alternatives to taxation

[ForgedinHell]

Some people gamble by paying an insurance company, other countries have more or less state provision.

Generally the less you pay to insurance company parasites the better. Insurance company's main job is to AVOID paying out because they are not motivated to heal but to make money. Their aim is to maximise profits, and so get more income than they pay to the health provider; balancing litigation costs against, claim refusal, and spend outs.
Insurance companies have Death Panels deciding how little they can get away with paying.

What you laughingly call 'socialist medicine' is more efficient and delivers more for less money due to the fact that they are not funding insurance company profits, which cream off around 15-20% of basic health care costs.
So, in this instance MORE TAX please - less insurance.

Healthcare in the US is expensive because it has to support the insurance infrastructure that you don't get in the UK.
Attempts at providing a service tend to feed the insurance monster which is profit motivated.
Also, it has doctors in fear of litigation because of your fascistic legal system, who tend to over-treat patients as if they had a blank cheque. None of this is of much concern in the UK. Because we have a better more caring culture less concerned with turning a profit. Doctors are on a salary and not share holders in insurance companies and hospitals.

Prove it? You serious? Medicare, medicaid, no emergency room can refuse any patient regardless of their ability to pay, that sounds pretty socialized to me.

That sounds like a really good idea to me.

Maybe you would prefer that the police just scrape people off the road and put them in a dumpster to die?

Your problem seems to be that you don't have a fucking clue what 'socialised' means.

Your problem is you are a dumbass who gets his education out of the neo-nazi hate sites. You don't have a clue about anything, chaz, the neo-nazi bitch. Why don't you go suck on satyr's 1/4 inch? I think he's your type.

[bus2bondi]

here are a few notes i have,

where people are people and issues are issues. (part of vote elimination?)

no republicans, democrats, independents and various other parties

separate entities handling separate issues

current local voting form moved nationally? as a start

voting system drasticallyy changed

(how to eliminate the need for most voting?)

why bother with new ideas
well if anything we find in our lives to be better it is because of someone else along the way

is our nation the best it can be right now?
it might seem like that, but i don't know, not really.

There are slogans saying 'we can do better' so what is this better?

[chaz wyman]

Prove it? You serious? Medicare, medicaid, no emergency room can refuse any patient regardless of their ability to pay, that sounds pretty socialized to me.

That sounds like a really good idea to me.

Maybe you would prefer that the police just scrape people off the road and put them in a dumpster to die?

Your problem seems to be that you don't have a fucking clue what 'socialised' means.

Your problem is you are a dumbass who gets his education out of the neo-nazi hate sites. You don't have a clue about anything, chaz, the neo-nazi bitch. Why don't you go suck on satyr's 1/4 inch? I think he's your type.

Good argument. The legal profession must really think you are quite an asset.

[John]

In a recent study, $44,000.00 was the average amount that was paid per cancer patient in Europe. The average life-span for these patients after getting cancer was 9.3 years. In the US, the average care was $70,000.00, but the average life span was 11.1 years, almost two years greater. So, the issue becomes, are you socialists right that spending less money and allowing patients to die is better and more efficient than what we do in America, which is try to have people live longer.

Here is a very good article that criticises the study you're referring to and highlights the analytical flaws within it. I suggest that it's worth a read as the criticism is based on the research methodology and not the politics.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... us-europe/

[chaz wyman]

In a recent study, $44,000.00 was the average amount that was paid per cancer patient in Europe. The average life-span for these patients after getting cancer was 9.3 years. In the US, the average care was $70,000.00, but the average life span was 11.1 years, almost two years greater. So, the issue becomes, are you socialists right that spending less money and allowing patients to die is better and more efficient than what we do in America, which is try to have people live longer.

Yeah and your bananas are bendier than our apples too.
What are 'we' doing wrong?

[chaz wyman]

In a recent study, $44,000.00 was the average amount that was paid per cancer patient in Europe. The average life-span for these patients after getting cancer was 9.3 years. In the US, the average care was $70,000.00, but the average life span was 11.1 years, almost two years greater. So, the issue becomes, are you socialists right that spending less money and allowing patients to die is better and more efficient than what we do in America, which is try to have people live longer.

Here is a very good article that criticises the study you're referring to and highlights the analytical flaws within it. I suggest that it's worth a read as the criticism is based on the research methodology and not the politics.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... us-europe/

Thanks John - excellent link.
It reinforces something I was arguing about earlier: over treatment. Over diagnosis is also another factor in skewing figures.
For all their bluster and claim, Americans spend more on health and get less. Even insured a visit to the doctor can cost $100+, and you still have to pay for drugs.
All they seem to have succeeded in doing is managing to cater more and better quality treatment for the super rich whilst rejecting 10% for any treatments at all.

[chaz wyman]

We made no improvements to the treatment. Everyone is still dying four years after they feel the lump. But since we are making the diagnosis five years earlier, our five year survival rate is now approaching 100%! Everyone is living nine years with the disease. Meanwhile, in England, they say that the scanner doesn’t extend life and won’t pay for it. Rationing! That’s why their five year survival rate is still 0%.


Those Brits are SO mean!!

[bus2bondi]

i read something once written by an american who lived in Britain for awhile. experiencing their healthcare system he thought (paraphrasing) 'WOW!'

[bus2bondi]

an anectdote that i remember went something like this... my daughter was ill i frantically brought her in, there were no papers and checks to sign, nothing, just a friendly nurse, went in and then went out...

[chaz wyman]

i read something once written by an american who lived in Britain for awhile. experiencing their healthcare system he thought (paraphrasing) 'WOW!'

Anyone can step into a doctor's surgery and get an appointment.
You can receive a prescription and it will cost you $10 no matter what the drug is.
If you are not working you can get prescriptions free.
4 years ago I was diagnosed and treated for throat cancer. I received 2 surgical procedures, 7 weeks radiotherapy and chemotherapy, numerous scans and consultations, drugs and follow up visits. I can't tell you how much that all cost because treatment is not issued on the ability to pay, but on clinical need. I cost me nothing.
I still go to regular check-ups.
Having had cancer will not be an obstacle to getting more treatment should I need it.
Were I to live in the US, I could no longer afford the necessary insurance having an 'existing/previous' condition.

The NHS is the largest public funded organisation in the world (outside the Chinese army). There are constant problems with the service, but that is to be expected when you spend £100billion+ per year. That makes it an easy target for the right wing media, but there is no doubt how great it is.

[Lynn]

Prescriptions are free, i.e. state funded, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family ... tions#free

[bus2bondi]

the anti-socialism stance is a good one in most respects, especially when it's all bound up into one. my youngest son is attending public elementary school in america, it sends home a good deal of what 'pure americans' would call straight out bullshit. 3 pages of how many calories are in a blueberry, so to speak, and its good right and healthy for your children to eat them.

ya don't say?

and what did your children have on the lunchline today?

[bus2bondi]

aside from teaching us that apples and blueberries are good for us, they also drug children, and even (still, yes still) confine the hyper into solitary.

[Lynn]

and what did your children have on the lunchline today?

Others can speak from experience but this schoolgirl's blog will provide a varied view, http://neverseconds.blogspot.co.uk/, or more localised links with menus, http://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/info ... s_service/ and http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/inde ... leid=23269.

[bus2bondi]

'papa? if we have an apple pie sprinkled with sugar on it tonight, is that ok? how much will that weigh? is it good for you? lets call the school and ask.. oh wait, they have something else sceduled for us to do... we'll have to call tomorrow and see if apples are good, and what the sprinkled sugar on top means..'