Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Andir - stop whining.  You failed to prevent a "socialist" government from coming to power, therefore you deserve everything you get from them.  If you're annoyed about it, go and become president.  If you don't, you're just lazy and shiftless.

I'd never get elected because I'm an atheist and I'd also never get a Democrat or Republican nomination.  I've covered that in the other thread.  Our country is so screwed up when it comes to that.  When religion trumps education as far as issues are concerned there's not much you are going to be able to do.  Also, I didn't "fail" to prevent it.  I voted and did everything in my power to stop it.  I even voted, just this week, in the primaries for the local and government officials that best fit my ideals.  Also, it's funny that you consider this conversation whining... no, it's sad really.  You are so diametrically set in your way that any alternative view is considered whining.

And thanks G-Flex for seeing what I was really talking about.  We are on the leading edge of health care technology.  We most likely have the best trained doctors and well equipped hospitals, but it's coming at a heavy cost.  Think of it like this.  Our healthcare industry is the early adopter type of video gamers.  The ones that go out and buy the top of the line equipment, but drain their pockets doing it.  The WHO Stats cover availability/cost in the rankings and I noted it's expense as a downside.  If I were able to pay whatever I needed, I wouldn't want to go anywhere else for care.

[Neruz]

The purpose of the healthcare industry is to, get this, provide healthcare. If it cannot actually do this, it's a pretty shitty healthcare industry.

The American healthcare system cannot actually provide healthcare to the majority of it's citizens. Why? Because it's too expensive. It doesn't matter if you have a doctor who can literally cure cancer by waving his fingers at people, if he only cures cancer in 10 rich people because noone else can afford his services, he's a shitty doctor. He's an amazing researcher; he's cured cancer! He's probably also an incredible scientist, because he's worked out how to cure cancer. But he's a really crap doctor, because he's not actually curing cancer.


Being on the leading edge in health care technology that noone can afford is not something to boast about. It is something to be ashamed of; you're proving you can have world class health care, if you actually got around to providing some.

[Andir]

Being on the leading edge in health care technology that noone can afford is not something to boast about. It is something to be ashamed of; you're proving you can have world class health care, if you actually got around to providing some.

I wasn't boasting.  I was stating (what I think to be pretty good) fact.  And I'm not disagreeing with you... I already said that expense was a problem.  (How many more times do I need to repeat this?)

[calrogman]

Speaking as a foreigner, who the f#$% would want to take over the United States?  It'd be like trying to keep a giant diseased ape in your apartment, that eats money and suffers from life threatening obesity and constant diarrhoea but viciously savages you every time you try to give it free healthcare.

[fenrif]

And thanks G-Flex for seeing what I was really talking about.  We are on the leading edge of health care technology.  We most likely have the best trained doctors and well equipped hospitals, but it's coming at a heavy cost.  Think of it like this.  Our healthcare industry is the early adopter type of video gamers.  The ones that go out and buy the top of the line equipment, but drain their pockets doing it.  The WHO Stats cover availability/cost in the rankings and I noted it's expense as a downside.  If I were able to pay whatever I needed, I wouldn't want to go anywhere else for care.

The WHO and commonwealth fund comparisons also factor in things like efficiency, effectiveness, timelines, safety, and other things. You don't come top on those either. It's not just expense that's the problem.

Having a handfull of excellent hospitals doesn't matter if the other hundred or so are terrible.

The point being that you don't have the best healthcare in the world. But you do have one of the most expensive healthcare systems. Other countries have all the same advances and treatments you do, but instead of only being available in the top 10 hospitals, and at extreme cost, they're available to everyone, and much cheaper.

[Andir]

The point being that you don't have the best healthcare in the world. But you do have one of the most expensive healthcare systems. Other countries have all the same advances and treatments you do, but instead of only being available in the top 10 hospitals, and at extreme cost, they're available to everyone, and much cheaper.

I already said that expense was a problem.  (How many more times do I need to repeat this?)

[3]

And while you keep stating that it is a problem, you don't appear to be realising that the issue is absolutely fundamental to the system working properly. It's not a problem, it's an utterly fatal flaw.

[fenrif]

The point being that you don't have the best healthcare in the world. But you do have one of the most expensive healthcare systems. Other countries have all the same advances and treatments you do, but instead of only being available in the top 10 hospitals, and at extreme cost, they're available to everyone, and much cheaper.

I already said that expense was a problem.  (How many more times do I need to repeat this?)

So you don't think the fact that your prohibitivly expensive system also being comparably innefficient, inneffective, unsafe is a problem either?

See i know you said expense was a problem, but what I did was I pointed out that the reason you don't have the best healthcare in the world (as you seem to think) is more because it's not as good as other countries in many other areas. The fact that it's expensive too just makes it more ridiculous.

(Note, I know i said the word expensive in this comment, please try to read all the other words too and not just post a reply to that one word, thanks)

[Andir]

The point being that you don't have the best healthcare in the world. But you do have one of the most expensive healthcare systems. Other countries have all the same advances and treatments you do, but instead of only being available in the top 10 hospitals, and at extreme cost, they're available to everyone, and much cheaper.

I already said that expense was a problem.  (How many more times do I need to repeat this?)

So you don't think the fact that your prohibitivly expensive system also being comparably innefficient, inneffective, unsafe is a problem either?

See i know you said expense was a problem, but what I did was I pointed out that the reason you don't have the best healthcare in the world (as you seem to think) is more because it's not as good as other countries in many other areas. The fact that it's expensive too just makes it more ridiculous.

(Note, I know i said the word expensive in this comment, please try to read all the other words too and not just post a reply to that one word, thanks)

Here:  http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp

America has the top 25 hospitals in the world... now don't lose me here... it might be expensive to get yourself to one of them... and it might be expensive to have the procedure you need done... but it doesn't mean that those 25 hospitals don't do the best damn work in the world.  Are you following along here?  If you are fatally ill and you need treatment... and expense is no issue... where would you go?  Would you go to the hospital ranked number 1 or the one ranked number 42 because France happens to top the list you provided?

The US has the top 118 of the top 200 hospitals in the world... As I said earlier... it's expensive, but it's the best.

Are you still following along?

Now, I'm not opposed to giving as many people access to this care as possible and I never said it wasn't a problem.  I get the idea that you think that's where I'm coming from... and you are blanket attacking me because you think I'm somehow totally opposed to giving people access to this...

[Andir]

And while you keep stating that it is a problem, you don't appear to be realising that the issue is absolutely fundamental to the system working properly. It's not a problem, it's an utterly fatal flaw.

It is a flaw, but I don't think Federalizing it is the solution.  I think each of our States can approach this problem with a solution and work out all the kinks to find a solution that works for the greater benefit of everyone...

Are we all on the same page here or is everyone going to keep attacking me because they think I said something they are diametrically opposed to?

[fenrif]

Here:  http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp

America has the top 25 hospitals in the world... now don't lose me here... it might be expensive to get yourself to one of them... and it might be expensive to have the procedure you need done... but it doesn't mean that those 25 hospitals don't do the best damn work in the world.  Are you following along here?  If you are fatally ill and you need treatment... and expense is no issue... where would you go?  Would you go to the hospital ranked number 1 or the one ranked number 42 because France happens to top the list you provided?

The US has the top 118 of the top 200 hospitals in the world... As I said earlier... it's expensive, but it's the best.

Are you still following along?

Now, I'm not opposed to giving as many people access to this care as possible and I never said it wasn't a problem.  I get the idea that you think that's where I'm coming from... and you are blanket attacking me because you think I'm somehow totally opposed to giving people access to this...

Lol you didn't read what that web-page was about did you? Did it take you long to find? Because that ranking page you linked too ranks hospital web pages, not their quality of service, efficiency, safety, or anything else to do with how good a hospital is. Thats what the WHO and commonwealth fund rankings look at. Remember how the US didn't come first in either of those? But don't let me get in the way of you being a patronizing ass.

If I was fatally ill, and expense was no issue, I'd build my own damn hospital. I'd be the only patient, and every doctor in the world would work there working on finding me and me alone a cure.

See, we're talking about the US healthcare system, not the top 25 hospitals. Even if those rankings you linked too were concerned with hospital quality, and not their webpage rankings it lists over 5000 hospitals as being in the US. Do you think having 25 good ones is a good ratio?

I'm not attacking you (well maybe a little, but only because you just copy-pasted a reply to one word of my comment without adressing the rest ), I'm pointing out that the USA doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world. Not that its expensive, thats a moot point, but that it just isn't the best. Top ten maybe, yeah, but not the best.

[Andir]

Lol you didn't read what that web-page was about did you? Did it take you long to find? Because that ranking page you linked too ranks hospital web pages, not their quality of service, efficiency, safety, or anything else to do with how good a hospital is. Thats what the WHO and commonwealth fund rankings look at. Remember how the US didn't come first in either of those? But don't let me get in the way of you being a patronizing ass.

If I was fatally ill, and expense was no issue, I'd build my own damn hospital. I'd be the only patient, and every doctor in the world would work there working on finding me and me alone a cure.

See, we're talking about the US healthcare system, not the top 25 hospitals. Even if those rankings you linked too were concerned with hospital quality, and not their webpage rankings it lists over 5000 hospitals as being in the US. Do you think having 25 good ones is a good ratio?

I'm not attacking you (well maybe a little, but only because you just copy-pasted a reply to one word of my comment without adressing the rest ), I'm pointing out that the USA doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world. Not that its expensive, thats a moot point, but that it just isn't the best. Top ten maybe, yeah, but not the best.

I see that... I'm still looking for a free resource for top hospitals that's a little better resource... sorry.

I'm not talking about "health care system" here.  I'm talking about health care, period.  Technologically, and statisitically you are better off in our country if you have no worry about expense.  That's my point and you seem to be missing it.

[fenrif]

No, I see your point, I just think you're wrong.

And since you can't seem to come up with any resource to support your opinion (and disagree with the World Health Orginization and the Commonwealth fund) I'm inclined to keep on thinking you're wrong. You just admitted you have no evidence for what you're saying.

You have allready reached a conclusion, and are ignoring evidence to the contrary while desperatly trying to find something that agrees with you.

[Andir]

(and disagree with the World Health Orginization and the Commonwealth fund)

I disagree with it because it evaluates coverage and expense.  It basically ranks countries by the health care system as a whole, to which I say it is probably true... but I fully believe that it's the expense and distribution factors alone that push it down as far as it is... I did see a list at one time ranking hospitals by mortality rates and such, but I can't seem to find it now.  The US was top in that list as well.  I mis-interpreted the above link as this same report before I went in to read the methodology of the list... so I admit to being wrong on that... but I do know for a fact that our hospitals rank above the rest in treatment success and mortality rates.

Edit: Gah... running out of time.  I have to travel today so I'm going to have to pick this up later.

[fenrif]

(and disagree with the World Health Orginization and the Commonwealth fund)

I disagree with it because it evaluates coverage and expense.  It basically ranks countries by the health care system as a whole, to which I say it is probably true... but I fully believe that it's the expense and distribution factors alone that push it down as far as it is... I did see a list at one time ranking hospitals by mortality rates and such, but I can't seem to find it now.  The US was top in that list as well.  I mis-interpreted the above link as this same report before I went in to read the methodology of the list... so I admit to being wrong on that... but I do know for a fact that our hospitals rank above the rest in treatment success and mortality rates.

Edit: Gah... running out of time.  I have to travel today so I'm going to have to pick this up later.

It evaluates expense AND all the other things I keep repeating. The Commonwealth fund scores in 5 categories... each seperate. Expense isn't even one of them. Each of those categories are sub-divided by other categories.