health care
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:23 In article <MPG.25eb179794f3ed15989c2b(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <4b814ab3$0$4847$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:42:46 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4b81404d$0$4875$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:21:52 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >>> In article <c25cede8-f26f-4fe0-b9de-5587f383cb03 > > >>> @t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > >>>> On Feb 20, 7:12�pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > >>>>> On 20-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> The fact that other OECD countries are not having a civil war > > >>>>>> about health care the way we are kind of suggests that they don't > > >>>>>> think they've jumped off a bridge. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What they think about their situation is irrelevant. > > >>>> > > >>>> And I thought you were smart. > > >>> > > >>> The French built the Maginot Line. Should England and Canada done the > > >>> same thing after WWI? > > >> > > >> The French also built a much superior healthcare system than the US > > >> did. > > > > > > That is your opinion. > > > > Average life expectancy: > > http://goo.gl/fZQW > > > > Cost of healthcare as percentage of gross GDP: > > http://www.who.int/entity/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Table7.pdf > > Go live in France. Carbon wins again!
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:25 In article <co50o5dvgbhlo1d5etjuc7nvn1qejcncua(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:52:34 -0800 (PST), "John B." > <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >And while you're at it, find an industrialized country whose health > >care costs are as large a proportion of GDP as ours, or consume as > >much of the federal budget as ours. > > If you want the best, you have to pay for it. Would you rather pay > less and die or pay more and live? Or would you rather just live longer? As you will do in 49 countries ahead of the US.
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:29 In article <vn11o51qail8fcldpu171g7hqqctbp70vu(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:20:36 -0800 (PST), "John B." > <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Feb 20, 12:09=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:52:34 -0800 (PST), "John B." > >> > >> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >And while you're at it, find an industrialized country whose health > >> >care costs are as large a proportion of GDP as ours, or consume as > >> >much of the federal budget as ours. > >> > >> If you want the best, you have to pay for it. =A0Would you rather pay > >> less and die or pay more and live? > > > >That is a gross oversimplification of a complicated issue. There is no > >empirical evidence that the U.S. health care system is "the best." > >Even if it is, how much better is it than the UK's, or France's? > > > If you look at cancer survival rates the US is miles ahead of the UK. > The lancet article didn't have data from France, but I doubt that they > are better than Sweden which comes close to the US survival rate. > > To me results are the most important. If you get cancer, you're more > likely to survive in the US than any other country. That speaks for a > lot. Life expectancy is meaningless because physicians can't control > the bad behavior of their patients. > > I would never see a physician who did not graduate and do his/her > residency in the US. The US does not fare well in deaths per 1,000 of population from cancer, having the 9th highest death rate. Your argument is simply BS, again. Oops.
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:29 In article <q250o5deflv6ua7r9j4jhjpg085n5d44g3(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:24:40 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >Please find a country on the planet that has higher cancer survival > >rates. > > They can't because there are none. > > For men, Sweden ranks second, but is still 6% below the US. If you > think of how many people get cancer every year, this represents > thousands of Swedes who die that would have survived in the US. Just > look at the UK. It should be a national scandal. For men in > Scotland, the survival rate for cancer is 26.1% below the US. That > means that for every 100 men who get cancer 26 more of them die in > Scotland. That's over one in four. The NHS is a disgrace. What > amazes me is that the people of the UK don't demand an end to the NHS > and adopt a private system like the US. Anyone who thinks that there > is better health care than the USA is living in a ideological fantasy > world. > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest- > in-Europe.html http://tiny.cc/YHkKI Read it and weep, Jack.
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:36
In article <MPG.25eb6cd763fcf597989c34(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <4b819ec2$0$21448$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:56:56 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 11:21�am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:59:01 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >>> In article <4b81550b$0$4862$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > >>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >>>> > > >>>>>> You're insane. This health denial system you're so fond of is > > >>>>>> probably going to let this guy die. But not before spending > > >>>>>> thousands on chemo for something that probably could have been > > >>>>>> treated much less expensively months ago. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I like how you have started to call it the "health denial system" > > >>>>> it is cute, it is not effective but, it is cute. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Your friend should have engaged the medical system earlier. He has > > >>>>> no one to blame except himself. As the statics show the sooner a > > >>>>> person is treated for cancer the greater the survival rate. > > >>>> > > >>>> Perhaps there should be armed guards at the hospitals to keep the > > >>>> sick away. Those who would cost the healthcare system too much > > >>>> money could be hauled out back and shot. Problem solved, eh Bert? > > >>>> After all, the poor have no one to blame but themselves. > > >>> > > >>> Not to keep the sick away, just the smelly people out? You know the > > >>> ones you found offensive when you last visited the ER. > > >> > > >> You almost never say anything prescriptive, about what should be > > >> done. Here is your chance. What should happen with the hundreds of > > >> thousands of people like my friend, who lost their jobs and insurance > > >> in the recession and then became sick. Should they be forcibly > > >> removed from the hospitals and left to die, to keep your taxes and > > >> insurance premiums as low as possible? Should they be shot in the > > >> back of the head, since that solution is even cheaper? Please, > > >> impress us with your humanity. > > > > > > So why didn't you cover his costs? If you expect other people to do > > > so, then so should you. > > > > What is the point of this idiotic statement? > > It shows that you are truly not concerned about your friend and helping > him with his predicament. You are only using your friend as an argument > to push your political agenda. No, it shows that you, Bertie ol' chap, are a brain frozen idealogue, without a spark of simple human decency. |