You crazy health mandate critics! Wadda ya mean its wrong to force the young and healthy to subsidize an insanely unhealthy population by forcing them to buy more than they could ever need, charging them more, and charging them the same rate as some drunk smoker with a swinging gut full of oxycodone? I mean, cya'mon, WHATS WRONG WITH THAT!?
Now we need the law changed so that all the money spent on ads like this comes from the Dividends paid to shareholders and not from the funds that are supposed to meet the costs of Americans' health care.
This is not what companies paying for their employees health care exåect their money to go to.
I have little doubt that funding came from there..
/watch?v=J9N1LWAQAHM&feature=related, all people see this video...an arrested Taliban/Lashker terrorist confessed working for indians and being paid for killing people in Pakistan...
Yeah, we won, yeah, this is what I voted for. A real democracy not a plutocracy, yeah. Of the people for the people by the people. Yeah the people won this one.
What a well done video. Excellent, humorous and almost identical to the films of the thirties or forties that were done to promote government programs.
Personally, I do not trust Obama or Pelosi in any way shape or form. Not only would their "plan" likely bankrupt future generations of Americans, but it would also be ruined quickly by the same kinds of parasites who ruined our welfare system. People would go to the hospital for free, just for a free lunch!
A.) Your health care costs more than $20. If you were being honest about the cost, you would include how much you pay in taxes for health care.
B.) Just because you have received the treatment that you requested does not mean that everyone does. Are you going to tell me that Japan never turns a single person away from a needed treatment? Are you going to tell me that Japan does not cap spending?
Tracy, False sources eh? Here's a report from the World Health Organization that shows we place 37th in the world for health care.
hotel tango tango pappa : / / 3 W's . who. int / inf - pr - 2000 / en / pr 2000 - 4 4 . hotel tango mike lima
Remember words like Hotel Tango Mike Pappa and Lima are replaced with the 1st letter from each and 3 W's is replaced by hitting w three times. Squeeze it all back together.
Wow, they make good reading. Chapter 2 of the of the WHO report makes particually good reading. It took me a minute to figure out that 3 W's meant you needed to put in the initials for the World Wide Web and that Hotel, Tango and Pappa were Hotel (H) Tango (T) and Pappa (P), but then I remembered it from my former life in the military.
Finally you follow directions! I was beginning to think you were hopeless. That being said, NONE of these reports your assertion that their exists a country that does not DENY patient care. Also, this particular report clearly states that hypertension is in fact considered in its figures. Hypertension is AFFECTED and CONTROLLED by diet. So until your authors are willing to account for differing diets and lifestyles, these numbers are in fact useless.
You still have yet to answer my question as to why your Harvard report states that the U.S. has 45,000 deaths annually due to lack of access to medical care, and your commonwealth (a lobbying organization by the way) 101,000 PREVENTABLE deaths. If you take the difference of 56,000 deaths, you might as well be stating that more people die of preventable deaths WITH access to health care. And how do you attribute the preventable deaths in other countries? Their health care is deadly?
Uhm he did explain the difference. One shows only the numbers caused by a lack of access to healthcare the other shows all preventable deaths. That means lack of access to healthcare because it can not be afforded and preventable deaths from lifestyle, malpractice, hospital infections and so on. I suggest you do what he says and read all the reports before saying anything else. I am reading them now and they make very good reading.
So now you admit that LIFESTYLE is in fact a major factor to mortality rates? So unless you are prepared to force feed Americans and force them to excersize, you cannot claim that the other countries have superior health care based on those numbers. If you combine your Harvard report numbers, yo are claiming that MORE people die from preventable deaths WITH access to health care than without. This should tell you something.
I neve said that lifestyle is not a contributing factor to total numbers of deaths. I said we have 47,000,000 people have no health care insurance, which makes, for most, access to health care very difficult. Regardless of comparing the two numbers we still have 45000 people a year die because of the lack of access. That's 123 people a day. It is by far by the worst in the 1st world. You can not yet have read all the reports anyway. One is 143 pages long, let alone the others.
It is not true that not having insurance means that you do not have access to health care. And you cannot say that those who die from a lack of access to health care in this country is more than those who die other countries. You have never proven that point. And it is really sad that you feel the need to keep making new accounts just to comment on this video and make yourself feel good. If you really had a valid argument, you wouldn't need to continue your charades.
Tracy give up. I have been following this for a while now. He has you well and truly beaten. There ain't no kinda way around it. I believe his stuff waaaayy more than some blogs and newspapers.
I think you need to just admit defeat and move on to another battle.
That is why you don't generally see news of it here It is the norm here so individual cases rarely come to light It might happen a few times a year in other 1st world countries, which makes it newsworthy and people get up in arms about it. It happens every day here, in fact when you do the math 123 times a day on average. People have grown acustomed to it, blase about it and they point at other countries saying "it happens there too" but it does not, not like it does here not 123 times a day
It doesn't happen just a few times a year in your other countries. It ROUTINELY happens in other countries. We don't have better survival cancer rates by accident.
The city of Vancouver ALONE just cancelled 6,000 surgeries. That is what I call a disgrace. And still you have yet to provided ANY proof to your blatant lies. Keep making stuff up. It is all you are good at.
vancouversun [dot] com/opinion/Leaked+plan+proposes+cuts+surgeries+across+Metro+Vancouver/1878506/story [dot] html
(WebMD) The U.S. today finds itself last on a new list of countries seeking to curb preventable deaths in people younger than 75.
Not only does the U.S. have the worst spot on that list, its rate of improvement is also slower than the other 18 industrialized nations included in the study.
That includes deaths related to lifestyle choices. I am still looking for your proof relating to actual health care statistics. Or do you not understand the difference? I mean you've failed to understand other words in the English language.
The U.S. might have been spared an estimated 101,000 deaths annually if its preventable death rate matched that of the top-ranked countries, according to the researchers, who included Ellen Nolte, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Preventable Deaths
Nolte's team defined preventable deaths as deaths in people younger than 75 with treatable cancers, bacterial infections, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and surgical complications.
Yeah since when has childhood diabetes, or a whole in the hear or mytral valve condition or or or been a lifestyle choice. What complete and utter nonsense. You think Tracy would know better given that she has a heart conditoin herself, that is not caused by her lifestyle. You said it man, verbal diarrhea.
I know right. One stupid comment after another She needs to read something other than right wing propaganda I am not excusing the fact that people sometimes get turned away under so called socialized medicine systems, I think it is wrong there too. But it is not the rule. Not only do people get turned away all the time here, but according to Harvard's study, 123 people a day die in the USA due to lack of access to healthcare, because they can not pay for insurance or can not get it at all.
Diese abgefuckte Huerre kann man wohl gar nicht glauben, denkste nicht. Sie fragt dich wer dir glauben wird, ist ja lecherlich, ich mein ees sind alle die ein halbes Gehirn haben. Sie luegt und luegt und luegt dann sagt sie das Du luegst. Ich habe alles nachgeshaut und alles was du geagt hast ist war. Sie hat meistens gar nichts. 123 times a damn day, come on woman, are you that stupid?
Actually my heart condition and the majority of heart conditions are in fact controlled by lifestyle choices. This includes diabetes. The best treatment is in fact a change in diet. So unless we start force feeding people in this country, you CANNOT compare diabetic and heart disease outcomes solely on medical practices. The very fact that you have cited two completely different numbers and NO ACTUAL SOURCES, proves that you are just making things up as you go.
It's a fucking blog. Where is the authority in that. You are going to try to hold rag newspapers and blogs up to the UNited Nations, CIA, Harvard and say that they are may reliable sources of inormation. You have a screw loose.
You cannot criticize my sources when you have not even provided a single source of your own. And you are such a horrible liar as to create multiple accounts to try and make yourself look legitimate. I really feel so sad for you that you care more about your politics and image than actually about the facts and the health of those affected by your lies. If your views held any water, you would not need to lie. I have backed up every one of my comments. Can you do the same?
Juvenile diabetes, a hole in the heart, a mitral valve condition or any genetic abnormality are not caused by lifestyle choice.
I did not come up with the numbers, of 47000 unininsured, 45000 a year (123 a day) dying as a direct result of not having healthcare insurance and thus not being able to afford access to healthcare or the 101,000 preventable deaths myself.
I gave all of the sources, what I did not do is post links, because you can not post links to youtube.
READ THE DAMN REPORTS YOU RETARD. United Nations Human Development Report, CIA World Fact Book, Harvard report (type is Harvard Report 45000 die) and 101000 preventable deaths for the report that shows 101,000 preventable deaths (not all of which are connected to a lack of healthcare insurance, which is why it is greater than the 45k number from Harvard, which only deals with those that are a direct result of lack of access due to lack of insurance.
If you cannot explain the variation between your so called Harvard number with your other so called 101,000 number then you have no idea what those numbers even mean to quote them. Do you not understand that a diabetic who goes on a sugar binge will necessarily raise that 101,000 number? And so what if we have 47 million uninsured. That does NOT mean they have no medical care. Do you not understand the word uninsured? Do I need to post that definition as well?
No you have not given sources. I very clearly explained to you how to post links and how to look at them. If you cannot follow simple instructions, I feel sorry for you. Juvenile diabetes and high blood pressure are not CAUSED by lifestyle choices but are in fact controlled by them. Just as celiac's disease or allergies. The reality is that unless we greatly change the diet and lifestyles of Americans they will continue to have a higher mortality rate then the rest of the world.
Your links do not work. In addition the few that can be made to work by reconfiguring what you put in to overcome the fact that real links can not be posted are blogs and rag newspapers.
I would rather believe Harvard or the UN or even the CIA. I am however not going to post links that are so messed up in order to get them onto youtube, that they no longer work. And you know as well as I do, if you try to post a real link that has not been altered the post will simply not appear. READ THEM.
You have backed up your comments with nothing. Your links do not work.
I have quoted my sources, many times, so yes I can back my comments. I don't post links though. If you are too lazy or too scared of the truth to look up the reports, then you have even more of a problem than I thought.
Using data from the World Health Organization, the researchers compared preventable death rates among 19 countries during 1997-1998 and 2002 2003.
From 1997 to 1998, the U.S. had a high rate of preventable deaths, but it wasn't the worst-ranked country on the list. By 2002-2003, preventable death rates dropped in all 19 countries, including the U.S.
But the U.S. had had the mildest rate of decline -- 4% -- compared with a 16% average decline among the other countries.
So you believe eveything you read in the F*%#cking Sun do you? Good God there's no helping you. All of the other systems in the first world are proven better than our, not just as bad or worse, report after report says it. CIA WORD REPORT, UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY REPORT, THE REPORT JUST POSTED NOT 2 MINUTES AGO. TIME AND TIME AGAIN,AND YOU KEEP SAYING PROVE IT. LOOK THE DAMN REPORTS UP YOU RETARD.
What you did was post spam. Post a link to the study or a summary and it will stay, as have all other comments supporting government-run health care that are not spam.
If so, that is YouTube issue, not any restriction from our end. Posting more than 10 copy-and-paste comments (estimate, but I think it was more) in less than 5 mins (estimate, could have been more or less) is spam.
Every country rations healtth care. In the U.S. it is done by price AND by insurance companies which decide whether a treatment is insurance fundable or not. The insurers have a HUGE incentive to deny care because it adds to profitability.
In Canada, Japan. Taiwan, and Western Europe this is not the case. Which is why government regulated health care there without private insurance is cheaper and has broader popular support. Americans wake up!!!!
I don't have insurance, so the ONLY denier of my care is ME! I CHOOSE what I am willing to afford and what I am not. In all the countries that you mentioned, SOMEONE ELSE determines what I am ALLOWED to afford and what I am not. That is cruel and evil. Yes, there are those who fit the MAJORITY for those countries' predetermined care guidelines. But God forbid if you are born differently. That is why those countries keep their system despite it hurting those who need it most.
Aber wenn du meinst das du deutsch sprechen kannst koennen wir das den ganzen Tag lang tun wenn du willst. Ich habe kaum die moeglichket mein deutsch zu ueben, also nehme ich diese gelegenheit mit beiden haenden. Ich meine wie oft kommt es vor das ein Ami eine andere Sprache sprechen kann. Ich meine die meisten koennen kaum ihre eigenen Sprache.
Also mal sehen ob deine Dolmestschersoftware das alles ausrechnen kann. Ich weiss Du schafts es nie, weil Du wirklich kein deutsch sprechen kannst
Nah da kannst du vieleicht 50% davon verstehen mit EDV. Du wurdest warscheinlich versuchen den Eindrueck zu geben das du dass alles gut verstanden hast. Also koennen wir auch slang, vieleicht waere das einfacher fuer dich.
Versteh's nit wat ick da sage oder wat?
Ick meene du kannst ja so jut deutsch, nit war/ Bis' ja lecherlich.
Because they have universal healthcare and therefore, free at the point of service access to preventative care, rather than waiting until it becomes ambulatory.
False. If that were true, they would have better survival rates at the point of diagnosis. Those countries (which is NOT ALL) that are healthier than us have better diets and excersize more. That has NOTHING to do with the level of healthcare. Plus UNIVERSAL health care does NOT exist!!!!!!!!!!! Please name me one country that gives every patient that needs a liver transplant, a liver transplant. Just one. I dare you.
Not false, other countries have much better survival rates in all but a few areas, one of them is cancer. .
Universal healthcare DOES exist, it means health care that is provided to everyone in a country, it is therefor universal. Every other 1st world country would give a patient a liver transplant as long as a donor organ is available. However there is a shortage of organs, becasue you have to wait for someone to die to get one. That has nothing to do with universal healthcare.
And my point is that EVERY system experiences shortages in ALL areas of health care. So UNIVERSAL health care does NOT exist. The moment that some patients are allotted care and others are DENIED, it ceases to be universal. So I ask you again, NAME me one country. Just one.
If someone has to wait for a donor organ, they are not being denied care. It's not like they have the liver and are saying, no you can't have it. They don't have the liver, so they are not denying, the person is waiting for a donor liver to become available. That is not denial that is waiting. I'll name every other country in the 1st world. that's a bit more than one,
that would give the person the liver liver if it were available.
Universal does not mean unlimited they are different.
Yes it is DENIAL. If I am told I can't have a liver because it is going to someone else, that is DENIAL. And yes, that means I cease to be covered. If I am told, no I CANNOT see a specialist because they don't have enough specialists, I am DENIED care. If I am told that I cannot have surgery, because they don't have enough surgeons, I am NOT covered. There is NO SUCH thing as UNIVERSAL health care, because there is not an unlimited supply of it.
But the livers DO exist. They just don't exist for EVERYONE. This is why the have WAITING LISTS. Depending on where you are on the list, determines whether or not you get the AVAILABLE liver or not. The same is true of other surgeries, of primary care physicians, and various other treatments. If someone else gets treatment instead of me, I am being DENIED that AVAILABLE treatment. EVERY system routinely DENIES care. So you are COVERED no matter what? Name me one country where that is true.
universal: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception
unlimited means without limit. That means that if a health system is in fact universal, it is WITHOUT LIMIT. It is UNLIMITED. If only a FEW patients recieve liver transplant, but not ALL, it is LIMITED. Therefore, it is NOT UNIVERSAL. So I'm still waiting to hear about this mythical country that has UNLIMITED health care.
Actually Tracy, you left a large portion of the defnition off. I went to Merriam Wensters Online and this is what I got. They have Universal Health Coverage as an example.
1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society universal health coverage
So again, every other 1st world country. They are not mythical.
Yes, if you read the definition, it clearly states in the second half: AVAILABLE to ALL members. So if a country ONLY can only treat 100 out of every 150 patients, the health care is NOT AVAILABLE to ALL members.
So yes, you believe in a mythical country. I'm still waiting.
You can wait as long as you want. I have said over and over that all other 1st world countries supply universal healthcare.
Even the dictionary that you quoted uses Universal Health Coverage as an example of Universal. What are you going to argue with Merriam Websters now too. You conveniently did not post the part about Universal Healthcare, why?
Do you absolutely refuse to answer my questions? How can a system be UNIVERSAL if only SOME patients receive transplants but not ALL? How is Canada UNIVERSAL when at least one town holds a lottery for it's doctor? Are you saying that those who are NOT selected are covered and receiving care by magic? Please, can you not answer my questions? And yes, the dictionary states universal health care as example for the use of the word. That does not mean it exists. Unless you believe in fairies.
I and lots of other people want a healthcare system that tries. Arguing over the meaning of a word like universal doesn't get us anywhere. If you don't believe in universal healthcare, or disagree with calling it universal is neithre here nor there and in the grand scheme of things completely unimportant. 100% of other 1st world countries attempt to provide healthcare for everyone. That is what we should be attempting to do too.
I don't believe in GOVERNMENT RUN healthcare as I have personal experience and have seen the data. And no, government run healthcare is ANYTHING BUT universal. You lie to push forward your agenda, by implying that the government cares for more patients, when in fact it does not. So if you really cared about fixing the problems in health care, you would be honest. But you don't care about honesty. If you did, you would answer my questions.
I have experienced healthcare in England, Germany and here.
Germany's is not government run, but everyone is required to carry insurance. It works very very well. I was never ever declined service or treatment and I do not know anyone who was. I had three hospital stays and visted the doctor probably 20 times or so in the time I lived there (6 years)
I have also lived in the UK and there system is a public trust, which is financed by taxes from the government.
I have never been turned down for treatment or services there either and don't know anyone who has.
I had 2 hospital stays there, both for several months each (for different things, a motorcycle accident and a kidney problem, both of which saw me in intensive care) and countless visits to the doctor over a period of many years.
And I have been turned down for treatment by our own government, so yes it dpoes happen!! I am fighting for my very survival, and all you do is assume that everyone is like you and is treated like you. And yes, you have insulted me with your dialog with ConcernedAmerican. So keep up with your lying. You may not like what I say, but I haven't lied like you have.
Ps. my conversation with ConcernedAmerican was about his German ability and how I agreed with him that it appeared that you had used translation software. It wasn't an insult, not everybody can speak another language fluently.
How is accusing someone of using translation software not an insult? As it was, he read my German wrong in the first place, which was the basis for his claim. And I challenge you as I challenged him, prove it. You are too eager to make claims and agree with statements that have no factual backing.
I did not accuse you of anything. I agreed with Concerned American that it did appear as if you had used software, but I did not acuse you of anything. I have nothing to prove, I only said it appeared that way. It is something that can not be proved one way or the other.
Why were you in Germany?
Who is the They in "They refused to"
Who dropped you from their insurance when you still had a brace?
No. You agreed with ConcernedAmerican that IDID USE translation software. Appearing to use, and actually using are two different things. Is your grammer that bad, that I have to continually correct you?
The basis for Concerned Americans claim was more than his misreading of one word. It was also the fact that the German used was gramatically incorrect and you used expressions that appeard to be direct translations of the English expression, which when literally translated into German make no sense in German. I believe that was his reason for the accusation. That's how I read it anyway. I can not prove anything though, which you know, so it is pointless to say prove it.
I will not respond to any more of your arguments about the meaning of the word universal and mythical countries etc. as the meaning of a word is irrelavent.
100 out of 150 is total BS. Health care is available to everyone in every other 1sy world country. If you believe every other 1st world country is mythical, then there's no talking to you and I might as well give up.
We won ayway, so what am I trying to change your point of view for. It does not matter how logical someone is, you are never going to agree, you will always find something to argue against.
OK, England, Ireland, Germany Switzerland, Denmark, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Belgium, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, France Italy, the list goes on and on.
They all have what is defined as universal healthcare.
There are many other countries too, this is just a small selection.
No. They all have systems that YOU define as universal health care. There is NOTHING UNIVERSAL about their health CARE. Do you not understand the words ALL and WITHOUT LIMIT? You are trying to tell me that health care in those countries is WITHOUT LIMIT for ALL citizens? No one is turned away ever? They have an unlimited number of surgeons, MRI machines, chemo drugs, and everything else? NO ONE is told NO? Show me these mythical reports where EVERYONE receives 100% care.
How about this, if you are going to argue over the meaning of universal, which is what you are doing. How about saying we want a system that is going to cover or try to cover all of the population, or at least attempt to do so. I am in favor of such a system. A system where we do our utmost to make sure everyone is covered. Call it what you will, universal, national health care, socialized medicine, I really don't care.
I am all for a system that attempts to cove as much people as possible, but you outright LIE by calling socialized medicine universal. If you want an honest discussion and real answres, you yourself have to be honest. The problem of availability is the government itself. If we rid ourselves of the FDA and licensing laws, you would open the floodgates for more, better, cheaper care for all. But instead of addressing REAL problems, you simply want government takeover.
There you go again with the insults "you outright LIE"
I believe what I am saying, therefore it is not a lie. It is only a lie if it is designed to mislead or that I know it is not true, neither of which is true.
I told you you call people liars when you disagree with them. You just did it again.
I only call people liars when they lie. You insist on using universal to describe government run health care, despite the fact that it is wrong and I have pointed it out to you. Instead of bringing the debate further, you rest all of your argument on a falsehood. If at first it was a mistake, you made it a lie, when I pointed out the fallacy of using that term. You also have accused me of argueing, when you responded to me first. Is your whole argument to insult me?
Once again with the insults "if you would be honest"
I have answered your questions; you just don't like the answer. As for an argument about the meaning of universal, I am not getting into that with you.
The only place I have been declined treatment is here, NEVER in England and never in Germany. Actually even here I am not refused treatment, it's just that the insurance company won't pay, because its a pre-existing condition, which makes it very difficult to treat the condition.
Just because YOU have not been refused treatment, does not mean that others do not. And if you truely cared about others, you would care about them. I can post you link after linking citing patients who have been refused treatment in all of the countries you listed. And ATTEMPTING to cover everybody and ACTUALLY covering everybody are two totally different things. I could argue that even here we ATTEMPT to cover everybody. ATTEMPTING doesn't save lives.
I can only speak from personal expereince and that of people that I know.
And I and everyone I know has never been refused treatment.
We do not attempt to cover everyone here. Quite the opposite, as soon as it becomes risky for insurance company profits they drop people from the plan or make it so expensive for them to buy individually they it can't be afforded and effectively drops them. That is only attempting to cover those who are low risk.
I am uninsured, so NO ONE refuses me treatment. But I have been refused treatment by the government. You would force me into a system that does not treat me based ONLY your own personal experience. This means that if someone dare be different from you, too bad. And the government creates its own risk categories. So in fact they are run EXACTLY the same as private insurance. So please keep up with the fallacies.
Can you afford insurance? If you can and choose not to have it, that is why you are refused coverage or treatment by Medicare or Medicaid. If you can't afford insurance, then you should fight it. if you feel you should be classed as disabled then you should fight it.
NO. I have NEVER been refused treatment for being UNINSURED. I have been refused treatment by our GOVERNMENT as I grew up under government run health care. They REFUSED to provide me with a primary care physician when I went away to college, so I had to go to the E.R. for ALL treatments when I under their plan. I was covered for dental treatments when living in Germany. Butwhen my dad was reassigned, I was dropped, still with braces on. I could go on and on.
And why do I have to have insurance? I save myself $3,000/year and I have several medical conditions, by going UNINSURED. I don't have to ask anyone's permission to go see a doctor or get a test. No one refuses me treatment. I could save even more if we abolished the FDA and opened up medical licensing. And NO, I don't patronize ER.s. I pay for EVERYTHING out of pocket just fine. Do you not understand that bureaucrats are a waste of money?
I am not lying and I refuse to get into a debate over the meaning of universal. call it something else then if you want.
I am not lying when I believe that attempting to cover everyone in a society is universal. I believe that, but if you don't like the word universal then call it something else, I really don't care. But DO NOT call me a liar because I have a different point of view. I have resisted the urge greatly to insult you, and I ask you to do the same.
You do not refuse to debate me on the word universal. Every one of your replies is a debate on the word. Besides, you refused to answre my questions about how you can say that in every country you lised 100% treats EVERY citizen. They don't. And so instead of concede your fallacy, you accuse of me of "disagreeing". Either those countries are universal or they are not. They cannot be both. So either you are right or you are wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion. And you are indeed wrong.
Look I know through first hand expereince that under Germany's system and Englan's system neither I nor anyone I know has ever been refused treatment. 100% of the people I know have never been refused treatment. I can also not find any proof of anyone ever having been refused treatment.
After much discussion about the meaning of the word universal, I realized, it does nto matter what it is called, it is the outcome that matters.
But not 100% of the population has NEVER been refused treatment. It may surprise you, but there a whole slew of people out in the world that YOU DO NOT KNOW. So please spare me your anectodal stories. The question is how does a government that is RUN EXACTLY LIKE PRIVATE INSURANCE cover more people? And yes, it is important what it is called. If you are going to move forward in a debate, you have to be honest. And you cannot claim government supriority if it is in fact NOT universal.
Show me proof of people in othre 1st world contries who have been refused treatment. I tell you from experience and you call it anecdotal, but you offer no proof at all of your point of view.
Government insurance or insurance that is heavily regulated does not run exactly like private insurance, that is the whole point.
What is important is that we include everyone in the healtcare system.
Where you in Germany because your father was in the military?
It IS ANECDOTAL! and I have asked several times for YOUR proof and answers to my questions. Are you incapable of answering my questions and providing actual facts?
Here are just a few links to facts proving the lack of coverage abroad:
american [dot] com/archive/2008/december-12-08/the-trouble-with-canadian-healthcare
news [dot] bbc [dot] co [dot] uk/2/hi/health/3223333 [dot] stm
telegraph [dot] co [dot] uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1367322/Turk-is-refused-surgery [dot] html
Where does it say in the article that the woman was an illegal immigrant? I suggest you actually read the article before inserting your foot in your mouth. Of course, you have a habit of forming opinions without having any facts.
That is irrelevant since people die in EVERY country every year due to lack of access to medical care. I have asked more times than I would like to count, for your proof that there exist a country where EVERY citizen receives all necessary medical care. That there exists a country where NO ONE is refused treatment. I've provided my links. Do you not have any of your own? Do you rely solely on your patent falsehoods?
Wow ST1000, 45,000 a year in a 1st world country. That makes no kinda sense. I looked it up on line and it's right there from Harvard.
Wow, I knew things were bad, but 45,000 in a first world country is just obscene.
Tracy you should be ashamed of yourself if you think that is irrelevent. This isn't some 3rd. world country, this isn't somewhere in Africa, this is the USA.
Then it is also a disgrace when governments in every socialized system deny treatments to their citizens on a routine basis. Yes, the U.S. isn't perfect, but neither are any of the other "1st" world countries. It is a shame that you don't care about those who die every year in those countries.
I know our sytem is not perfect and neither is that of any other country.
I do care about peope in other countries too, but you have to get your own house in order 1st. By 1st world standards 45,000 people a year is an absolute disgrace. No other country in the 1st world even gets close to that number either in pure numbers or in a per capita comparision. Read the Harvard report. I would post the link, but youtube seems to block links.
Yes, our system needs improvement. But going to a system proven to be just as bad or worse is just stupid. If you really cared about improving medical access, eliminate the FDA and reform medical licensing to allow for more diversification of the field to lower level professionals. This will at once reduce costs, improve access, and increase employment. Adding government bureaucrats that get paid to tell people NO is just immoral.
It is not on a routine basis, which is why it makes the news. It is a few times a year.
It happens so ofte nhere that it does not make the news, they would have to spend the whole of the newscast talking about the 123 different cases every day. It is too much, so people are numbed to it and do not report it. 123 times a day is more than both the Iraq and Afghan wars together. For a 1st world country it is a crying shame. It needs to be fixed, I am disgusted by it.
For people to point the finger at other 1st world countries and say, they do it on a routine basis is compete BS. I agree with you. When you try to find information on it on the internet, you find the odd case here or there, but not like here, 123 times a day. When something is that common, it fails to be newsworthy.
123 times a day is like a freaking 3rd world country. we live in the USA for Christ sakes not Zimbabwee, somalia or somewhere else in the 3rd world.
chroniclelive [dot] co [dot] uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/04/26/i-m-disgusted-dying-people-are-denied-drugs-on-cost-grounds-72703-20822965/
Do you think that denying life saving drugs to 2,000 lung cancer patients is just an example of a few random meaningless people? Wow, what kind of a person are you to look the other way on their deaths?
So you are still lying? I have already proven that every one of those countrie has and does in fact deny patient care, making you nothing more than a liar. Why anyone would believe anything that you would post is beyond me.
What's beyond me is that you post links that don't work and spout absolute fucking verbal diarrhea.
Look at the United Nations Human Development Report, the CIA World Fact Book, The Harvard Report, and the other one that is posted which was copied from Web MD. They are all very easy to find using there titles on the net
If I try to post the link the post does not go through, if I try to alter it so that I can post it, it does not go through. If I post as you do it doesn't work. LOOK AT THEM
What part of people die from lack of access to medical care in EVERY country do you not understand? Where is your proof that NO ONE is denied treatment in those countries? Or can you only lie? As far as your questions, if you bothered to actually read this whole thread you'd find your answers. And yes, the links work. You have to follow the instructions. Or are you incapable of doing that?
Yes sometimes people get denied in countries that are meant to have 100% coverage, but they do not get denied for everything it is now and then, which is why you can only find the odd example of it. It is not the norm.
Not 45,000 a year. Not even close. All of the other 1st world systems together do not equal 45000.
This is an absolute disgrace. Maybe you are right in that some people may sometimes get denied and sometimes might even die as a result, but not in these sort of numbers, nothing even close.
The reason you can find examples in the internet of people being denied coverage in other countries is because it is newsworthy it is not the norm there whereas here is happens every day it is the norm here
Well when you do the math 47000000 people with no regualr access to medical care because they have no way to pay for it is actually 17%, so not quite one fifth (which would be 20%) So you are right, it's not 20% it's actually only 17%
Where do you get the number of 47 million without healthcare from? It looks suspiciously like the number that has been cited for UNINSURED Americans. There is a HUGE difference between being uninsured and not receiving health care. I am UNINSURED and I AM COVERED. Why do you have so many problems distinguishing between words in the English language?
I don't insist on using universal at all, I have said call it something else if you want. Call it government run, call it whatever you want. That is not the point of the debate. The point of the debate is to try to cover as many people as possible preferably 100%. The debtate about healthcare is not and never was what it should be called.
I will try again, my posts in response to this don't seem to be showing up.
Tracy you left the greater part of the definition of Universal off. In Merriam Websters Online is actually give Universal Health Coverage as an example. See Below:
1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society universal health coverage
So again, every other 1st world country. They are not mythical.
How are liver transplants (and all other medical care) equitably distributed to ALL members of a society if ALL members do not receive the care? How can you say that Canada has universal coverage when at least in one town they hold a lottery for patients to see a doctor? How are ALL Canadians receiving care if only 1 in that town is allotted care? So please, for the last time, name me ONE country where ALL citizens receive care? Yes, read the definition.
Covered for what? If 20 somethings in Canada are refused access to primary care physicians due to a shortage of doctors, how are they covered? How are patients that are refused chemo until it is too late do to lack of funds covered? How are patients that don't respond to "approved" traditional methods covered? How are transplant patients that are not high enough on the list covered? Please name just one country that covers ALL patients equally. Just one.
To Tracyll77; What do you mean "SOMEONE ELSE determines what I am ALLOWED to afford and what I am not" ???? I am a a European and I can go to any hospital or facility I want if I can afford to pay it ... exactly the same as you do!!! You clearly are misinfomed about rights of freedom in Europe,
@hauskalainen So you are saying that you can get ANY procedure or ANY treatment at ANY time, no problem? And I noticed that you specifically stated "if you can afford it". Are you saying that only rich people are allowed access to medical care in Europe? If Europeans are taxed for their medical care, with what money are they supposed to afford going outside of the system? And please don't tell me that no one runs and budgets these systems.
Yes. Any legal procedure, at any time, no problem, if you have the insurance or are rich enough to pay out of pocket. That is pretty much how it is in America.
sheep will follow when they depend on the government. "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
jthanlon63 1 year ago
This is much better than Andy Griffith's advertisement for Obamacare! More accurate too!
hookemhornmom 1 year ago
my cousin and uncle are in this no kidden!
TaLlGrubZzZ 1 year ago
.
That was hilarious, I really enjoyed that.
Thank you for posting.
★★★★★!
.
I invite you check my new vid,
Youtube are You There What Have You Done.
Love to get your opinion.
Thanks again, Tom
TunesNorth 1 year ago
You crazy health mandate critics! Wadda ya mean its wrong to force the young and healthy to subsidize an insanely unhealthy population by forcing them to buy more than they could ever need, charging them more, and charging them the same rate as some drunk smoker with a swinging gut full of oxycodone? I mean, cya'mon, WHATS WRONG WITH THAT!?
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
Now we need the law changed so that all the money spent on ads like this comes from the Dividends paid to shareholders and not from the funds that are supposed to meet the costs of Americans' health care.
This is not what companies paying for their employees health care exåect their money to go to.
I have little doubt that funding came from there..
hauskalainen 1 year ago
/watch?v=J9N1LWAQAHM&feature=related, all people see this video...an arrested Taliban/Lashker terrorist confessed working for indians and being paid for killing people in Pakistan...
shazycalm 1 year ago
Yeah, we won, yeah, this is what I voted for. A real democracy not a plutocracy, yeah. Of the people for the people by the people. Yeah the people won this one.
Scootertuner1000 1 year ago
What a well done video. Excellent, humorous and almost identical to the films of the thirties or forties that were done to promote government programs.
Personally, I do not trust Obama or Pelosi in any way shape or form. Not only would their "plan" likely bankrupt future generations of Americans, but it would also be ruined quickly by the same kinds of parasites who ruined our welfare system. People would go to the hospital for free, just for a free lunch!
FrodoFriend 1 year ago 2
A.) Your health care costs more than $20. If you were being honest about the cost, you would include how much you pay in taxes for health care.
B.) Just because you have received the treatment that you requested does not mean that everyone does. Are you going to tell me that Japan never turns a single person away from a needed treatment? Are you going to tell me that Japan does not cap spending?
TracyII77 2 years ago
I can't decide if this video is more boring or retarded.
jholcster 2 years ago
Keep scrolling back until you see the links people. Links of reports from Harvard, The United Nations, The World Health Organization, and more.
Learn the truth about our health care system.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Tracy, False sources eh? Here's a report from the World Health Organization that shows we place 37th in the world for health care.
hotel tango tango pappa : / / 3 W's . who. int / inf - pr - 2000 / en / pr 2000 - 4 4 . hotel tango mike lima
Remember words like Hotel Tango Mike Pappa and Lima are replaced with the 1st letter from each and 3 W's is replaced by hitting w three times. Squeeze it all back together.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Add Hotel Tango Tango Pappa to the start of this.
: // hdr . undp . org / en / reports / global / hdr 2005 / papers / HDR 2005 _ Rowland _ Diane _ and _ Catherine _ Hoffman _ 34 . pdf
The United Nations HUman Development report on Healthcare. Just compact it all back together. The World Health Organization Report.
Hotel Tango Tango Pappa : / / 3 W's . who . int / w h r / 2008 / w h r 0 8 _ e n . p d f
Squeeze it all back together.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Wow, they make good reading. Chapter 2 of the of the WHO report makes particually good reading. It took me a minute to figure out that 3 W's meant you needed to put in the initials for the World Wide Web and that Hotel, Tango and Pappa were Hotel (H) Tango (T) and Pappa (P), but then I remembered it from my former life in the military.
URASociopath 2 years ago
commonwealthfund.
org / ~/
media / Files /News/News%20Releases / 2008 / Jan /New % 20Study % 20 % 20 U % 20 S % 20 % 20Ranks % 20 Last % 20 Among % 20Other % 20 Industrialized % 20 Nations% 20 on % 20 Preventable % 20Deaths / Nolte _ PressRelease _ 1%20 3% 2008 % 20 pdf . pdf
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Finally you follow directions! I was beginning to think you were hopeless. That being said, NONE of these reports your assertion that their exists a country that does not DENY patient care. Also, this particular report clearly states that hypertension is in fact considered in its figures. Hypertension is AFFECTED and CONTROLLED by diet. So until your authors are willing to account for differing diets and lifestyles, these numbers are in fact useless.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Read the reports. I never saw your directions.
Read the reports. I have nothing more to say to you.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
harvardscience. harvard . edu / medicine -health /articles /new- study -finds - 45000 - deaths - annually-linked - lack - health - coverage
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
You still have yet to answer my question as to why your Harvard report states that the U.S. has 45,000 deaths annually due to lack of access to medical care, and your commonwealth (a lobbying organization by the way) 101,000 PREVENTABLE deaths. If you take the difference of 56,000 deaths, you might as well be stating that more people die of preventable deaths WITH access to health care. And how do you attribute the preventable deaths in other countries? Their health care is deadly?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Uhm he did explain the difference. One shows only the numbers caused by a lack of access to healthcare the other shows all preventable deaths. That means lack of access to healthcare because it can not be afforded and preventable deaths from lifestyle, malpractice, hospital infections and so on. I suggest you do what he says and read all the reports before saying anything else. I am reading them now and they make very good reading.
URASociopath 2 years ago
So now you admit that LIFESTYLE is in fact a major factor to mortality rates? So unless you are prepared to force feed Americans and force them to excersize, you cannot claim that the other countries have superior health care based on those numbers. If you combine your Harvard report numbers, yo are claiming that MORE people die from preventable deaths WITH access to health care than without. This should tell you something.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I neve said that lifestyle is not a contributing factor to total numbers of deaths. I said we have 47,000,000 people have no health care insurance, which makes, for most, access to health care very difficult. Regardless of comparing the two numbers we still have 45000 people a year die because of the lack of access. That's 123 people a day. It is by far by the worst in the 1st world. You can not yet have read all the reports anyway. One is 143 pages long, let alone the others.
URASociopath 2 years ago
It is not true that not having insurance means that you do not have access to health care. And you cannot say that those who die from a lack of access to health care in this country is more than those who die other countries. You have never proven that point. And it is really sad that you feel the need to keep making new accounts just to comment on this video and make yourself feel good. If you really had a valid argument, you wouldn't need to continue your charades.
TracyII77 2 years ago
What?
URASociopath 2 years ago
Tracy give up. I have been following this for a while now. He has you well and truly beaten. There ain't no kinda way around it. I believe his stuff waaaayy more than some blogs and newspapers.
I think you need to just admit defeat and move on to another battle.
MrPeterNorth1 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
That is why you don't generally see news of it here It is the norm here so individual cases rarely come to light It might happen a few times a year in other 1st world countries, which makes it newsworthy and people get up in arms about it. It happens every day here, in fact when you do the math 123 times a day on average. People have grown acustomed to it, blase about it and they point at other countries saying "it happens there too" but it does not, not like it does here not 123 times a day
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
It doesn't happen just a few times a year in your other countries. It ROUTINELY happens in other countries. We don't have better survival cancer rates by accident.
The city of Vancouver ALONE just cancelled 6,000 surgeries. That is what I call a disgrace. And still you have yet to provided ANY proof to your blatant lies. Keep making stuff up. It is all you are good at.
vancouversun [dot] com/opinion/Leaked+plan+proposes+cuts+surgeries+across+Metro+Vancouver/1878506/story [dot] html
TracyII77 2 years ago
Not cancelled, but postponed.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Cancelled. It is in the article. Do I need to post the definition to yet another word?
TracyII77 2 years ago
(WebMD) The U.S. today finds itself last on a new list of countries seeking to curb preventable deaths in people younger than 75.
Not only does the U.S. have the worst spot on that list, its rate of improvement is also slower than the other 18 industrialized nations included in the study.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
That includes deaths related to lifestyle choices. I am still looking for your proof relating to actual health care statistics. Or do you not understand the difference? I mean you've failed to understand other words in the English language.
TracyII77 2 years ago
How the Nations Ranked
Here is the full list of how the 19 countries ranked in their preventable death rates:
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Do you disagree with the Harvard Study then?
You are a lost cause. I believe it is you who fails to understand the words in the English language.
You also fail to mention that the drugs talked about on North East News Today have since been appoved and actually only one person died as a result.
When she died, they immediately approved it due to public pressure.
No other 1st world country even gets close to our level.
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE A DAY.
URASociopath 2 years ago
The U.S. might have been spared an estimated 101,000 deaths annually if its preventable death rate matched that of the top-ranked countries, according to the researchers, who included Ellen Nolte, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Preventable Deaths
Nolte's team defined preventable deaths as deaths in people younger than 75 with treatable cancers, bacterial infections, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and surgical complications.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Oh I get it you have to read tis backwards, okay.
URASociopath 2 years ago
And diabetes, heart disease, and stroke are all related to LIFESTYLE CHOICES.
personal [dot] buseco [dot] monash [dot] edu [dot] au/~jaekim/seminar/tedpaper [dot] pdf
becker-posner-blog [dot] com/archives/2009/06/health_care-bec [dot] html
And yet you have NEVER given me proof of your claims about UNIVERSAL coverage in other countries where people are NEVER denied health care.
TracyII77 2 years ago
"And diabetes, heart disease, and stroke are all related to LIFESTYLE CHOICES"
So your heart complaint is related to your lifestyle choise is it then? YOU FUCKING LIAR
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Yeah since when has childhood diabetes, or a whole in the hear or mytral valve condition or or or been a lifestyle choice. What complete and utter nonsense. You think Tracy would know better given that she has a heart conditoin herself, that is not caused by her lifestyle. You said it man, verbal diarrhea.
URASociopath 2 years ago
I know right. One stupid comment after another She needs to read something other than right wing propaganda I am not excusing the fact that people sometimes get turned away under so called socialized medicine systems, I think it is wrong there too. But it is not the rule. Not only do people get turned away all the time here, but according to Harvard's study, 123 people a day die in the USA due to lack of access to healthcare, because they can not pay for insurance or can not get it at all.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Diese abgefuckte Huerre kann man wohl gar nicht glauben, denkste nicht. Sie fragt dich wer dir glauben wird, ist ja lecherlich, ich mein ees sind alle die ein halbes Gehirn haben. Sie luegt und luegt und luegt dann sagt sie das Du luegst. Ich habe alles nachgeshaut und alles was du geagt hast ist war. Sie hat meistens gar nichts. 123 times a damn day, come on woman, are you that stupid?
URASociopath 2 years ago
Actually my heart condition and the majority of heart conditions are in fact controlled by lifestyle choices. This includes diabetes. The best treatment is in fact a change in diet. So unless we start force feeding people in this country, you CANNOT compare diabetic and heart disease outcomes solely on medical practices. The very fact that you have cited two completely different numbers and NO ACTUAL SOURCES, proves that you are just making things up as you go.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I eventually got the second link to work.
It's a fucking blog. Where is the authority in that. You are going to try to hold rag newspapers and blogs up to the UNited Nations, CIA, Harvard and say that they are may reliable sources of inormation. You have a screw loose.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
You cannot criticize my sources when you have not even provided a single source of your own. And you are such a horrible liar as to create multiple accounts to try and make yourself look legitimate. I really feel so sad for you that you care more about your politics and image than actually about the facts and the health of those affected by your lies. If your views held any water, you would not need to lie. I have backed up every one of my comments. Can you do the same?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Juvenile diabetes, a hole in the heart, a mitral valve condition or any genetic abnormality are not caused by lifestyle choice.
I did not come up with the numbers, of 47000 unininsured, 45000 a year (123 a day) dying as a direct result of not having healthcare insurance and thus not being able to afford access to healthcare or the 101,000 preventable deaths myself.
I gave all of the sources, what I did not do is post links, because you can not post links to youtube.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
That's 47000000 unsinsured not
47K.
READ THE DAMN REPORTS YOU RETARD. United Nations Human Development Report, CIA World Fact Book, Harvard report (type is Harvard Report 45000 die) and 101000 preventable deaths for the report that shows 101,000 preventable deaths (not all of which are connected to a lack of healthcare insurance, which is why it is greater than the 45k number from Harvard, which only deals with those that are a direct result of lack of access due to lack of insurance.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
If you cannot explain the variation between your so called Harvard number with your other so called 101,000 number then you have no idea what those numbers even mean to quote them. Do you not understand that a diabetic who goes on a sugar binge will necessarily raise that 101,000 number? And so what if we have 47 million uninsured. That does NOT mean they have no medical care. Do you not understand the word uninsured? Do I need to post that definition as well?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
No you have not given sources. I very clearly explained to you how to post links and how to look at them. If you cannot follow simple instructions, I feel sorry for you. Juvenile diabetes and high blood pressure are not CAUSED by lifestyle choices but are in fact controlled by them. Just as celiac's disease or allergies. The reality is that unless we greatly change the diet and lifestyles of Americans they will continue to have a higher mortality rate then the rest of the world.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Your links do not work. In addition the few that can be made to work by reconfiguring what you put in to overcome the fact that real links can not be posted are blogs and rag newspapers.
I would rather believe Harvard or the UN or even the CIA. I am however not going to post links that are so messed up in order to get them onto youtube, that they no longer work. And you know as well as I do, if you try to post a real link that has not been altered the post will simply not appear. READ THEM.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
READ THA DAMN REPORTS YOU RETARD.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Yeah bitch, read the reports.
URASociopath 2 years ago
Are you so unable to formulate an educated and well cited response that you must continuously resort to name calling and false sources?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Read the reports and stop lying.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I think the sources you were looking for have been posted by Scooter Tuner.
They make really interesting reading.
URASociopath 2 years ago
You have backed up your comments with nothing. Your links do not work.
I have quoted my sources, many times, so yes I can back my comments. I don't post links though. If you are too lazy or too scared of the truth to look up the reports, then you have even more of a problem than I thought.
READ THE DAMN REPORTS YOU RETARD.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Using data from the World Health Organization, the researchers compared preventable death rates among 19 countries during 1997-1998 and 2002 2003.
From 1997 to 1998, the U.S. had a high rate of preventable deaths, but it wasn't the worst-ranked country on the list. By 2002-2003, preventable death rates dropped in all 19 countries, including the U.S.
But the U.S. had had the mildest rate of decline -- 4% -- compared with a 16% average decline among the other countries.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
So you believe eveything you read in the F*%#cking Sun do you? Good God there's no helping you. All of the other systems in the first world are proven better than our, not just as bad or worse, report after report says it. CIA WORD REPORT, UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY REPORT, THE REPORT JUST POSTED NOT 2 MINUTES AGO. TIME AND TIME AGAIN,AND YOU KEEP SAYING PROVE IT. LOOK THE DAMN REPORTS UP YOU RETARD.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
No, I'm asking you to provide them. I suspect that you cannot provide them because they don't exist.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I have agreed with you that sometimes people in other 1st world countires get denied treatment already.
Do you not fucking read well you cunt?
We still rank lower than every other 1st world country, by a long long way.
You fucking retard, look up the fucking reports..
They do exist, but as you well know links can not be posted, which is why yours don't fucking work you lying fucking piece of shit.
Read the fucking reports listed below. If you won't then YOU ARE THE FUCKING LIAR.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
They exist alright. IF YOU DON'T LOOK THEM UP THEN YOU ARE THE LIAR
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I agree with Winston Churchill.
He said "Americans can always be relied upon to do the right thing, after they have exhausted every other option"
URASociopath 2 years ago
how is universial good? all i do is wait in lines i nthe general hospital longer now.
how is private insurance good?
i have to pay ISNANELY amounts just so the guys who are suppose to help me, make me pay more for a small % of treatment.
*sigh what happened to fair health care?
guardman12345 2 years ago
why were you in Germany?
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Do a seach with this title, you will find it too.
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
What you did was post spam. Post a link to the study or a summary and it will stay, as have all other comments supporting government-run health care that are not spam.
samadamsalliance 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
If so, that is YouTube issue, not any restriction from our end. Posting more than 10 copy-and-paste comments (estimate, but I think it was more) in less than 5 mins (estimate, could have been more or less) is spam.
samadamsalliance 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Every country rations healtth care. In the U.S. it is done by price AND by insurance companies which decide whether a treatment is insurance fundable or not. The insurers have a HUGE incentive to deny care because it adds to profitability.
In Canada, Japan. Taiwan, and Western Europe this is not the case. Which is why government regulated health care there without private insurance is cheaper and has broader popular support. Americans wake up!!!!
hauskalainen 2 years ago
I don't have insurance, so the ONLY denier of my care is ME! I CHOOSE what I am willing to afford and what I am not. In all the countries that you mentioned, SOMEONE ELSE determines what I am ALLOWED to afford and what I am not. That is cruel and evil. Yes, there are those who fit the MAJORITY for those countries' predetermined care guidelines. But God forbid if you are born differently. That is why those countries keep their system despite it hurting those who need it most.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Aber wenn du meinst das du deutsch sprechen kannst koennen wir das den ganzen Tag lang tun wenn du willst. Ich habe kaum die moeglichket mein deutsch zu ueben, also nehme ich diese gelegenheit mit beiden haenden. Ich meine wie oft kommt es vor das ein Ami eine andere Sprache sprechen kann. Ich meine die meisten koennen kaum ihre eigenen Sprache.
Also mal sehen ob deine Dolmestschersoftware das alles ausrechnen kann. Ich weiss Du schafts es nie, weil Du wirklich kein deutsch sprechen kannst
ConcernedAmerican100 2 years ago
Nah da kannst du vieleicht 50% davon verstehen mit EDV. Du wurdest warscheinlich versuchen den Eindrueck zu geben das du dass alles gut verstanden hast. Also koennen wir auch slang, vieleicht waere das einfacher fuer dich.
Versteh's nit wat ick da sage oder wat?
Ick meene du kannst ja so jut deutsch, nit war/ Bis' ja lecherlich.
ConcernedAmerican100 2 years ago
Why is the rest of the 1st world healthier than us?
ConcernedAmerican100 2 years ago
Because they have universal healthcare and therefore, free at the point of service access to preventative care, rather than waiting until it becomes ambulatory.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
False. If that were true, they would have better survival rates at the point of diagnosis. Those countries (which is NOT ALL) that are healthier than us have better diets and excersize more. That has NOTHING to do with the level of healthcare. Plus UNIVERSAL health care does NOT exist!!!!!!!!!!! Please name me one country that gives every patient that needs a liver transplant, a liver transplant. Just one. I dare you.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Not false, other countries have much better survival rates in all but a few areas, one of them is cancer. .
Universal healthcare DOES exist, it means health care that is provided to everyone in a country, it is therefor universal. Every other 1st world country would give a patient a liver transplant as long as a donor organ is available. However there is a shortage of organs, becasue you have to wait for someone to die to get one. That has nothing to do with universal healthcare.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
And my point is that EVERY system experiences shortages in ALL areas of health care. So UNIVERSAL health care does NOT exist. The moment that some patients are allotted care and others are DENIED, it ceases to be universal. So I ask you again, NAME me one country. Just one.
TracyII77 2 years ago
If someone has to wait for a donor organ, they are not being denied care. It's not like they have the liver and are saying, no you can't have it. They don't have the liver, so they are not denying, the person is waiting for a donor liver to become available. That is not denial that is waiting. I'll name every other country in the 1st world. that's a bit more than one,
that would give the person the liver liver if it were available.
Universal does not mean unlimited they are different.
ConcernedAmerican100 2 years ago
Yes it is DENIAL. If I am told I can't have a liver because it is going to someone else, that is DENIAL. And yes, that means I cease to be covered. If I am told, no I CANNOT see a specialist because they don't have enough specialists, I am DENIED care. If I am told that I cannot have surgery, because they don't have enough surgeons, I am NOT covered. There is NO SUCH thing as UNIVERSAL health care, because there is not an unlimited supply of it.
TracyII77 2 years ago
And neither unlimited nor universal is going to make people die so that someone can have their liver. It has nothing to do with universal healthcare.
They can only be denied a liver if the liver is available. They can't be denied something that does not exist.
ConcernedAmerican100 2 years ago
But the livers DO exist. They just don't exist for EVERYONE. This is why the have WAITING LISTS. Depending on where you are on the list, determines whether or not you get the AVAILABLE liver or not. The same is true of other surgeries, of primary care physicians, and various other treatments. If someone else gets treatment instead of me, I am being DENIED that AVAILABLE treatment. EVERY system routinely DENIES care. So you are COVERED no matter what? Name me one country where that is true.
TracyII77 2 years ago
But the livers DO exist. They just don't exist for EVERYONE.
If a liver does not esxist that does not suit your tissue type, then to you it does not exists. Besides that universal does not mean unlimited.
IT IS TRUE IN EVERY OTHER 1ST WORLD COUNTRY.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
From the Miriam Webster dictionary:
universal: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception
unlimited means without limit. That means that if a health system is in fact universal, it is WITHOUT LIMIT. It is UNLIMITED. If only a FEW patients recieve liver transplant, but not ALL, it is LIMITED. Therefore, it is NOT UNIVERSAL. So I'm still waiting to hear about this mythical country that has UNLIMITED health care.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Actually Tracy, you left a large portion of the defnition off. I went to Merriam Wensters Online and this is what I got. They have Universal Health Coverage as an example.
1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society universal health coverage
So again, every other 1st world country. They are not mythical.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Yes, if you read the definition, it clearly states in the second half: AVAILABLE to ALL members. So if a country ONLY can only treat 100 out of every 150 patients, the health care is NOT AVAILABLE to ALL members.
So yes, you believe in a mythical country. I'm still waiting.
TracyII77 2 years ago
You can wait as long as you want. I have said over and over that all other 1st world countries supply universal healthcare.
Even the dictionary that you quoted uses Universal Health Coverage as an example of Universal. What are you going to argue with Merriam Websters now too. You conveniently did not post the part about Universal Healthcare, why?
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Do you absolutely refuse to answer my questions? How can a system be UNIVERSAL if only SOME patients receive transplants but not ALL? How is Canada UNIVERSAL when at least one town holds a lottery for it's doctor? Are you saying that those who are NOT selected are covered and receiving care by magic? Please, can you not answer my questions? And yes, the dictionary states universal health care as example for the use of the word. That does not mean it exists. Unless you believe in fairies.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I and lots of other people want a healthcare system that tries. Arguing over the meaning of a word like universal doesn't get us anywhere. If you don't believe in universal healthcare, or disagree with calling it universal is neithre here nor there and in the grand scheme of things completely unimportant. 100% of other 1st world countries attempt to provide healthcare for everyone. That is what we should be attempting to do too.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I don't believe in GOVERNMENT RUN healthcare as I have personal experience and have seen the data. And no, government run healthcare is ANYTHING BUT universal. You lie to push forward your agenda, by implying that the government cares for more patients, when in fact it does not. So if you really cared about fixing the problems in health care, you would be honest. But you don't care about honesty. If you did, you would answer my questions.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I have experienced healthcare in England, Germany and here.
Germany's is not government run, but everyone is required to carry insurance. It works very very well. I was never ever declined service or treatment and I do not know anyone who was. I had three hospital stays and visted the doctor probably 20 times or so in the time I lived there (6 years)
I have also lived in the UK and there system is a public trust, which is financed by taxes from the government.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I have never been turned down for treatment or services there either and don't know anyone who has.
I had 2 hospital stays there, both for several months each (for different things, a motorcycle accident and a kidney problem, both of which saw me in intensive care) and countless visits to the doctor over a period of many years.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
And I have been turned down for treatment by our own government, so yes it dpoes happen!! I am fighting for my very survival, and all you do is assume that everyone is like you and is treated like you. And yes, you have insulted me with your dialog with ConcernedAmerican. So keep up with your lying. You may not like what I say, but I haven't lied like you have.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I think it is sad that you have been turned down for treatment by our own government. What reason did they give?
What did I lie about?
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Ps. my conversation with ConcernedAmerican was about his German ability and how I agreed with him that it appeared that you had used translation software. It wasn't an insult, not everybody can speak another language fluently.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
How is accusing someone of using translation software not an insult? As it was, he read my German wrong in the first place, which was the basis for his claim. And I challenge you as I challenged him, prove it. You are too eager to make claims and agree with statements that have no factual backing.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I did not accuse you of anything. I agreed with Concerned American that it did appear as if you had used software, but I did not acuse you of anything. I have nothing to prove, I only said it appeared that way. It is something that can not be proved one way or the other.
Why were you in Germany?
Who is the They in "They refused to"
Who dropped you from their insurance when you still had a brace?
How did you grow up on govmnt healthcare?
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
No. You agreed with ConcernedAmerican that IDID USE translation software. Appearing to use, and actually using are two different things. Is your grammer that bad, that I have to continually correct you?
TracyII77 2 years ago
The basis for Concerned Americans claim was more than his misreading of one word. It was also the fact that the German used was gramatically incorrect and you used expressions that appeard to be direct translations of the English expression, which when literally translated into German make no sense in German. I believe that was his reason for the accusation. That's how I read it anyway. I can not prove anything though, which you know, so it is pointless to say prove it.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
OMG, Tracy you are such a fucking retard.
You seem to just like to argue. Most of the time, you use circular logic and your arguments make no real sense.
You were not hugged enough as a little girl.
TheJamesMorley 2 years ago
I will not respond to any more of your arguments about the meaning of the word universal and mythical countries etc. as the meaning of a word is irrelavent.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
100 out of 150 is total BS. Health care is available to everyone in every other 1sy world country. If you believe every other 1st world country is mythical, then there's no talking to you and I might as well give up.
We won ayway, so what am I trying to change your point of view for. It does not matter how logical someone is, you are never going to agree, you will always find something to argue against.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
OK, England, Ireland, Germany Switzerland, Denmark, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Belgium, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, France Italy, the list goes on and on.
They all have what is defined as universal healthcare.
There are many other countries too, this is just a small selection.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
No. They all have systems that YOU define as universal health care. There is NOTHING UNIVERSAL about their health CARE. Do you not understand the words ALL and WITHOUT LIMIT? You are trying to tell me that health care in those countries is WITHOUT LIMIT for ALL citizens? No one is turned away ever? They have an unlimited number of surgeons, MRI machines, chemo drugs, and everything else? NO ONE is told NO? Show me these mythical reports where EVERYONE receives 100% care.
TracyII77 2 years ago
How about this, if you are going to argue over the meaning of universal, which is what you are doing. How about saying we want a system that is going to cover or try to cover all of the population, or at least attempt to do so. I am in favor of such a system. A system where we do our utmost to make sure everyone is covered. Call it what you will, universal, national health care, socialized medicine, I really don't care.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I am all for a system that attempts to cove as much people as possible, but you outright LIE by calling socialized medicine universal. If you want an honest discussion and real answres, you yourself have to be honest. The problem of availability is the government itself. If we rid ourselves of the FDA and licensing laws, you would open the floodgates for more, better, cheaper care for all. But instead of addressing REAL problems, you simply want government takeover.
TracyII77 2 years ago
There you go again with the insults "you outright LIE"
I believe what I am saying, therefore it is not a lie. It is only a lie if it is designed to mislead or that I know it is not true, neither of which is true.
I told you you call people liars when you disagree with them. You just did it again.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I only call people liars when they lie. You insist on using universal to describe government run health care, despite the fact that it is wrong and I have pointed it out to you. Instead of bringing the debate further, you rest all of your argument on a falsehood. If at first it was a mistake, you made it a lie, when I pointed out the fallacy of using that term. You also have accused me of argueing, when you responded to me first. Is your whole argument to insult me?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Once again with the insults "if you would be honest"
I have answered your questions; you just don't like the answer. As for an argument about the meaning of universal, I am not getting into that with you.
The only place I have been declined treatment is here, NEVER in England and never in Germany. Actually even here I am not refused treatment, it's just that the insurance company won't pay, because its a pre-existing condition, which makes it very difficult to treat the condition.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Just because YOU have not been refused treatment, does not mean that others do not. And if you truely cared about others, you would care about them. I can post you link after linking citing patients who have been refused treatment in all of the countries you listed. And ATTEMPTING to cover everybody and ACTUALLY covering everybody are two totally different things. I could argue that even here we ATTEMPT to cover everybody. ATTEMPTING doesn't save lives.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I can only speak from personal expereince and that of people that I know.
And I and everyone I know has never been refused treatment.
We do not attempt to cover everyone here. Quite the opposite, as soon as it becomes risky for insurance company profits they drop people from the plan or make it so expensive for them to buy individually they it can't be afforded and effectively drops them. That is only attempting to cover those who are low risk.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I am uninsured, so NO ONE refuses me treatment. But I have been refused treatment by the government. You would force me into a system that does not treat me based ONLY your own personal experience. This means that if someone dare be different from you, too bad. And the government creates its own risk categories. So in fact they are run EXACTLY the same as private insurance. So please keep up with the fallacies.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Can you afford insurance? If you can and choose not to have it, that is why you are refused coverage or treatment by Medicare or Medicaid. If you can't afford insurance, then you should fight it. if you feel you should be classed as disabled then you should fight it.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
NO. I have NEVER been refused treatment for being UNINSURED. I have been refused treatment by our GOVERNMENT as I grew up under government run health care. They REFUSED to provide me with a primary care physician when I went away to college, so I had to go to the E.R. for ALL treatments when I under their plan. I was covered for dental treatments when living in Germany. Butwhen my dad was reassigned, I was dropped, still with braces on. I could go on and on.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Tracy, shut the fuck up you useless cunt
MsFordPrefect 2 years ago
And why do I have to have insurance? I save myself $3,000/year and I have several medical conditions, by going UNINSURED. I don't have to ask anyone's permission to go see a doctor or get a test. No one refuses me treatment. I could save even more if we abolished the FDA and opened up medical licensing. And NO, I don't patronize ER.s. I pay for EVERYTHING out of pocket just fine. Do you not understand that bureaucrats are a waste of money?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Where your parents in the military, is that how you grew up under government run healthcare?
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I am not lying and I refuse to get into a debate over the meaning of universal. call it something else then if you want.
I am not lying when I believe that attempting to cover everyone in a society is universal. I believe that, but if you don't like the word universal then call it something else, I really don't care. But DO NOT call me a liar because I have a different point of view. I have resisted the urge greatly to insult you, and I ask you to do the same.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
You do not refuse to debate me on the word universal. Every one of your replies is a debate on the word. Besides, you refused to answre my questions about how you can say that in every country you lised 100% treats EVERY citizen. They don't. And so instead of concede your fallacy, you accuse of me of "disagreeing". Either those countries are universal or they are not. They cannot be both. So either you are right or you are wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion. And you are indeed wrong.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Look I know through first hand expereince that under Germany's system and Englan's system neither I nor anyone I know has ever been refused treatment. 100% of the people I know have never been refused treatment. I can also not find any proof of anyone ever having been refused treatment.
After much discussion about the meaning of the word universal, I realized, it does nto matter what it is called, it is the outcome that matters.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
But not 100% of the population has NEVER been refused treatment. It may surprise you, but there a whole slew of people out in the world that YOU DO NOT KNOW. So please spare me your anectodal stories. The question is how does a government that is RUN EXACTLY LIKE PRIVATE INSURANCE cover more people? And yes, it is important what it is called. If you are going to move forward in a debate, you have to be honest. And you cannot claim government supriority if it is in fact NOT universal.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Show me proof of people in othre 1st world contries who have been refused treatment. I tell you from experience and you call it anecdotal, but you offer no proof at all of your point of view.
Government insurance or insurance that is heavily regulated does not run exactly like private insurance, that is the whole point.
What is important is that we include everyone in the healtcare system.
Where you in Germany because your father was in the military?
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago 2
It IS ANECDOTAL! and I have asked several times for YOUR proof and answers to my questions. Are you incapable of answering my questions and providing actual facts?
Here are just a few links to facts proving the lack of coverage abroad:
american [dot] com/archive/2008/december-12-08/the-trouble-with-canadian-healthcare
news [dot] bbc [dot] co [dot] uk/2/hi/health/3223333 [dot] stm
telegraph [dot] co [dot] uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1367322/Turk-is-refused-surgery [dot] html
TracyII77 2 years ago
ndt [dot] oxfordjournals [dot] org/cgi/content/full/20/11/2446
france24 [dot] com/en/20090221-lack-of-doctors-france-health-tinchebray
topnews [dot] in/health/death-pregnant-japanese-woman-sparks-controversy-25000
Do you still insist that there exists a country which covers ALL of its citizens and NEVER refuses treatment?
TracyII77 2 years ago
None of these links work
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
1367322/Turk-is-refused-sur gery
Link doesn't work but I can see the subject. Turk is somebody from Turkey.
What they have to pay for illegal immigrants do they? Let him go back to Turkey, he is not German.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Where does it say in the article that the woman was an illegal immigrant? I suggest you actually read the article before inserting your foot in your mouth. Of course, you have a habit of forming opinions without having any facts.
TracyII77 2 years ago
call it government run if you want then, or government regulated, I really don't care.
What matters is that we don't leave one fifth of our population out in the cold to fend for themselves, when they are often the least able to do so.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
That is a fallacy. Prove to me that one fifth of our population DOES NOT receive medical care.
TracyII77 2 years ago
New Harvard Study shows that 45,000 people a year die in the USA due to lack of access to medical care.
Look it up.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
That is irrelevant since people die in EVERY country every year due to lack of access to medical care. I have asked more times than I would like to count, for your proof that there exist a country where EVERY citizen receives all necessary medical care. That there exists a country where NO ONE is refused treatment. I've provided my links. Do you not have any of your own? Do you rely solely on your patent falsehoods?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Why were you in Germany?
What health care plan dropped you when you still had braces?
Why did you grow up on government healthcare?
Who refused to give you a primary care doctor?
BTW I already said you links DO NOT WORK.
Do you refuse to answer my questions? I have asked them several times.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Not 45,000.00 of them. So it is not irrelevent. Not in 1st world countries.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Wow ST1000, 45,000 a year in a 1st world country. That makes no kinda sense. I looked it up on line and it's right there from Harvard.
Wow, I knew things were bad, but 45,000 in a first world country is just obscene.
Tracy you should be ashamed of yourself if you think that is irrelevent. This isn't some 3rd. world country, this isn't somewhere in Africa, this is the USA.
45,000 is an absolute disgrace.
URASociopath 2 years ago
I agree, that is the problem. People want to pretend there isn't a problem.
45,000 a year in any other 1st world country besides us, and there would be rioting on the streets. The people would not stand for it.
You are right it is an absolute screaming disgrace and that people think it is irrelevent is quite simply disgusting.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Then it is also a disgrace when governments in every socialized system deny treatments to their citizens on a routine basis. Yes, the U.S. isn't perfect, but neither are any of the other "1st" world countries. It is a shame that you don't care about those who die every year in those countries.
TracyII77 2 years ago
I know our sytem is not perfect and neither is that of any other country.
I do care about peope in other countries too, but you have to get your own house in order 1st. By 1st world standards 45,000 people a year is an absolute disgrace. No other country in the 1st world even gets close to that number either in pure numbers or in a per capita comparision. Read the Harvard report. I would post the link, but youtube seems to block links.
URASociopath 2 years ago
Yes, our system needs improvement. But going to a system proven to be just as bad or worse is just stupid. If you really cared about improving medical access, eliminate the FDA and reform medical licensing to allow for more diversification of the field to lower level professionals. This will at once reduce costs, improve access, and increase employment. Adding government bureaucrats that get paid to tell people NO is just immoral.
TracyII77 2 years ago
It is not on a routine basis, which is why it makes the news. It is a few times a year.
It happens so ofte nhere that it does not make the news, they would have to spend the whole of the newscast talking about the 123 different cases every day. It is too much, so people are numbed to it and do not report it. 123 times a day is more than both the Iraq and Afghan wars together. For a 1st world country it is a crying shame. It needs to be fixed, I am disgusted by it.
URASociopath 2 years ago
For people to point the finger at other 1st world countries and say, they do it on a routine basis is compete BS. I agree with you. When you try to find information on it on the internet, you find the odd case here or there, but not like here, 123 times a day. When something is that common, it fails to be newsworthy.
123 times a day is like a freaking 3rd world country. we live in the USA for Christ sakes not Zimbabwee, somalia or somewhere else in the 3rd world.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
chroniclelive [dot] co [dot] uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/04/26/i-m-disgusted-dying-people-are-denied-drugs-on-cost-grounds-72703-20822965/
Do you think that denying life saving drugs to 2,000 lung cancer patients is just an example of a few random meaningless people? Wow, what kind of a person are you to look the other way on their deaths?
TracyII77 2 years ago
France Japan Australia Spain Italy Canada Norway The Netherlands
Sweden Greece Austria Germany
Finland New Zealand Denmark
U.K. Ireland Portugal U.S.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
So you are still lying? I have already proven that every one of those countrie has and does in fact deny patient care, making you nothing more than a liar. Why anyone would believe anything that you would post is beyond me.
TracyII77 2 years ago
What's beyond me is that you post links that don't work and spout absolute fucking verbal diarrhea.
Look at the United Nations Human Development Report, the CIA World Fact Book, The Harvard Report, and the other one that is posted which was copied from Web MD. They are all very easy to find using there titles on the net
If I try to post the link the post does not go through, if I try to alter it so that I can post it, it does not go through. If I post as you do it doesn't work. LOOK AT THEM
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
What part of people die from lack of access to medical care in EVERY country do you not understand? Where is your proof that NO ONE is denied treatment in those countries? Or can you only lie? As far as your questions, if you bothered to actually read this whole thread you'd find your answers. And yes, the links work. You have to follow the instructions. Or are you incapable of doing that?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Comment removed
URASociopath 2 years ago
Hey you answered my questions.
But I couldn't have said it better myself.
Yes sometimes people get denied in countries that are meant to have 100% coverage, but they do not get denied for everything it is now and then, which is why you can only find the odd example of it. It is not the norm.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
It is certainly not the way it is here. Our insurance companies deny more than their systems combined do.
Added to that 45,000 a year is an absolute disgrace, and you are right Tracy's links DO NOT WORK and she hasn't answered my questions.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Not 45,000 a year. Not even close. All of the other 1st world systems together do not equal 45000.
This is an absolute disgrace. Maybe you are right in that some people may sometimes get denied and sometimes might even die as a result, but not in these sort of numbers, nothing even close.
The reason you can find examples in the internet of people being denied coverage in other countries is because it is newsworthy it is not the norm there whereas here is happens every day it is the norm here
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Comment removed
URASociopath 2 years ago
Comment removed
URASociopath 2 years ago
Why were you in Germany?
What health care plan dropped you when you still had braces?
Why did you grow up on government healthcare?
Who refused to give you a primary care doctor?
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Well when you do the math 47000000 people with no regualr access to medical care because they have no way to pay for it is actually 17%, so not quite one fifth (which would be 20%) So you are right, it's not 20% it's actually only 17%
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
Where do you get the number of 47 million without healthcare from? It looks suspiciously like the number that has been cited for UNINSURED Americans. There is a HUGE difference between being uninsured and not receiving health care. I am UNINSURED and I AM COVERED. Why do you have so many problems distinguishing between words in the English language?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Whose health care system were you under when you got dropped when your dad was re-assigned?
Was your father in the military?
Who refused to supply you with a primary care doctor?
Who are "They"
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I don't insist on using universal at all, I have said call it something else if you want. Call it government run, call it whatever you want. That is not the point of the debate. The point of the debate is to try to cover as many people as possible preferably 100%. The debtate about healthcare is not and never was what it should be called.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
I will try again, my posts in response to this don't seem to be showing up.
Tracy you left the greater part of the definition of Universal off. In Merriam Websters Online is actually give Universal Health Coverage as an example. See Below:
1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society universal health coverage
So again, every other 1st world country. They are not mythical.
Scootertuner1000 2 years ago
How are liver transplants (and all other medical care) equitably distributed to ALL members of a society if ALL members do not receive the care? How can you say that Canada has universal coverage when at least in one town they hold a lottery for patients to see a doctor? How are ALL Canadians receiving care if only 1 in that town is allotted care? So please, for the last time, name me ONE country where ALL citizens receive care? Yes, read the definition.
TracyII77 2 years ago
Universal means everyone is covered.
It does not mean an unlimited supply of everything. There are a lot of things where we have no control over the supply.
ConcernedAmerican100 2 years ago
Covered for what? If 20 somethings in Canada are refused access to primary care physicians due to a shortage of doctors, how are they covered? How are patients that are refused chemo until it is too late do to lack of funds covered? How are patients that don't respond to "approved" traditional methods covered? How are transplant patients that are not high enough on the list covered? Please name just one country that covers ALL patients equally. Just one.
TracyII77 2 years ago
well, that kinda is true.
trufbetold 2 years ago
To Tracyll77; What do you mean "SOMEONE ELSE determines what I am ALLOWED to afford and what I am not" ???? I am a a European and I can go to any hospital or facility I want if I can afford to pay it ... exactly the same as you do!!! You clearly are misinfomed about rights of freedom in Europe,
hauskalainen 2 years ago
@hauskalainen So you are saying that you can get ANY procedure or ANY treatment at ANY time, no problem? And I noticed that you specifically stated "if you can afford it". Are you saying that only rich people are allowed access to medical care in Europe? If Europeans are taxed for their medical care, with what money are they supposed to afford going outside of the system? And please don't tell me that no one runs and budgets these systems.
TracyII77 2 years ago
To Tracyll77
Yes. Any legal procedure, at any time, no problem, if you have the insurance or are rich enough to pay out of pocket. That is pretty much how it is in America.
The difference is that here we