It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Universal Health Care is soooo bad, then why are we paying for such in Afghanistan and Iraq???

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I hear you, but to make such a fuss about how 'socialism' is bad, but it's OK to export it to another country just makes me scratch my head and go WTF???


It seems like we are saying that it's good enough for you, but not good enough for us! Or is the real reason that our politicians are in the pocket of the Health Industry's Lobbyists??? In other words, are we all being fed a pile of steaming feces (both sides of the debate) to keep us from noticing the 'man behind the curtain'??? The Republicans are saying it's a terrible idea, while the Democrats write a Bill that an idiot would find unacceptable! Both sides engaging in activities that might result in the same thing: Burying health care reform for another 16 years! Gotta keep them fat cats fat!




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Maybe this is just another version of "giving lice/typhoid infested blankets to the indians".

We export what we don't want. Keep all the good stuff to ourselves.

It's a dark, dark way of thinking my friend, but maybe that's the truth of it.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


OK, no matter which one of us is correct, it's a sad, sad commentary on the state of our government... Is it 2012 yet? We need us some armagedon!!!



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 



“Due to the lack of experienced trumpeters, the end of the world has been postponed for three weeks”
-anon



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Population of Iraq...Just over 28 million.
Population of Afghanistan...Just over 32 million.
Population of the United States...Well over 300 million.

We are not providing "universal healthcare" to either Iraq or Afghanistan. We are restoring healthcare systems that were impacted by the military invasion and occupation. We are rebuilding their infrastructures, just as we rebuild the infrastructures of any country that we defeat in war. We did the same for Japan and Germany after WWII, for example. It's our policy.

Beyond that, the USA has over five times the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. You're suggesting that, because we're building a few hospitals and training medical personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can somehow magically overhaul the entire healthcare system of the USA.

Which is utter rubbish.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I'll go waaaaay out on a limb here and take a stab at a theory.

Maybe the primary goal is to have all nations have nationalized health care. With that, eventually all health care will be under the control of the WHO, an arm of the UN.


Granted, I have nothing personal against nationalized health care, per se.

Only, in a theorized conspiracy, it could be one more step toward a one world government.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I hate that excuse, no offense. We should let them run their own country even if it falls apart because that is what we would want others to do for us. What we are doing by occupying Iraq is no different than what the Department of Social Service did with welfare. We're creating a country that cannot fend for itself.

Everyone was sooooo pumped up for that war (except Ron Paul) and when I pointed out that setting a precedence for pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation was dangerous and wrong I was "unpatriotic" and had someone throw a coca-cola at me.

All of those politicians in Washington got us into this mess by either selling it or buying it to keep from looking "unpatriotic".

*grumbles to herself*

If we are going to put money towards healthcare, I'd like it to benefit US citizens.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


The only reason we don't have universal health care is because of the billions of dollars that the U.S. insurance industry use to bribe, er, I'm sorry, I mean "lobby" the politicians in Washington.

Universal Health Care isn't bad....it would just mean the demise of the insurance industry.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Yeah I have heard about us paying for their health care while I get nothing! This really bothers the crap out of me. I am a tax paying citizen with no benefits and I cant get any assistance for medical, I have tried yet Iraq and Afghanistan are getting it funded by us?! This is so unfair for so many reasons. We shouldnt even be there and now we are helping them get better after we hurt them. I am sorry but its really sick and twisted.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Let's see, you said:

We are not providing "universal healthcare" to either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Well, you either did not read the OP, or you just missed this part:


Fresh from a two-day weekend visit to Iraq, the Bush administration's top health-care official defended the $950 million that will be spent to help Iraq establish universal health care.
Source.

Seems those who are actually implementing this program disagree with you! Now if you can prove otherwise, please do...

And since you seem to think that population statistics alone somehow prove your point, let's just see...

Iraq- $3,050.70 per capita GDP
Afghanistan- $456.48 per capita GDP
United States- $46,625.89 per capita GDP

WOW, you're right! There's no way we can afford Universal Health Care here!!! [/sarcasm] We may have over 5 times the population, but we have over 15 times the GDP per capita of Iraq and over 102 times the GDP per capita of Afghanistan. But hey, you did a bang up job of staying to the partisan 'talking points'!



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I love this nonsense:

"The CIA World Factbook says how appalling the quality of U.S. healthcare is. Our infant mortality rate is around 6.3 deaths per 1000 live births, while the U.K. has a number of around 4.9 deaths per 1000 live births. Regarding life expectancy, Japan, Canada, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany, the U.K., Puerto Rico, and Denmark have a higher life expectancy than the U.S., with all of those countries having a universal healthcare system."

Funny, I went to The CIA World Fact Book site and I didn't see the word "appalling" anywhere. You must have added that yourself. What I saw was a collection of numbers that you have chosen to take out of context.

Now, let's look at the real numbers of those countries boasting national healthcare systems:

Population of the UK....about 61 million
Population of Japan...about 127 million
Population of Canada...about 33 million
Population of France...about 62 million
Population of Sweden...about 9 million
Population of Italy...about 58 million
Population of Germany...about 83 million
Population of Puerto Rico...about 4 million
Population of Denmark...about 6 million

Hmm. Seems to me that none of these countries have populations of over 300 million, as does the USA. In fact, the largest population (Japan) isn't even half the size of the USA.

Let's take a peek at Japan's national healthcare system, courtesy of The Washington Post:

Japan's National Healthcare System Is Unsustainable, Will Match U.S. Healthcare Costs Within 10 years

Ah, so things aren't so rosy in Tokyo.

Let's look at Canada's national healthcare system, courtesy of the Canadian Press:

Canada's Healthcare System "Imploding" Says President of Canadian Medical Association

Oops. Not a pretty picture in the Great White North, either.

Let's try the U.K. How's the most heavily funded NHS in the world working out? Courtesy of the UK Daily Mail:

UK Healthcare System Resulting in Bed Shortages, Poor Treatment

And courtesy of the Telegraph:

45,000 British NHS Staff Workers Call In Sick EVERY DAY

Ouch. The UK isn't exactly your nationalized healthcare Utopia, is it?

No. It's not.

As for the other countries, well, we're talking about nationalized healthcare systems that are designed to accommodate populations much, much smaller than the U.S. population. In fact, the smaller the population, the better nationalized healthcare seems to work. It works best in the very smallest populations, the Swedens, the Denmarks, the Singapores.

Point being, you can't take a theoretical healthcare system that is only proven somewhat effective in small populations and force it to work for a gigantic population. Won't work.

Or maybe we should try to adopt the healthcare systems of India or China, the world's largest populations? China has 21.6 infant deaths per 1000 live births. India has 32 infant deaths per 1000.

No, I didn't think that would appeal to you, either.

For a large population of over 300 million, American privatized healthcare is unsurpassed, and our infant mortality rate is extraordinarily low. So stop comparing grapes to watermelons.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 9/7/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


From the same article you posted concerning Japan:


The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans. They can choose any primary care physician or specialist they want, and surveys show they are almost always seen on the day they want. All that medical care helps keep the Japanese alive longer than any other people on Earth while fostering one of the world's lowest infant mortality rates.

Health care in Japan -- a hybrid system funded by job-based insurance premiums and taxes -- is universal and mandatory, and consumes about 8 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, half as much as in the United States. Unlike in the U.S. system, no one is denied coverage because of a preexisting condition or goes bankrupt because a family member gets sick.


Now your 'link' did state that it's not sustainable without change, because their Universal Health Care is working and thus they are living longer!!! Gee, that's a problem I could live with!

And since you wanted to point out China and India, let's look at the list of 10 most polluted countries:

Peru
Pakistan
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Ethiopia
Russia
Indonesia
India
China
United States

Source.

Wow, that couldn't possibly effect infant mortality rates!!!

So now what? I can do this all night!

[edit on 7-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity




For a large population of over 300 million, American privatized healthcare is unsurpassed, and our infant mortality rate is extraordinarily low. So stop comparing grapes to watermelons.








This is a comparison of our infant mortality rate with other developed nations.

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

I say to hell with "for profit" medical care in America and the lobbiest that bribe the politicians that prop it up. Take away the greed and corruption in the current medical system and we could have a great national health service.



[edit on 7-9-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Now your 'link' did state that it's not sustainable without change, because their Universal Health Care is working and thus they are living longer!!! Gee, that's a problem I could live with!


Yeah? Can you live with this?

"To keep costs down, Japan has made tradeoffs in other areas — sometimes to the detriment of patients. Some are merely irritating, such as routine hour-long waits before doctor appointments. But others involve worrisome questions about quality control and gaps in treatment for urgent care.

Japanese hospitals experience a "crowding out" effect, with space for emergency care and serious medical conditions sometimes overwhelmed by a flood of patients seeking routine treatment, said Naohiro Yashiro, a professor of economics and health-care expert at International Christian University in Tokyo.

"Patients are treated too equally," he said. "Beds are occupied by less-urgent cases, and there are no penalties for those who over-use the system."

The government has largely been unable to reduce the length of hospital stays, which are four times as long in Japan as in the United States. Hospital doctors are often overworked and cannot hone specialized life-saving skills, according to recent reports by McKinsey. Statistics show that the Japanese are much less likely to have heart attacks than people in the United States, but that when they do, their chance of dying is twice as high.

There are shortages of obstetricians, anesthesiologists and emergency room specialists because of relatively low pay, long hours and high stress at many hospitals, doctors and health-care analysts said. Emergency room service is often spotty, as ER beds in many hospitals are limited and diagnostic expertise is sometimes lacking."


The cumulative effect of these shortfalls is that, within 10 years, Japan's nationalized healthcare system is going to cost as much to treat 127 million people as the current American system costs to treat 300 million people.

That's NOT progress.


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
And since you wanted to point out China and India, let's look at the list of 10 most polluted countries... Wow, that couldn't possibly effect infant mortality rates!!!

Think about what you're saying. India and China have gigantic populations because they can have gigantic populations. By your reasoning, higher pollution levels equal higher infant mortality rates... By that rationale, the biggest polluters should have the smallest populations.

Wherever there are people, there is pollution. Pollution isn't the issue.

The FACT is that large populations have higher infant mortality rates than smaller populations.

This has nothing to do with the level or quality of healthcare received. It has to do with the fact that a large and robust breeding population is going to produce more dead babies than a small breeding population. India's population is 1.1 billion, and they have a very high infant mortality rate compared to the USA or the UK or practically anybody else. But the fact remains that India has achieved a population of 1.1 BILLION, and their infant mortality is merely a reflection of their gigantic populace.

Countries with smaller populations and nationalized healthcare systems have much lower infant mortality rates because they're a smaller population. You can monitor and tend to a small population. It's not so easy with a large population.

But look at the USA's infant mortality rate... What did you say it was? 6.3 infant deaths per 1000 live births? That's only a click or two higher than the UK's infant mortality rate, but the American population is five times larger than the population of the UK.

By all rights and reasons, because we have this enormous population (almost a third the size of India's), the American infant mortality rate should be somewhere in the 10 to 15 deaths-per-thousand range, I would imagine.

Yet, it is not.

The American infant mortality rate, at 6.3 per 1000, is extraordinarily low for an advanced nation of over 300 million, I think. Would you say Russia is an advanced nation? They have a population roughly half the size of the USA, but their infant mortality is 10.1 per 1000.

But, then, the Russians probably have a few undisclosed Chernobyls in their closet.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Can you live with this:


National Health Care Spending

National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.1

National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year. 1

In just three years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs will account for 50 percent of all national health spending. 1

Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that will grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time. 2

According to one study, of the $2.1 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2006, nearly $650 billion was above what we would expect to spend based on the level of U.S. wealth versus other nations. These additional costs are attributable to $436 billion outpatient care and another $186 billion of spending related to high administrative costs. 3


But wait, that's not all:


Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs

Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 119 percent. 4

Employees have seen their share of job-based coverage increase at nearly the same rate during this period jumping from $1,543 to $3,354.4

The cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have raised at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade. This increase has made it much more difficult for businesses to continue to provide coverage to their employees and for those workers to afford coverage themselves.4

The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost.4 Health insurance costs are the fastest growing expense for employers. Employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008, and the gap grows steadily. 5

Total health insurance costs for employers could reach nearly $850 billion by 2019. Individual and family spending will jump considerably from $326 billion in 2009 to $550 billion in 2019.6

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that job-based health insurance could increase 100 percent over the next decade.7

Employer-based family insurance costs for a family of four will reach nearly $25,000 per year by 2018 absent health care reform.7


I guess they'll have to put the kids to work to pay that $25,000 in insurance premiums... But what is the impact of 'doing nothing'...


The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs

Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate with significant drops in health insurance coverage, and national surveys also show that the primary reason people are uninsured is due to the high and escalating cost of health insurance coverage.8

A recent study found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.9

According to another published article, about 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.10

Without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years, small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs and 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.11
Source.

So, since you are so set against doing anything...

And this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm paying for the health care of citizens of other nations, while I do not enjoy the same care...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
reply to
Or maybe we should try to adopt the healthcare systems of India or China, the world's largest populations? China has 21.6 infant deaths per 1000 live births. India has 32 infant deaths per 1000.

No, I didn't think that would appeal to you, either.

For a large population of over 300 million, American privatized healthcare is unsurpassed, and our infant mortality rate is extraordinarily low. So stop comparing grapes to watermelons.

— Doc Velocity
[edit on 9/7/2009 by Doc Velocity]


A???

YOU are comparing IMR of India and China - talk about grapes and watermelons
Have you been to INDIA



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I think I'll head you off before you reply... I don't like waiting.

Yes, larger populations quite naturally have higher infant mortality rates. A large gene pool increases the chances that lethal chromosome combinations will occur and that babies will be born dead or will die shortly after birth. I know, that went over your head, so I'll break it down...

Take 2 breeding populations. One population is very small (only a few thousand) and the other is very large (several million). Both exist in ideal environments. Let's compare the infant mortality of these two populations. The small population has an infant mortality rate of 3.5 infant deaths per 1000 live births. The large population has an infant mortality rate of 5.6 infant deaths per 1000 live births.

Is this because there is something bad or wrong with the large population?

No. In fact, it may be perfectly normal.

Because, in the larger population, there are many, many, many more exchanges of genetic material than in the small population. Hence, there are many, many, many more opportunities for lethal genes to collide, producing dead babies.

So, this is where the science takes you...

More people equal more dead babies.

Fewer people equal fewer dead babies.

That's just natural selection at work.

So, holding up these countries with small populations and low infant mortality rates as examples of "successful" nationalized healthcare is bogus. You can't compare the medical statistics of a small population to the medical statistics of a gigantic population. What's fantastic for the huge population may be horrible for the smaller population.

You're comparing cherries to bananas.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Per every 1000 births??? What does the size of the population have to do with the rate per thousand?

Your avatar says it all...

[edit on 8-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


That's how infant mortality is calculated. XX infant deaths per 1000 live births. There are variables such as male or female, of course, but that's the base calculation.

Looks like you ran out of steam (and logic) rather early in the evening. Too bad, because I'm going to persist throughout the night in my janitorial duties, incinerating the stinking garbage and smegma that you guys are piling up on the altar of holy "healthcare reform"

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 9/8/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Let's look at Canada's national healthcare system, courtesy of the Canadian Press:

Canada's Healthcare System "Imploding" Says President of Canadian Medical Association

Oops. Not a pretty picture in the Great White North, either.


You can follow this thread to see how that particularly biased statement was generated... and discussed. That statement was by the president of a lobby group of doctors and they ain't lobbying for good health.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway, my cancer was cured for $32 out of pocket. Nice to know you guys are providing the same level of service to the Iraqis and Afghanis as well.

Oh, and if you are going to compare populations as to whether or not UHC is feasible...unless you factor in the GDP your argument is bogus.

Generous of y'all just the same.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join