Obama lied about AARP Supporting Obamacare...and more

[Reba]

The research article that where Reba's post is research in opinion.

Statistics are not opinions. The numbers are facts. Survival rates for cancer are factual numbers, not opinions.

 

[Jiro]

Well, their opinion is just fair like us does and no one is better than me or Liebling's opinion so none of thing is accurate.

Opinion is just opinion.

not at all. Scott W. Atlas's opinion is backed by facts, statistics, and his medical expertise.

and what about you? backed by wikipedia? :roll:

 

[Jiro]

I use Canadian lady, you linked me from other thread as an example. Have you read her experience of visit USA to have surgery done?

her case and your case are different. you are not in her shoes so you have no idea at all.

I did not call you as an ignorant but said that your post prove itself is an ignorance. This is a difference.

Is that opinon, you entitled is called the people as lazy, bitching etc ? It´s not opinon but insult and ignorance because you have no idea how the people feel because you are not in their shoes.

Is that opinion, you called me as a very dense and naive? No, it´s not opinion but insult and bash.

1. ignorant is the adjective of ignorance. they're same thing, Liebling. Don't confuse yourself.
2. Just because people had bad experience with it doesn't mean EVERYBODY experienced the same.
3. calling me ignorance/ignorance is an insult and bash as well, Liebling

See?

Honestly no, your posts show itself is very hypocrisy for refuse to accept the fact and don´t want to see any links, I provided ...

I really have no idea why you said that I am hypocrisy when I tried to explain you.

fact? links? I'm sorry but you are notorious for giving us "facts" from links that have shaky background. So far - you only gave me one side. I gave you other side. Agree to disagree, si? Nobody is right or wrong in this debate but one is wrong when using wrong argument to back one's stance.

 

[Jiro]

My question is valid because universal health care isn't bad thing to say, don't compare the universal health care with communist system.

I means social insurance, drop out about public insurance, sorry for being confused and I'm not making up because social insurance and public insurance are similar but you chose to confuse.

I chose to confuse? but there's no such a thing as public insurance! You are the one who are confusing me with your made-up term.

btw - there is a proper thread for your question so feel free to ask in there - link

 

[Liebling:-)))]

so no comment about this post?

for post link to my attention.

Rebuttal:

John Geyman: "Facts" About American Health Care Revisited

The research article that where Reba's post is research in opinion.

Yes, that´s right, Dr. Scott Atlas is entitled to his opinion.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Is 60 years old the retirement age for most Germans?

For employees and workers between 60 and 65 years old.

 

[Foxrac]

Statistics are not opinions. The numbers are facts. Survival rates for cancer are factual numbers, not opinions.

But their website said research and opinion, I know it's opinion and some people from oversea wouldn't agree with this research.

For me, I'm between of them.

 

[Foxrac]

not at all. Scott W. Atlas's opinion is backed by facts, statistics, and his medical expertise.

and what about you? backed by wikipedia? :roll:

Yup but there's other research like Liebling posted it so there's different opinion.

I'm not always backed by wikipedia, I do backed with some research but there's many research got in my mind so I'm just between of them.

 

[Jiro]

Health Care Realities

At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”

It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.

And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.

The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.

Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.

And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.

Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.

Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.

Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.

And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.

So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.

Which brings us to the current debate over reform.

Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.

Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.

there you go -
1. raising tax is not an answer
2. putting a cap on punitive damage via tort reform (reducing # of sue-happy people)
3. reducing the cost of malpractice insurance is the answer to reduced medical cost
4. Obama's right that we need to modernize our health system (paperless environment)
5. Obama's right that something needs to be done with the private insurance companies
6. Obama's wrong to force small business owners to obtain health coverage for their workers
7. Obama's wrong to increase tax for our health reform
8. again - I support affordable healthcare for all but I do not support EQUAL healthcare for all. Big Difference!
9. most importantly - it is us who has to take care of our own health - eat right and exercise

 

[Foxrac]

I chose to confuse? but there's no such a thing as public insurance! You are the one who are confusing me with your made-up term.

btw - there is a proper thread for your question so feel free to ask in there - link

No, I give you a imagine, public health care is owned by government so public insurance is owned by government, it's part of social so that why call social insurance or social health care, people can say either in way.
Can a Public Insurance Plan Increase Competition and Lower the Costs of Health Reform?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

her case and your case are different. you are not in her shoes so you have no idea at all.

I do not understand why you changed your post as I answered your question how I estimated those price. I stated that I use a lady as an example of her visit experience to the USA. It´s not about me but about her and her experience.

Don´t you know what´s a definition of "example"?

1. ignorant is the adjective of ignorance. they're same thing, Liebling. Don't confuse yourself.

Whatever :roll:

2. Just because people had bad experience with it doesn't mean EVERYBODY experienced the same.

Of course I know.. What´s your point?

3. calling me ignorance/ignorance is an insult and bash as well, Liebling

Ignorant = lack of knowledge and understanding. I didn´t know how senstive you are that´s because I tell the truth that you insult the people who had bad experience with their private health insurance and Medicard as bitching, stupid, lazy which is an unacceptance. This is very disrespectful because you has no understanding and experience when you were in their shoes. I support them because I know how they feeling.

fact? links? I'm sorry but you are notorious for giving us "facts" from links that have shaky background. So far - you only gave me one side. I gave you other side. Agree to disagree, si? Nobody is right or wrong in this debate but one is wrong when using wrong argument to back one's stance.

Of course fact because it´s their own life experience situation.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

No, you don't give me a valid answer when ask question about what would you do after universal health care kicks in US so I just saw you are sensitive to this topic.

No, I'm not making up the term, social insurance is usually applies to general and normal people since medicaid and medicare are applies to people with limited qualifies like disabilities, elderly and low income. Germany, Japan and Taiwan has social insurance, there's more detail.
FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS
Social insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for 1st link. I remember you posted that same link somewhere... I search that link...I am glad that you posted here at last... I saved it in my favorite list.

 

[Jiro]

I do not understand why you changed your post as I answered your question how I estimated those price. I stated that I use a lady as an example of her visit experience to the USA. It´s not about me but about her and her experience.

Don´t you know what´s a definition of "example"?

fallacious example. nothing but a cheap attempt to make it more emotionally-charged sad situation in effort to make us look bad.
TRY AGAIN!

Whatever :roll:

yea shouldn't have wasted my time with that ridiculous argument

Of course I know.. What´s your point?

then you just proved my point.

Ignorant = lack of knowledge and understanding. I didn´t know how senstive you are that´s because I tell the truth that you insult the people who had bad experience with their private health insurance and Medicard as bitching, stupid, lazy which is an unacceptance. This is very disrespectful because you has no understanding and experience when you were in their shoes. I support them because I know how they feeling.

please re-read my post. Where did I describe people with bad experience as lazy, stupid, and bitching? I said there are people who are lazy for not knowing and finding these services AVAILABLE to them if they cannot afford it so they waste their time bitching about how their life is unfair when they could have use that time to FIND those service available to them which are paid by taxpayers. Next time - please read my post very slowly and carefully so that you don't misunderstand my simple post

Of course fact because it´s their own life experience situation.

right. exactly. You're using their life experience to make it look like it's a gigantic problem in here and that everybody is suffering.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

because it's not a valid question. It's like asking me - what would you do after America becomes a communist country? yyyeeeeaaaa oooookkkk get me some beer and weed and i can answer your question :roll:

Communist country?

Can you please explain me the example of why you consider it as communisn?

 

[Reba]

Yes, that´s right, Dr. Scott Atlas is entitled to his opinion.

He stated statistical facts.

His conclusion may be his opinion but his facts were facts, not opinions.

 

[Jiro]

Communist country?

Can you please explain me the example of why you consider it as communisn?

huh? what in god's name are you talking about??? I said "It's like asking me".... as in equivalent idiotic question

 

[Liebling:-)))]

please re-read my post. Where did I describe people with bad experience as lazy, stupid, and bitching? I said there are people who are lazy for not knowing and finding these services AVAILABLE to them if they cannot afford it so they waste their time bitching about how their life is unfair when they could have use that time to FIND those service available to them which are paid by taxpayers. Next time - please read my post very slowly and carefully so that you don't misunderstand my simple post


right. exactly. You're using their life experience to make it look like it's a gigantic problem in here and that everybody is suffering.

I know what you are saying. It´s easy for you to say this because you are not in their shoes. Again, I suggest you read all of American´s comments of their own experience and why they rant/vent etc then you will understand where they come from.

 

[Reba]

For starters:

This is not an opinion:

"Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher."

This not an opinion:

"Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher."

This is not an opinion:

"Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them."

This is not an opinion:

"* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent)."

This is not an opinion:

"Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”"


Do I need to continue?

 

[Jiro]

I know what you are saying. It´s easy for you to say this because you are not in their shoes. Again, I suggest you read all of American´s comments of their own experience and why they rant/vent etc then you will understand where they come from.

of course you will find any negative comments in ANY situations. So what? nothing's perfect. I suggest that you take their complaints with a grain of salt.

 

[Foxrac]

If private insurance is reasonable/affordable and have good policies like cover on pre-existing and no caps so I wouldn't have any problem, only 2 things that I need.

For unemployed, they probably receive a medicaid but not know about their qualifies that need meet.