Political Discussion Thread

looks like the USA has the highest of all countries with sweden coming in second.

Where in it does it say that America doesnt have the highest cancer survival rate?

Are we talking about survival rates for the 90's or present? cause there significantly different now then a decade ago

Indeed. As Homer Simpson said, "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

If your refering to me im saying it says we DO, if your not talking to me then sorrys lulz

From their mission statement: "The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."

No bias there...

Exactly. I think throwing a dart at a dart board would make a better pick. LOL!

Regardless of who has the best, isn't it great that the survival rate just keeps going up world-wide. That's something we can all enjoy.

cheers to that moto

The research I read follow patients in the 90s. More was conducted by Johns Hopkins in 2004: "The study is the first to use a universal set of standards to compare the quality of health care in the five countries surveyed. The researchers found that no country scored the best or worst overall and that each country was the best and worst in at least one area."

So the U.S. may have high survival rates in some cancers, but I see nothing to indicate that they have -the- highest survival rate overall, which is the point I was originally addressing.



Totally agreed. 8)

What i would like a study and statistics on is how many people have died because private insurance dropped policies, denied cliams or how many people died because they did not have insurance that would have helped prevent the sickness that killed them.

Find those numbers out and tell the families of those people that affordable health care and insurance companies being held accountable is not good for this country.

I just want people to realize that reform doesn't have to mean government led health care. People also need to realize that for the government to fund health care that it has to take money from people which THEY could have spent on health care. The government only adds a middleman, and everyone knows the middleman increases cost. I posted some examples of what needs to be reformed in case anyone wants to look back.

The burden of proof always lies with the with the person who lays charges.

The problem with the healthcare system is - piss poor ethics.
Insurance companies only want to make money(Money > the health of people).
Patients want to sue doctors, nurses and hospitals with frivalous claims.
Overpaid cutthroat lawyers defending doctors, nurses and hospitals.
Overpaid cutthroat lawyers attacking doctors, nurses and hospitals.
Doctors, nurses and hospitals (who have to cover their *** so they don't get sued) who order high priced testing that isn't needed.
Doctors, nurses and hospitals who order high priced testing that isn't needed, because they get paid more for doing so.

If you clean up the ethics of the people, then you would clean up the system. The scarry part here is - government is not the answer. Politicians are the most corrupt, unethical people on the planet. Of course the government wants in on the healthcare action, they see how fast it makes corrupt money and they need to get their greedy hands in there.

How are we paying for the big health care plan again?

It is being payed for out of existing programs over X amount of years. Obama made it quite clear that no New costs would be passed on to the American taxpayers. If it did, he would not sign off on it.

Fact is, the war has cost the US more than this proposed health care program will.



And how does government get into that money? By proposing a non-profit healthcare system for 5% of the population. Ingenious.

So he is gonna start cutting Medicare and such to cover the new one?

Yeah....give me facts stating this is true please.

Don't say its out there, because, you know what, I can say the same is not true. Thing is, I can also prove that your statement is not true.

The last statement about cleaning up the ethics of the people is true though, but since this is the case already, then its stating a fact.

I'm not a senior citizen so i didnt really pay attention to the speech when he talked to seniors about Medicare.

You think congress can be trusted to run free and do whatever they want?
Gotta be a watchdog and slap them around when they misbehave.

Read my previous post about insurance companies denying service to paying customers. Add to that the fact that the CEO of UnitedHealth Group has roughly three quarters of a billion dollars in stock options. So he denies life saving procedures to paying customers when he is set to make over 750 billion dollars.

The malpractice issue is a bit complex, as shown in this report by CBS. They report that the sudden rise in malpractice insurance is due not to wins or losses in a court room, but investments made by the insurance companies falling out. The insurance companies then pass on their losses in the form of gross premium hikes. Some to Dr.s that haven't ever even been sued.

So, by your example, because one company had bad ethics, they all have bad ethics? That was your point in bringing up Triangel Shirtwaist, wasn't it?

I read each and every singe one of your examples, and yet, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

I mean, you are saying that Insurance Companies are denying healthcare to people who pay for their insurance, but each one of your examples do not state WHICH company or WHY they are denying healthcare or WHO they are denying it from. Does not say one word at all about that.

You say abuse of power, but you didn't give any abuses, just what is hand-fed to you from journalists without right sources. Cenk Uygur used the wrong source, or didn't make his point clearly about his sources. His source used an "example" and made it look like it was true:



WHERE IS THE PROOF???? This isn't proof, this is a @#$#en EXAMPLE.

Cenk Uygur is a moron for using THIS as his proof. Nowhere in his "source" does it show ANYONE doing ANYTHING wrong. All his "source" says is CONJECTURE.

Your example of United Healthcare CEO.....so? This is his SEC filing. Do you even understand what any of that means? He has stock options, so what? You know what stock options do to a person under power? It helps them do a better job so their stock options go UP. You honestly think he is going to have that many stock options, or that the true value of said stock options is that much? All they are are pretty much "e-peen" values. He will never see more than 10% of that value from that.

And your CBS example. Where does it show proof that the insurance companies are hiking prices because of investments? It does say, and I quote:



Thats all that CBS chooses to report about this. This is well played into making you think that there is more into the rising cost of malpractice insurance. Out of the entire webpage, this is the only facts that they give you, besides their opening story, somewhat. Its skewed facts, but its facts none-the-less.

Seriously, none of your sources and sources within sources show your point. Neither does any of them show facts, besides the Triangle Shirtwear wiki one. The Triangle Shirtwear happened before "moral laws" took place, don't forget that. Even still, companies do not exist to screw you over. If that was the case, then that company would have failed a long time ago from lack of sales.

Well, when a company is providing a service you cannot get otherwise they can screw you over and still make sales and money because some people do not have any other choice. Companies really don't care a whole lot about costumers, just enough to keep them coming back, they care about making money, because if they didn't, they wouldn't exist.

No, that was not my point. Triangle-shirtwaist was only an example of what private companies are able to do without any government regulation. The idea that laissez-faire business practices will some how self regulate based not on moral obligations but on profits or losses alone has been proven in American history to be false. Profits and morals do not go hand in hand.


I'll assume that I presented the material in a confusing manner. Here is a quote from Cenk Uygur's source that does mention actual proof. It was in the same article that you quoted. Perhaps you didn't read this?

here is a video of a congress committee questioning the executives or several private insurance companies about the practice of rescission:.

Source for the acne denial of service: url


.
Please refrain from Ad hominem arguments.


CBC video notice the part where it shows that even though premiums are going up, malpractice payouts were going down? If that is true, what basis would the malpractice insurance companies have for saying rates are going up because of increased malpractice payouts?

Maybe if we kill the mini-monopoles by allowing insurance across statelines will allow more choice.

^ this. I would be in favor of any plan that allows people to get quality affordable health care regardless of the state you live in or move to, or changing careers.

Your youtube video, did you actually paid attention to it?

Because, it shows the execs following the law to protect themselves from fraudulant claims by CONSUMERS who apply to them for past diseases. Notice how the investigations made by the companies START after a year or less worth of service towards the customer?

Also, you would notice the execs stating that it would cost a lot of TIME (and time = money) for them to go thru each and every single medical record for each and every single customer they take. Doing so to cut the bottom line? Yeah. Noticed also how they justified that by keeping the premiums low for the customer? Saving customers money? For shame!!! They should be arrested and put to jail just for that alone!!

Also, your quote that says this:



I would believe this more if they also said this:

That the years previous had nothing to do with the payouts made that year, or the price increase in premiums.

Cause, if you look at malpractice payouts from 1999-2001, I bet you would see a skyrocket number of lawsuits and payouts to said "victims" which justifies the rate increase made for 2001-2002. Companies don't hike prices for premiums or hike prices on goods just because they made bad investments. If they did, they wouldn't be in business any longer, because they lose customers on both ends of the scale.

Look at this more in a business standpoint and less in a socialogical standpoint. You will see that most of the ***spewed to you by the media is just ***. You got to see what facts are there to pick out as plausable.

Did she have the visit to a dermatologist for acne before she got the insurance?

Because, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't some of the chemicals used by dermatologists have a risk for cancer anyway from the 1990s-2005?

Thats a huge thing to leave out, you know. Thats why insurance companies NEED to know this ***. You don't leave ***like this out. Might take years to see if it really was a defective gene or if that chemical caused it, if I'm correct in my assumption.

Again, companies don't make it a business to screw you. They wouldn't be in business if they did make it a business to screw you.