Printable View
Except the police dept, Fire Dept., Dept of roads, department of defense, public schools, on and on and on. Why do you want you fellow citizens to suffer simply so insurance companies can continue to post obscene profits? You do understand your a complete tool, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by rocko
You seem to be saying that if the federal government takes control of health care, the problems will be solved. I believe ultimately they will get worse.
was listening to a debate on this on the radio5 tonight. They said that twice as many in the US survive cancer compared to the UK (NHS), yet the UK's infant mortality rate is much better than the US, both parties agreed, but why is this?
I can probably guess at the cancer survival rate. The drugs, cutting edge treatment etc is produced by private companies who sell their product under the same model as manufacturers sell their cars and fridges etc, and the NHS can't afford them.
:lol: one American woman in the programme screamed "we don't want to be like the Soviet Union" :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by raybbaby
The operative word is “believe”. We don’t need to rely on belief, we can just look around. We’ve had the current system for decades and we see that our child mortality rates, our life expectancy and our general care is worse than most other democratic nations comparable to ours in other ways.Quote:
I believe ultimately they will get worse.
do you really "believe" that if the federal government controls health care, child mortality rates will improve, life expectancy will increase, and general care will improve?
Every developed western democratic nation with a national health care system does better than we do by these measures. Moreover, their child mortality rates and life expectancies are comparable to each others. Our rates are the outliers. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to do just as well by adopting similar policies.
http://brightcove.newscientist.com/s...id=30583310001
Yes, yes I do. you don't think there's a cause and effect between being ranked the 29th in the worldfor infant mortality, and 37th for overall healthcare by the W.H.O. and being the only country in the world with "for profit" healthcare?Quote:
Originally Posted by rocko
Shit let's face it everything is a business here.
If we wanted to have the best heath care in the world (or comparable to those countries), we can have the best health care in the world. However, a major problem is the cost. It doesn't help that Obama and company are claiming that their plan would be deficit-neutral and, actually, it isn't. Other countries that do have socialized heath care (e.g., UK) are facing rising costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The average citizen does not want more taxes levied on them.
But if the average citizen didn't have to pay premiums to a private provider, or if her premiums went down substantially, the additional cost in taxes might not make much difference to the average citizen. You have to realize that the average UK citizen pays absolutely no premiums toward private insurance. Nothing is taken out of his pay check for private coverage. Instead taxes for public heath insurance are taken out. The only real difference, she has a longer life expectancy and the country child mortality rate is lower and the UK is generally healthier.