- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is the problem with "free" healthcare.....
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:34 pm to CptBengal
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:34 pm to CptBengal
quote:
The cognitive dissonance to protect your ego is amazing from you progressive warriors. Even in the light of actual facts you not only wont relinquish your incorrect beliefs....you double down and call the other people stupid for not believing lies.
It's fascinating. It's how obama won. He knows how to play you brain dead zombies like a fiddle.
WTF are you talking about?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:35 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
If only they were poor and had no health insurance at all, they'd get all those things, right?
You know some of these people?
Send them my way. If they know basic math we will train them, pay them decent, and they get 100% paid for health insurance.
They'll have to work though.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:35 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
WTF are you talking about?
I asked you some questions in my original post to you...can you answer them?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:38 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
Keep telling yourself that.
quote:
In 2000, when the report was issued, WHO was run by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway and a socialist. She doesn’t think the results of a health system alone are important. Rather, she wants to know if the system is “fair.” In introducing the WHO report she wrote that while the goal of a health system “is to improve and protect health,” it also has “other intrinsic goals [that] are concerned with fairness in the way people pay for health care.” She is clear about the ideological factors she thinks are important: “Where health and responsiveness are concerned, achieving a high average level is not good enough: the goals of a health system must also include reducing inequalities, in ways that improve the situation of the worst-off. In this report attainment in relation to these goals provides the basis for measuring the performance of health systems.”
quote:
The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th
So these 5 criterion put together by a Malignant Norwegian Socialist Bitch drove US HealthCare down to "15th" in the world, and only THEN she factored in cost to drop us further to 37th.
Right?
Well . . .
. . not exactly.
COST HAD ALREADY BEEN FACTORED IN.
====================
Ranking Criterion for the 2000 WHO Report was conducted as follows:
25% of the ranking was judged on Responsiveness. "Responsiveness" was basically a consumer heath care rating score with cost elements factored in. The derivation of that score was never fully revealed.
25% of the rankings measured life expectancy stats. These stats too had little to do with quality of care. Life expectancy of course is influenced by factors such as murder rate, obesity, alcohol consumption, AND MILITARY RELATED CASUALTIES none of which address quality of care.
For example, the fact that America has the BEST survival rate OF ALL COUNTRIES for 13 of 16 cancer types was considered unimportant to the WHO. Similar results for Cardiac Care, Neonatal Care, etc were not remotely considered.
25% of the ranking was based on the uniformity of healthcare distribution. In other words, no matter the quality of care, as long as it was the same for each citizen, scoring in this category was very high. Since this is the law in Norway, this category helped the study's organizers raise their home country (Norway) significantly in the ratings.
25% was based on financial fairness as assessed by WHO criterion. More expensive treatments dropped nations in this category.
Thus, 75% or more of the ranking was not linked to quality of care at all, and most of that was related to cost assessment. In fact the WHO studdy was flatly rigged. All countries with socialized medicine would rank higher than the U.S. solely because they have socialized medicine. It does not matter if the quality of care is piss poor. So long as everyone gets that piss poor healthcare coverage, that country would receive max points for healthcare distribution
====================
Yet the US STILL RANKED FIFTEENTH!!!!
Given the rigged nature of the report, that is almost unbelievable.
It was not until costs were factored in a second time that we were dropped to 37th.
Any questions as to why that report was never generated again after 2000?
(kudos to NCTigah for exposing the report)
This post was edited on 8/14/14 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:43 pm to Scruffy
quote:
quote:Keep telling yourself that.
Ummm…it is actually true. The reporting of information isn't standardized throughout the different countries.
Another example is prenatal survival. Certain countries have different standards of reporting, thus decreasing the rates of death. Even the WHO states that different countries report their statistics differently.
Oh I am not disputing that there aren't standardized reporting methods. There never will be.
What I am pointing out is that it is "pathetic" because it doesn't jive with those not open to healthy (no pun intended) debate. It seems many on here are pre-programmed to spew hate at people who question their ways of thinking.
I am all about good-natured poking fun at.
But some of you need to grow the frick up (not you Scruffy).
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:45 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:This I agree with. It is one of the reasons why I don't come to this board as much anymore. Too much bullshite.
It seems many on here are pre-programmed to spew hate at people who question their ways of thinking.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:46 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
What I am pointing out is that it is "pathetic" because it doesn't jive with those not open to healthy (no pun intended) debate. It seems many on here are pre-programmed to spew hate at people who question their ways of thinking.
open debate assumes people are arguing using facts and reason.
You're openly admitting to using biased statistics. That's not debate...it's lunacy.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:49 pm to CptBengal
My link is the World Health Organization information from 1990 to 2012.
Not 2000.
Not 2000.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 3:52 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
My link is the World Health Organization information from 1990 to 2012.
Not 2000.
you're missing the point young progressive warrior. The statistics are biased because of the self-reporting and variability in the data reported.
good god, I bet you think yourself "intelligent" as well...right?
Posted on 8/14/14 at 4:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Add in neonatal reporting differences and the military, and the numbers shift further.
When you remove homicides and car accident deaths, there is a much different picture:
Posted on 8/14/14 at 4:36 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
It seems many on here are pre-programmed to spew hate at people who question their ways of thinking.
You are so right--it is the way of this board. I asked why once, got some interesting answers, also was accused of many things.
For me personally the internet tough guy routine diminishes any argument being made.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 5:03 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
Wow you have some deep seeded issues.
And all this time I thought it was 'deep seated'.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 5:35 pm to Porkchop Express
Porkchop just got housed.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 5:39 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:Then you are not just mistaken about what the information says, you are mistaken about the information itself.
My link is the World Health Organization information from 1990 to 2012.
Not 2000.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:17 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
If only they were poor and had no health insurance at all, they'd get all those things, right?
If only it was a private system so that those people could purchase it free from government entanglement.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:19 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
Yet Brits live on average 1.2 more years than us Americans.
US survivorship rates of the major killers are all higher than Great Britain. Only retarded people use life expectancy as a measure for the quality of a healthcare system.
Posted on 8/14/14 at 6:25 pm to MoreOrLes
quote:
I don't believe this is real.
That is real. We see this shite every damn day. Come follow us for a while. You'll see!!!
Posted on 8/14/14 at 8:03 pm to CptBengal
The problem with "free" healthcare paid for by the government is that the government is funded by the tax payers.
Let that concept soak in a bit.
Let that concept soak in a bit.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News