'I wouldn't be here if not for the NHS': Stephen Hawking defends UK's 'Orwellian' healthcare a

reply to post by WhatTheory


It's on this page and the last page, posted by both myself and Kinda Kurious.,, it's easy to see, the link has CIA in big blue letters in it.

I've told where it is and what it looks like, but I'm not doing all the work for you, after all, I'm not a capitalist and you ain't my boss

OK, I turned the page so that didn't make sense.

In that case...
www.cia.gov...

www.un.org...

The UN report is on World Population Prospects and contains a lot of information.
If you are going to try and debunk it, you're going to need some really comprehensive sources.

Not "Gun Monthly"



[edit on 13/8/2009 by budski]

reply to post by WhatTheory


It appears you are reposting old replies.
This reply is the EXACT SAME as was posted on Page 6.
(At least provide a link as you've done many times to minimize wasted bandwidth / reading.) Thanks.

I think members here have the intelligence to read through the thread without having to see old information re-hashed like a broken record.

If you have no fresh perspective, why not let your prior posts stand and refrain from posting? Unless you simply like to argue.

C'mon man. NOTHING has been "Debunked."

On Topic:

Let's redirect back to OP and discuss Britian vs. US comparisons.

This Gallup report discusses "Satisfaction" among citizens.

The Availability of Affordable Healthcare

44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).

Bottom Line

In all three countries, there is great variation of opinion within the population on both the quality of medical care and the availability of affordable healthcare. It is a testament to national health systems that people in Canada and Great Britain are significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare than their American counterparts are.

Gallup Source

(Sorry the Japanese suicide argument was getting to me.) I was about to do a Kamikaze.

Carry on.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Scott W Atlas(I bet the W stands for merchant banker!)

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”

I call BS on that report,it is clear that he is working for big companies and doesnt want the staus quo to change

Pathetic scaremongers!

I would love the NHS to sue for slander the author of that rancid youtube vid posted here by Weedwacker.

Originally posted by budski
The UN report is on World Population Prospects and contains a lot of information.
If you are going to try and debunk it, you're going to need some really comprehensive sources.

Oh boy, where to begin.
For starters, I don't care about the UN report because as I stated earlier, they are even more corrupt and biased than the WHO.

As far as the CIA report, all I can say is that it's fairly useless since they don't cite their sources. For all I know, they are using the WHO and UN bogus reports as their source since the site you linked is a WORLD factbook.

The CIA says on that World Factbook site that they will not release their sources. So it's obvious this report is not a independent investigation. They are only spewing data from other sources which they will not reveal.
Source Link

The Factbook staff uses many different sources to publish what we judge are the most reliable and consistent data for any particular category. Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources.

Wow, how convienent of them.

We all know how important sources are especially when debating online so since the CIA will not release the sources, the entire Factbook site is bogus. Nice try though.

Oh, and you still have not commented on the facts presented in my links which totally debunk the WHO ranking system along with the Life Expectancy rates.


[edit on 8/13/2009 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by System

Why is the NHS Orwellian?

Americans call NHS Orwellian since they have to pay for it whether they use it or not.

The fact that their defense budget is being misused as an offense budget is something which has escaped their notice though, or something which clearly does not upset them. Morality of the Obamacare aside, from a pure money perspective, the healthcare tax is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to the 1/3 GDP or whatever ridiculous amount which is spent on "defense"

reply to post by WhatTheory


That's because they've already been addressed by another poster.

Twice.

Once here and once on page 6.

So, now, what you are saying is that the CIA are unreliable when it comes to this.

Try actually reading the articles and sources and then providing material which supports your point, rather than just spouting about unreliability.

Youi seem to do a lot of that, and yet provide surprisingly little evidence to support your own stance

And yet I seem to remember you found the CIA completely reliable when it came to Iraqs WMD's

Funny that

Originally posted by kinda kurious
It appears you are reposting old replies.

Beause people are posting the same repetative old comments and opinions.

This reply is the EXACT SAME as was posted on Page 6.

Technically this is not true since I added a sentence or two in the beginning. Keep trying and one day you might be correct.

I think members here have the intelligence to read through the thread without having to see old information re-hashed like a broken record.

I think you would be incorrect since members keep rehashing their same old tired arguments over and over again even though they have been debunked.

C'mon man. NOTHING has been "Debunked."

Every point made in this thread has been debunked.

I keep asking you to provide the incorrect information presented in the links I provided but you cannot.

Originally posted by budski
what you are saying is that the CIA are unreliable when it comes to this.

No, that is your misinterpretation.
They are not providing their sources so what good is it?
They might just be repeating the same garbage as the WHO which has been debunked.

Try actually reading the articles and sources and then providing material which supports your point, rather than just spouting about unreliability.

That is funny coming from you.
I read the articles and gave you my opinion regarding the link so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I also provided you with four different links which refutes and debunks all the trash you are spewing. Yet for some reason you have not been able to counter the argument.

And you also did not answer this question:

Do you think it makes sense to include car accidents when comparing Life Expectancy to rate healthcare systems as the WHO did?

And yet I seem to remember you found the CIA completely reliable when it came to Iraqs WMD's

Yeah, when sources are provided.
Boy, you are totally missing the point. I'm not surprised though.

[edit on 8/13/2009 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by Terranis


In case of emergencies noone can be denied healthcare even if you have no insurance.

Although there are still some hospitals who opt to not allow people without insurance, but that would lead to a lawsuit.

As for how much we pay for healthcare? It depends on how much healthcare you want, or need, and how large your family is.

reply to post by WhatTheory


You've debunked nothing, rather you have been debunked.

Read the links???

You didn't have time to read the links, just to go "the UN is unrelaible, blah blah blah"

You really think your sources cite anything or provide sources that support your argument?

A so-called research oped by a single person versus the information collecting ability of the CIA?

And then let's take the right wing rag that is "con underground" with "CON" being the operative word.
Blatant disinfo of the worst kind - but because you agree with it, it becomes a better source than the CIA or the UN?

Don't talk rot - I've seen you quote both the UN and the CIA when you've agreed with them, so that kind of kills your argument.

Then there's the infamous Cato Institute, quoting a piece not researched by themselves, but one which appeared in a newspaper, as fact.

Let's look at some of the Cato Institutes sponsors, shall we?
The Earhart Foundation - Oil Money
Marijuana Policy Project - that one speaks for itself
The Ford Foundation - come on, really?
The Castle rock Foundation - now this one's a doozy:

The Castle Rock Foundation is a conservative foundation started in 1993 with an endowment of $36,6M from the Adolph Coors Foundation.[1][2]. It ranked as Colorado's 15th largest foundation by assets at the end of 2001.[3] The foundation gathered media attention during Pete Coors' unsuccessful 2004 Senate run, when opponents pointed at the dichotomy between the Coors Brewing Company's attempt to appeal to a broad audience, in particular with minorities and gay customers, while the Castle Rock Foundation was used by the Coors family to fund several conservative initiatives intent on curtailing the rights of these same customers.[4]

Mission

* "Promote a better understanding of the free enterprise system"
* "Preserve the principles upon which our democracy was founded to help ensure a limited role for government and the protection of individual rights as provided for in the Constitution"
* "Encourage personal responsibility and leadership"
* "Uphold traditional American values"[5]

source

And many more, all of the same extreme right wing ilk.

And yet we are supposed to believe these rather than the foremost intelligence agency in the world, which you yourself have supported vociferously on many occasions.

And just why is it a bad thing that people work for the NHS?
Why wouldn't it work in the US and how does that relate to the number of people who work for it?

How many people work in the insurance industry?

Why is it more important to line the pockets of the few than to look after the needs of the many?

[edit on 13/8/2009 by budski]

reply to post by budski

** SIGH **
You keep skirting the question. I will ask a third time.

Do you think it makes sense to include car accidents when comparing Life Expectancy to rate healthcare systems as the WHO did?

reply to post by WhatTheory


How do you think that working out life expectancy works?

Do you think it might involve taking an average?

Do you know what taking an average is?

Do you know how to take an average?

The salient point is average life expectancy - not life expactancy as long as it's a natural death.

The quotient regarding any kind of mortality is something that directly affects the average life expectancy of any country.

Is diet a consideration?

Is being in a war zone a consideration?

Of course they are - stop talking rot.

They all relate to mortality especially via end user care.

Do you think you might have more chance of surviving a serious accident in a major western city, than in the jungles of botswana?

[edit on 13/8/2009 by budski]

I've heard the NHS been called many things but 'Orwellian' is a joke.

And that's from Americans...

I simply don't have enough patience to right what i really want to say here.

But at least if some one gets injured in the Uk, they don't have to produce a credit card to have it fixed.

If a relative gets ill, they get free treatment to a degree (via public tax), they don't need extortionate amounts of cash just to pay for a potentially life threatening operation.

Americans can rip the back out of us in the UK for many things, but to criticise out health care is just very backward and below the belt.

Originally posted by budski
You've debunked nothing, rather you have been debunked.

Again, this is your flawed interpretation.

You really think your sources cite anything or provide sources that support your argument?

Umm....yes which is why you cannot debunk the information. You keep saying it's no good without providing evidence. Just because you say so does not mean it's true.

I will ask some questions:

What information in the Stanford University Study is wrong?

What information in the links regarding the WHO is wrong?

A so-called research oped by a single person versus the information collecting ability of the CIA?

You just hit the nail on the head and made my case.

All the CIA is doing is regurgitating info from other sources like the WHO which I already proved is bogus. Plus they don't reveal their sources on where the info came from. Useless.

Using the CIA and your flawed logic, why does anyone here have to provide links to their sources since to you and the CIA Factbook site it means nothing.

And then let's take the right wing rag that is "con underground" with "CON" being the operative word.

Wow, that is such a lame point.
Ok, I will play the same game. Let's see...... It's the same as the neolib facist site?

Then there's the infamous Cato Institute

Ok, you don't like CATO, even though they just linked to the original story but that is besides the point. CATO was only 1 of 4 links provided.

Seems pretty simple to me. Most of us UK taxpayers are happy with our public healthcare system at large and have been for almost a hundred years.

If Americans dont want this then what can we say?

What is the actual argument for not having one? Because I still cant see it.

Originally posted by budski
How do you think that working out life expectancy works?

Yeah, if you are taking that by itself, BUT the WHO is using that to determine how good healthcare is? Makes no sense and purposefully skews the results. Bad, bad science.

So I take it that you don't have a problem with that. Wow

reply to post by WhatTheory


See, nothing you have said has proved anything.

All you've said is "that's rubbish but mine is brillianrt" in effect.

And you continue to avoid answering everyone elses questions whilst demanding answers to your own.

You have NOT debunked anything - with a couple of right wing rags and oped pieces.
Provide the same level of proof that you demand from others, and we'll see who's stacks up best.

If you think the CIA are wrong, provide evidence that refutes what they say.

If you think the UN is wrong, provide evidence that refutes what they say.

And answer the questions posed by others instead of deflecting the issue with ridiculous statements that are completely off topic and are borderline trolling.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by budski
How do you think that working out life expectancy works?

Yeah, if you are taking that by itself, BUT the WHO is using that to determine how good healthcare is?

Makes no sense and purposefully skews the results. Bad, bad science.

So I take it that you don't have a problem with that. Wow

No no no

Answer all parts of the question, in context and in full.

Cherrypicking only proves you have no argument.

Originally posted by Majestic23
Seems pretty simple to me. Most of us UK taxpayers are happy with our public healthcare system at large and have been for almost a hundred years.

If Americans dont want this then what can we say?

What is the actual argument for not having one? Because I still cant see it.

Precisely. The Yanks thinking they know best once again is all i can think of.

I think they're just bitter because they have to pay out of their arses for the basics.

Originally posted by budski
See, nothing you have said has proved anything.

** SIGH ** AGAIN, this is your flawed interpretation.
You just refuse to listen. It's like trying to talk to a rock.

All you've said is "that's rubbish but mine is brillianrt" in effect.

Yeah, I can see why those pesky little facts would annoy you.

You have NOT debunked anything - with a couple of right wing rags and oped pieces.

Really? I did not realize that Stanford University and the Times Online (which is a UK publication) are right wing rags. Wow, you learn something new everyday.

Provide the same level of proof that you demand from others, and we'll see who's stacks up best.

I already did and YOU CANNOT argue against their points.

If you think the CIA are wrong, provide evidence that refutes what they say.

Again, I already did. Good Lord man, are you actually doing any reading. I swear I must be talking to a rock. Read the links.

And answer the questions posed by others instead of deflecting the issue with ridiculous statements that are completely off topic and are borderline trolling.

I was waiting for this from you.
The first sign of losing an argument is calling someone you disagree with a troll.

I will ask again:

What information in the Stanford University Study is wrong?

What information in the links regarding the WHO is wrong?



[edit on 8/13/2009 by WhatTheory]