The top 15 countries all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.


                  No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
                  Edmund Burke

                  ?


                  • #99
                    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                    Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                    ahoy adaher,

                    if ye could do me the courtesy, please link the comparative studies. i'd kinda favor a single payor system, which also had leeway fer them to afford more, to have more. kinda like our schools here in America. everyone has public schools, but if ye have the monies, ye can go to a better private school...the thing is, everyone has access to some kinda school.
                    That's fine, you mean something like what France has: basic medical care is provided under a single-payer system, but it's recognized that the government safety net is a floor. Most citizens get supplemental health insurance.


                    i've an open mind, matey, and i likes to learn new things and gain perspective - lets see them studies.
                    Not studies, stats. Well, you're familiar with the ones on cost, since you know single-payer is cheapest and ours is the most expensive.

                    Cancer survival rates, according to the Lancet:

                    Health care: You get what you pay for | The Economist

                    And in wait times, Canada and the UK tend to do pretty poorly, while Germany is the gold standard. Germany, incidentally, is not single-payer. The US record on wait times is mixed. We seem to have a shortage of primary care physicians, but we do well with specialists, diagnostic tests, and surgeries.

                    Wait Times For Medical Care: How The US Actually Measures Up - Better Health



                    - MeadHallPirate[/QUOTE]

                    ?


                    • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                      Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post

                      If a patient is diagnosed with cancer and denied coverage for treatment, what is the patient's leverage? 'I will take my business elsewhere...IN ANOTHER LIFE???'
                      The same problem applies to government health care: except you are less likely to find out about alternative treatments.

                      Insurance corporations know they can't compete with a government plan. The Medicare program that we have is a government-run program that has administrative expenses around 3%. Private insurance corporation administrative expense is around 20-30%.
                      Then why the necessity of outlawing private insurance in Britain and Canada for basic treatment? In continental Europe, private competes with public just fine. Most people choose public, to be sure, but that's based on cost considerations. Those that can afford the private do so because it is superior.



                      A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for all adults (15-74 years old) and for just the older population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much bang for the buck each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

                      Mortality Rates

                      The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.
                      Mortality rates are reliant on a lot more than the quality of health care. My two stats, on wait times and cancer survival rates, are at least mostly related to or completely related to the quality of health care, whereas mortality rates can be attributed to the fact that Americans drive like crap and eat too much fast food.

                      ?


                      • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                        Originally posted by Haplo View Post
                        And that is why government-run health care will be the single most intrusive policy we could possibly allow. No one wants to subsidize bad behavior, and they are right. But in order to prevent that from happening in a government system, we will have to submit to the authority of "lifestyle police."
                        What do you know about government-run health care? Ever live anywhere outside America that has it?

                        When Michele Bachmann gives up her socialized medicine she gets from being an elected rep, as well as all the other conservatives in gov't who enjoy universal healthcare, then Republicans will have at least one leg to stand on on this issue.

                        ?


                        • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                          Originally posted by adaher View Post
                          The same problem applies to government health care: except you are less likely to find out about alternative treatments.



                          Then why the necessity of outlawing private insurance in Britain and Canada for basic treatment? In continental Europe, private competes with public just fine. Most people choose public, to be sure, but that's based on cost considerations. Those that can afford the private do so because it is superior.





                          Mortality rates are reliant on a lot more than the quality of health care. My two stats, on wait times and cancer survival rates, are at least mostly related to or completely related to the quality of health care, whereas mortality rates can be attributed to the fact that Americans drive like crap and eat too much fast food.
                          Health insurance in Canada has not been outlawed.

                          Canada has a private-public mix on health care, with the base of it being a single payer system.

                          Government in Canada does not "run" health care or provide services. Health care providers do.

                          ?


                          • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                            Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
                            What do you know about government-run health care? Ever live anywhere outside America that has it?

                            When Michele Bachmann gives up her socialized medicine she gets from being an elected rep, as well as all the other conservatives in gov't who enjoy universal healthcare, then Republicans will have at least one leg to stand on on this issue.
                            Actually, doesn't Congress use the federal employees' health care exchange? That's not single-payer.

                            ?


                            • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                              Originally posted by adaher View Post
                              The same problem applies to government health care: except you are less likely to find out about alternative treatments.



                              Then why the necessity of outlawing private insurance in Britain and Canada for basic treatment? In continental Europe, private competes with public just fine. Most people choose public, to be sure, but that's based on cost considerations. Those that can afford the private do so because it is superior.





                              Mortality rates are reliant on a lot more than the quality of health care. My two stats, on wait times and cancer survival rates, are at least mostly related to or completely related to the quality of health care, whereas mortality rates can be attributed to the fact that Americans drive like crap and eat too much fast food.
                              PLEASE stop chopping up my posts.

                              You are ignoring the built in conflict in our system that works against patient care...it is called PROFIT, and when it comes before patients, it is IMMORAL!

                              The U.S. already rations care. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care, you get it; if you cant, you dont. A recent study found that 45,000 Americans die every year because they dont have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. Thats rationing. Other countries do not ration in this way.

                              If there is this much rationing, why dont we hear about it? And if other countries ration less, why do we hear about them? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable, and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public; ours are not. For example, in Canada, when waits for care emerged in the 1990s, Parliament hotly debated the causes and solutions. Most provinces have also established formal reporting systems on waiting lists, with wait times for each hospital posted on the Internet. This public attention has led to recent falls in waits there.

                              In U.S. health care, no one is ultimately accountable for how the system works. No one takes full responsibility. Rationing in our system is carried out covertly through financial pressure, forcing millions of individuals to forgo care or to be shunted away by caregivers from services they cant pay for.

                              More

                              ?


                              • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                                Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
                                Health insurance in Canada has not been outlawed.

                                Canada has a private-public mix on health care, with the base of it being a single payer system.

                                Government in Canada does not "run" health care or provide services. Health care providers do.
                                Until a court decision in 2005, it was illegal to pay cash for private health services covered under Medicare.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X