The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 37    Average: 3/5]
138 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 24079
Rating: 3
Category:
Date: 04/09/10 07:33 AM

138 Responses to US Healthcare: Case For Reform? [Infographic FIXED

  1. Profile photo of Corydoras87
    Corydoras87 Male 18-29
    642 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 7:36 am
    wtf? am I supposed to resize it myself? oh and a big part seems missing
  2. Profile photo of FoSchizle
    FoSchizle Male 18-29
    330 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 7:38 am
    Pretty crappy infographic. Sure, costs are high but quality is much higher, and the majority of health problems are the result of American life style.
  3. Profile photo of Maksie99
    Maksie99 Male 18-29
    695 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 7:39 am
    Long infographic is looooooooong
  4. Profile photo of BBQ
    BBQ Male 18-29
    467 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 7:47 am
    Right-click --> View image
    That way you can actually see what it is.
  5. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:00 am
    @FoSchizle

    "Sure, costs are high but quality is much higher"

    Quality is higher for those who can afford the higher cost.

    Those who can`t afford the higher cost get nothing.

    You have one man eating a $100 lobster while nine people starve.

    I`d much rather have ten people eating $10 steaks, and everyone living.

    Sure, the lobster might provide a better experience than the steak, but when you count the entire experience of those ten people, the great experience of the lobster is more than cancelled out by the awful experience of those nine starving people.

    And that`s what you`re seeing on that graph.
  6. Profile photo of p0l4r21
    p0l4r21 Male 18-29
    504 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:01 am
    If you open the image in a new tab it will resize itself.
  7. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:04 am
    actually, FoSchizle, the point of the infographic is that the costs are high, but the quality is obviously much worse. Look at the life expectancies.
  8. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4809 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:06 am
    So very blurry.... eyes hurting.
  9. Profile photo of panth753
    panth753 Female 18-29
    9259 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:18 am
    Thanks for the blurry picture...
  10. Profile photo of Salted_Eggs
    Salted_Eggs Male 18-29
    774 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:41 am
    What`s New Zealand got that we don`t?

    Also, why is average life expectancy at birth the variable? Why not, `Number of surgeries successful` or `Number of doctors sued for malpractice`?
  11. Profile photo of ScottSerious
    ScottSerious Male 18-29
    5316 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:41 am
    i have no idea what`s going on here
  12. Profile photo of Salted_Eggs
    Salted_Eggs Male 18-29
    774 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:42 am
    Oh, wait, that`s Japan.

    Nevermind.
  13. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:44 am
    Patch

    you do realize that the countries spending the most per person in healthcare have according to that chart the highest life exp riiiggghhttt? the top countries on that chart all have ages OVER 80..

    so tell me how the high cost equals lower quality if I understand what you wrote correctly...
  14. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:51 am
    Davymid, I told you three times already. Americans have some of the worst lifestyles, we`re also the fattest, and we have some of the highest homicide rates and many other variables are against us. If those variables (such as lifestyles) were the at European rate then America would be rated at the top. Not to mention just we visit the doctor so few times in our lives and our life expectancy is so high.

    Life expectancy

    How to fix healthcare without spending a dime of the tax payer`s money.
  15. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:53 am
    We do NOT have a healthcare problem in America.

    Actually we may have a problem now because this bill passed.
  16. Profile photo of IkeRay
    IkeRay Male 18-29
    2704 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:03 am
    "We do NOT have a healthcare problem in America.

    Actually we may have a problem now because this bill passed."

    actually we DID have a problem it was people assuming we had a problem...

    too many people are willing to accept government help if EVERYONE is using it, but how many people were eligible for medicaid/care and opted not to use it? those are the same people who were all for this bill passing...pure ignorance.
  17. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:04 am
    you do realize that the countries spending the most per person in healthcare have according to that chart the highest life exp riiiggghhttt? the top countries on that chart all have ages OVER 80..
    The point is more, all those countries with life expectancy over 80 (US not being one of them) pay somewhere between 1/3 to 2/3 what your average American pays under the current system.

    Another way of looking at it is, if your country`s slope rises from left to right, you`re getting relatively good healthcare for your money, compared to the global average. If it slopes downward, you`re getting a bad deal, comparatively speaking. And the stepper the slope, the greater the discrepancy.

    And Anarchist, I wish you`d stop posting youtube videos to prove your points. I, for one, don`t ever watch them, and I doubt many other users do either, from experience.
  18. Profile photo of Salted_Eggs
    Salted_Eggs Male 18-29
    774 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:07 am
    Oh, wait, that`s Japan.

    Nevermind.
  19. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:09 am
    "why is average life expectancy at birth the variable? Why not, `Number of surgeries successful` or `Number of doctors sued for malpractice`?"

    Because lifespan is a better measure of health; by your measures, you`d measure the chronically ill person who has recieved dozens of operations as being more healthy than the person who has never been sick enough to ever need an operation.
  20. Profile photo of RecycleElf
    RecycleElf Male 18-29
    3621 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:22 am
    im so drating sick of hearing about Sweden and Denmark when Norway beats the both.
  21. Profile photo of peloos12
    peloos12 Male 18-29
    3822 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:26 am
    "We do NOT have a healthcare problem in America.

    Actually we may have a problem now because this bill passed."

    We don`t have a healthcare problem? Really?

    I mean I agree, I don`t like the bill much either but open the shutters on your little suburban house dude. The way this country does things sucks.
  22. Profile photo of Crabcakes
    Crabcakes Male 30-39
    226 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:31 am
    "We do NOT have a healthcare problem in America"

    Speaking as a working-class husband and father, let me tell you something:

    Yes, we goddamn well DO have a problem.
  23. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:44 am
    This just goes to show that throwing money at the problem won`t work. You can`t make any inference on the positive or negative effects of public healthcare from this graph, there are too many variables not taken into account, e.g. the homogeny of the population.
  24. Profile photo of DiegoDeFuego
    DiegoDeFuego Male 18-29
    239 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:51 am
    This seems to be implying that since the rest of the world has a higher life expectancy, they must have better doctors and a better overall health system. This is a gross over-simplification.

    THe biggest health issues with the poor (the people who are less likely to have health insurance, and according this graph are going to die very soon) are heart disease and obesity and other diet related issues.

    Do you think people are all of a sudden going to change the way they live their lives because they are insured? Hold on to that dream.
  25. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5195 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 10:21 am
    Important data, VERY VERY BADLY DONE GRAPH.
  26. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 10:36 am
    @ DiegoDeFuego

    No, it implies that we spend a crap-ton of money for nothing.
  27. Profile photo of bak5102
    bak5102 Male 18-29
    32 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 10:39 am
    This graph shows that money, doctor visits, and national healthcare make no difference in lifespan.

    Countries that spend over $1650 probably have a lifespan between 78 and 82 years. Thats all you can say from it.

    Proves nothing, wastes time, evokes arguments, stupid post = Perfect IAB post.

  28. Profile photo of Petrol
    Petrol Male 18-29
    23 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 10:39 am
    I may be speaking out of my ass here, but it seems like everyone is these days so I`m probably in good company...it seems that the problem we`re having isn`t necessarily the gov`ment, or health care, but the reaction of the gov`ment to appease the populous and their ignorance, due to them just regurgitating what they`ve been told. The squeaky wheel gets the grease as I`ve been told, but what if the wheel is just lazy? do we provide it grease at the expense of the other wheels? It seems too hard to discern between who is lazy asking for a hand out and those who actually need it...but what do I care, my health insurance costs $30 a month so I`m not affected. (and the circle completes)
  29. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:11 am
    @Petrol

    "It seems too hard to discern between who is lazy asking for a hand out and those who actually need it"

    It sounds as if you`re talking about a different issue; giving money to people who aren`t working.

    If someone can`t afford healthcare because they`re lazy and aren`t working, I`d still say that we should give them the healthcare. Then address their lazy lack of work seperately.

    After all, we`re talking about denying funding for healthcare...a necessity, not a luxury, in most people`s books (nobody thinks "gee, I`ve got an extra $100 to spend this week. I think I`ll go spend it at the hospital!"), not for televisions of cigarettes, or whatever you think that lazy people might spend their handouts on.
  30. Profile photo of Jadavid
    Jadavid Male 18-29
    126 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:15 am
    @bak not really this simply implies that we spend way so much on health care and think we are getting the best treatment when in actuality we are in the middle of the road and pay alot more than anyone else and speaking as a person who just went to a dr who refused to treat them because i couldnt pay my copay up front and may need re constructive surgery on my knee we really need to fix our health care otherwise im moving to canada and contributing to a country that actually gives a crap about its citizens
  31. Profile photo of evilangel79
    evilangel79 Female 30-39
    13 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:18 am
    Has anyone tried to look at things from someone elses perspective? I`m low income enough for my children to qualify for Medicaid..but I don`t qualify myself. I can`t afford to purchase it through my employer and they can`t provide it for free (why would they?) In order for me to qualify for medicaid I would have to quit my job and sign up on welfare or qualify for disability. So it`s all or nothing with the system, you are totally on your own or you totally rely on the government. There is no middle ground. I just need a little help, I don`t want welfare. I have a job, I provide for my family. My kids are well taken care of, we have a home, cars etc but I can`t get a little assistance. Mean while, Betty Jo Welfare Recipient down the street gets Medicaid, a monthly check, clothing vouchers, car insurance, etc for doing NOTHING. Everything has to start somewhere and it`s not going to happen over night. at least this healthcare bill has gotten the ball rolling to help ppl like me!
  32. Profile photo of bomberouno
    bomberouno Male 18-29
    185 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:20 am
    "Proves nothing, wastes time, evokes arguments, stupid post = Perfect IAB post."

    No, it proves that although we spend more money than anyone else by far, it doesn`t provide a better outcome, and that we should be able to spend far less to achieve similar results. But, whatever supports your previously established views I guess.
  33. Profile photo of nonickforme
    nonickforme Male 30-39
    36 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:27 am
    "...Countries that spend over $1650 probably have a lifespan between 78 and 82 years. Thats all you can say from it..."

    It shows that there`s a limit to what health care can do. No matter how often you visit a doctor or how much money you spend, you aren`t going to live forever.
  34. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:33 am
    Yes. A Nanny State raises life expectancy, at the expense of freedom.

    I don`t want my life to suck, just so I can add another 2 or 3 years onto the end of it.

    The "bedpan pissing, no walking, liquid only diet years."
  35. Profile photo of Tukikagami
    Tukikagami Female 18-29
    112 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:37 am
    I can`t even get health care in this country. The heart condition I was BORN with is listed as a pre existing condition and no one will cover me. You would think if you were born with something like that it wouldn`t have to count against you. But no, I get treated like the over weight drain on society people. Something has to change here folks. Either that or we should just start having a mandatory system of aborting kids who are going to born with some sort of minor birth defect, such as the leaky valve I have.
  36. Profile photo of SumRandom1
    SumRandom1 Male 18-29
    794 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:38 am
    i dont know what you see, but i see a $3000 difference ayear, ummmm yeah lets go with the universal coverage please, thank you
  37. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:44 am
    Auburn:

    What exactly is the point you are making?

    This shows that you currently pay stupid amounts for adequate care.

    This isn`t about "raising life expectancy", this is about right now, you give all your money away, for nothing.

    This limits your freedom in and of itself.
  38. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:03 pm
    @baalthazaq:

    I currently pay $137 a month for total coverage. That`s peanuts.

    If I didn`t, I would qualify for Medicaid, which is free.

    Me not wanting to be a drain on the system though, and not wanting to have other tax payers pay my way, I would just go get another job that offered health benefits.

    Why is that hard for some people?
  39. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    vv "Yes. A Nanny State raises life expectancy, at the expense of freedom. I don`t want my life to suck, just so I can add another 2 or 3 years onto the end of it."

    Oh auburn. Where do you come up with this bullpoo? You`re going to make me use those pesky "facts" again, ainctcha? OK, let`s roll. Let`s compare the Netherlands where I lived for many years with the US. The Netherlands would be what you call a Nanny State, which has less freedom than the US and is a sucky place to live. OK, let`s roll. All stats from OECD and the UN.
  40. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Netherlands vs USA.

    On Health:
    Doctors per 1000 people; 3.9 vs 2.5
    Hospital beds per 1000 people; 4.5 vs 3.1
    Average life expectancy; 80.2 vs 78.1
    Child mortalily per 1000 live births; 4.1 vs 6.7
    Total annual expenditure on healthcare per person; $3837 vs $7290.

    Now, on "Freedoms":
    Decriminalised soft drugs; Yes, No
    Same sex marriage allowed; Yes, No.
    Legal age to buy alcohol: 16, 21.
    Legal to incarcerate people without charge or trial indefinitely; No, Yes.
    Government allowed to search telephone, e-mail communications etc; No, Yes.

    And finally, on "sucky places to live" the Netherlands is the 6th best country in the world in which to live, the US is 13th, based on the UN Human Development Index 2009.

    Now, wanna address any of those facts, or are you just goiing to retort with another spiel of nationalistic hyperbole?
  41. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Australia still has a great public health system, just lacking enough beds!
  42. Profile photo of the_phantom
    the_phantom Male 18-29
    510 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:13 pm
    all i can say is, for almost 7,000 dollars more we live 4 more years than mexicans. and their water is poo. so what does that say about us?
  43. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    Damn English and its lack of a second person plural.

    I meant you as a collective you for your countrymen. Now, is there any actual indication your rates will go up?

    Indirectly, your insurance company pays almost triple for medicine than they would elsewhere. Do you genuinely believe this impacts your rates positively?
  44. Profile photo of zombieland
    zombieland Male 18-29
    418 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    this went right over my head
  45. Profile photo of HarryDresden
    HarryDresden Male 18-29
    99 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm
    okay the NHS isnt perfect, but how the drat can people have a problem with that? why is it being considered a bad thing it boggles the mind.

    like i said the nhs aint perfect but i had 8 extra years with my old man i wouldnt have had and my friend is 22 and she would have died in her teens if the nhs handnt replaced he faulty heart valve.

    how the drat can something like that be considered a bad thing?
  46. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    Davy, Most countries that have universal health care have that care rationed, People complain about lack of beds, Long waits for specialized care, And even longer waits for transplants.

    The US is the world leader in biomedical research and development as well as the introduction of new biomedical products.

    The United States had the highest five-year relative survival rate for breast cancer and prostate cancer.

    Unfortunately our Health care system is the most heavily regulated of all our industries. The lack of tort reform enriches lawyers and raises insurance premiums. Most states have "Certificate of need" programs which prevent opening new hospitals. And the AMA has lobbied the government to highly limit physician education to 100,000 per year.
  47. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    599 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    Using life expectancy as a gauge for the quality of health care is like judging the quality of brakes based on how many auto accidents occur. There are way to many additional factors to make any type of cause and effect judgment.

    A better measure, although still not perfect, is the outcome for specific illnesses. In this regard the US does very very well.
  48. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    599 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 1:27 pm
    >>>Indirectly, your insurance company pays almost triple for medicine than they would elsewhere. Do you genuinely believe this impacts your rates positively?<<<

    Yes in short the US is paying for the pharmaceutical research the rest of the work enjoys.
  49. Profile photo of oceanbeast
    oceanbeast Male 18-29
    549 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    i oppose the healthcare bill, but i might be more comfortable with it if welfare programs were also reformed and forced people to actually work, that way they could pay for some of the benefits. i generally dislike the idea of the government controlling more aspects of anything as they are an intrinsically evil monster
  50. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    599 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 1:35 pm
    >>Has anyone tried to look at things from someone elses perspective? I`m low income enough for my children to qualify for Medicaid.....>

    Sure and I support lots of efforts to help people like you. However, I do not believe that this is the role of the federal government.
  51. Profile photo of xiquiripat
    xiquiripat Male 18-29
    2422 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    The U.S. has a huge population compared to all these countries which translates into less money spent per citizen under universal health care than in a country like Canada where it works fairly well (though not without its problems). I`m not saying I`m for or against it, just that this and other differences between the U.S. and other countries that have universal healthcare should be considered before we adopt it and expect it to work as efficently for our purposes as it does for others.
  52. Profile photo of Gorodetsky
    Gorodetsky Male 18-29
    203 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 1:55 pm
    Hey, all you troll zombies, watch Sicko. Argue amongst each other then. Oh, wait, there won`t be any.
  53. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    I want a Government option for my Auto Insurance.
  54. Profile photo of oceanbeast
    oceanbeast Male 18-29
    549 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    sicko is so biased its ridiculous, most michael moore films do a great job of showing you a one sided argument and appealing to your emotions without showing the other possible outcomes, circumstances, options, points of view. i bet you don`t listen to any right winged tv shows, radio shows, because you have already made a predetermined decision to discredit any conservative view. healthcare is not the role of the federal government, healthcare is an individual responsibility and there are more ways to reduce its costs than just this bill.
  55. Profile photo of StarDagger
    StarDagger Male 40-49
    1190 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm
    The US is at least 50 years behind most of the EU in this sector, and about 300 years behind in social and cultural advancement. In 4 years we will only be 30 years behind, due to the visionary leadership of Obama.
    Being against health care is like being against clean air.
  56. Profile photo of StarDagger
    StarDagger Male 40-49
    1190 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm
    Silverthread, that IS a great idea. Hopefully Obama, or one of the long line of Dem presidents to follow him will tackle that.
  57. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 3:43 pm
    ..Obama, or one of the long line of Dem presidents to follow him..

    You`re mighty optimistic there, The current polls say otherwise.
  58. Profile photo of oceanbeast
    oceanbeast Male 18-29
    549 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm
    stardagger where are you getting these arbitrary numbers from? as far as i know the US is the world leader in medical advances. social and cultural advancement? please elaborate.
  59. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm
    I`d be a little more swayed by this graph if it included more countries without universal health care. Judging by this graph alone you can`t say universal health care works better than private health care, it may be that the U.S is an outlier. However, it does show that health care in the U.S is more expensive than it needs to be and thus it is difficult for the poorer demographics to afford.

    I`d suggest getting rid of the HMOs that regulate the technology and business of health care (because they are the main cause of it being so expensive) but the competition is what makes American health care and technologies so much more advanced than the rest of the world. Frankly, whether we universalize health care or regulate the industry in another way, we`re gonna lose something.
  60. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    Also, universal health care will be utilized more by the elderly than by the poor. Entitlement and means tested programs have always been that way.
  61. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    "as far as i know" is meaningless,oceanbeast. It is hypocritical of you to dismiss stardagger`s statement as `arbitrary` and then make a completely unsupported statement of your own.

  62. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:28 pm
    The slope of the line shows efficiency. Wtf USA, where is all that money going?

    I am liking Japan, low cost, high life expectancy, lots of doctor visits. I`m gonna say they have the best system.
  63. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    Davy wins, yes, but I also agree with Star, if America makes the right choices, it can catch up.
  64. Profile photo of oceanbeast
    oceanbeast Male 18-29
    549 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    Heureux - my statement is not arbitrary, search, an read, the US is recognized as being the most advanced country in terms of medicine in almost all polls and studies. i can back up my statements stardagger clearly pulled those numbers out of thin air.
  65. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    @StarDagger, I would like to know where you got the "300 years behind" idea from. Much of the social and cultural development of western democracies has mimicked the United States`, at least on a fundamental level. I have been to Europe (Germany and England to be specific) and much of the cultural and social development there is slowly but noticeably moving in the same direction as the U.S`s. Read some works about the globalization of American ideas and trends and you`ll find your idea that we`re the ones behind somewhat contradictory.
  66. Profile photo of oceanbeast
    oceanbeast Male 18-29
    549 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    npdarren ftw, nice to see some like minded people finally speaking up on this board.
  67. Profile photo of oceanbeast
    oceanbeast Male 18-29
    549 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    stardagger - your comment on 300 years behind in cultural development is so out of your ass its ridiculous, slavery was abolished some 150 +- years ago, so where does that put our values as a country all together?
  68. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:57 pm
    Actually, StarDagger, the one thing I would agree on that the U.S is behind is the movement to the left politically. Because of the way in which European governments set up their legislatures, ideological groups have a much easier time gaining political clout. And while there are conservative groups, liberal political groups (like green peace) have entrenched themselves in European politics. The centralized and "winner-take-all" structure of American politics does not allow this so readily, and thus we are behind in the movement to the left.
  69. Profile photo of oceanbeast
    oceanbeast Male 18-29
    549 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    the oecd who provided that information is, by the way a creepy world-government type entity. not a fan.
  70. Profile photo of GirlieMutant
    GirlieMutant Female 18-29
    236 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 5:58 pm
    If I could look at this picture I would probably say something. But lines, colours and numbers f*** with my mind..
  71. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 7:39 pm
    Star is right, he`s just stretching the truth, kinda a lot. Behind? yes. 300 years? No, not even close.
  72. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    Damn. I thought the graph was pretty simple. 3 variables. But it seems to have escaped some (talking about the users who didn`t understand it, and not meant snottily). I guess it was less clearly expressed than I thought it was...
  73. Profile photo of moefreak
    moefreak Female 18-29
    1963 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    ...so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  74. Profile photo of mluther
    mluther Male 13-17
    1023 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    , oh, and I agree with ocean. Night everyone. P.S. If you think your going to change someones opinion, let`s not srgue and stop kidding ourselves. This post makes me a hypocrite doesn`t it?
  75. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:37 pm
    vv mluther, I`ve taken a good few stats classes, even taught a couple. And life experience has taught me another valuable lesson. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
  76. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 8:44 pm
    the oecd who provided that information is, by the way a creepy world-government type entity. not a fan.
    By which you mean, an impartial international organisation that compiles world statistics from all countries around the globe, and not just the US. Which makes you uncomfortable in your Americo-centric self-aggrandising nationalism that your country is the best in the world, by presenting you with real facts that contradict your conservative right-wing world-view. Amirite?

    ---------------------

    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it." George Bernard Shaw.
  77. Profile photo of addler
    addler Male 13-17
    777 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 9:34 pm
    I like how everybody is completely ignoring mexico. Out of the two non-universal health care countries we see one that has a positive correlation and one with a negative. Plus, with all of the confounding variables associated with average life expectancy for a country its hardly the basis of a comparison.

    The one thing that I can say with absolute certainty that I know about statistics is that with the right spin, any stat can support your side of the argument.
  78. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 10:14 pm
    @addler
    Plus, with all of the confounding variables associated with average life expectancy for a country its hardly the basis of a comparison.

    I completely agree with this comment.
  79. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 10:18 pm
    Let`s do a thought experiment. We`ll need a control and an experiment group. In order for this to work both groups need only one variable to be different. Group A has a universal healthcare and Group B has insurance companies. Both groups have the same amount of doctor visits per year and pay the same amount. If Group A lives longer on average then universal healthcare is better.

    But what if Group B has a murder rate that is 100 times higher than Group A? You would have 20 year olds dying and that would reduce life expectancy of Group B. What if Group B has the fattest people in the world? That would also reduce life expectancy of Group B.
    As you can see this graph is NOT a case for a universal healthcare system.

    When you have a universal system, you take away the incentive that the consumer has to look for the cheapest price. It also takes away the incentive of the producer to be efficient. Which is why a free market system is the best.
  80. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    Let`s do a thought experiment.
    I have a better idea, let`s not. Let`s stop dancing about and look at some facts. Like the facts inherent in this infographic. There comes a point where you have to stop f*cking about and look at the motherloving statistics, politics be damned.
  81. Profile photo of axeman929
    axeman929 Male 30-39
    195 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:22 pm
    Meh, cost of freedom. The real problem is government monopoly in America. Licensing and lawsuits. My old old doctor looked me over and told me what was wrong. Told my mom to get some aspirin and some soup, maybe some amox and cent us home. Now, tests, mri`s etc etc. I will say $20 Gs for a baby is ridiculous. Wifey did all the work everyone else got paid to stand around and watch.
  82. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:41 pm
    I have a better idea. Let`s stop dancing and look at some facts. Like the facts inherent in this infographic. There comes a point where you have to stop f*cking about.

    I`m all for facts, but you`re jumping to conclusions. You obviously don`t understand the scientific method and why all variables (except the one being tested) have to be the same in order to make a comparison.

    You canNOT jump to conclusions just by looking at the facts.
    For example, Bob smoked cigarettes all his life and Jim never smoked. Bob lived to be 60 and Jim live to be 50.

    What are the facts?
    Bob died at the age of 60 and smoked.
    Jim died at the age of 50 and did not smoke.
    Therefore (by your logic), smoking cigarettes increases life expectancy by 20%.

    What if instead Jim was murder at the age 20?
    By your logic smoking triples your life expectancy.

    Try to use your head when looking at the facts.
  83. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm
    politics be damned.

    Finally, we agree on something.
    I`m not using politics. I`m apolitical. I`m using the scientific method.
  84. Profile photo of skypirate
    skypirate Male 18-29
    2422 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:45 pm
    average= mean, the median is the real number you want to see, yet all of these `facts` seem to lack... (if you dont believe me ANY stats class)
  85. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 9, 2010 at 11:45 pm
    Davy, you haven`t even addressed anything that I said in my last comment and the first one way back. I already made my point, I didn`t need to share a link to the video. But instead of addressing what I typed you just said you weren`t going to watch the video. You didn`t have to watch the video. I typed my argument. You ignored what I typed and said you weren`t going to watch the video which was only extra.

    Then I typed another comment stating my case and you just told me to stop dancing around. I can taste the irony.
  86. Profile photo of Wiggle1111
    Wiggle1111 Male 18-29
    78 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 12:03 am
    @Axeman929 WTF!!! You`ve gotta pay the hospital to have a drating baby in the US? That right there is the single most drated up thing I have ever heard.
  87. Profile photo of MentalJargon
    MentalJargon Male 18-29
    37 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 12:03 am
    Private health care is counter-productive. The health institution has no incentive to actually heal youas quickly as possible, the longer it takes the more they get paid, all hail the dollar! Everyone I know who goes private (BUPA) although theey generally get looked after better but always seem to need more treatment. The joy of capitalism.
  88. Profile photo of Flibmeister
    Flibmeister Female 18-29
    833 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 12:05 am
    the British NHS may be crap, but they saved my life. well, ok. a dr from Ghana saved my life, but as he was working for the NHS i think it`s still a valid point.
  89. Profile photo of boogersunite
    boogersunite Male 13-17
    197 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 12:09 am
    ahh- political debates that rage into flame wars
    kinda reminds me why IAB is soo goddam funny
  90. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 1:59 am
    @MentalJargon

    Government officials are just as guilty. The longer they keep you sick the more funding they can get. At least under capitalism you can chose your own doctor and which policy is best for you.
  91. Profile photo of trp712
    trp712 Male 18-29
    2239 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 2:37 am
    Wow. That really puts everything into context.
  92. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 3:26 am
    AnarchistGod:

    Did I just here you say When you have a universal system, you take away the incentive that the consumer has to look for the cheapest price. It also takes away the incentive of the producer to be efficient. Which is why a free market system is the best.

    Because after the discussion the other night, I was for sure you hated capitalism & thought democracy was a sham.
  93. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 3:28 am
    "The longer they keep you sick the more funding they can get."

    Total rubbish. If it`s a non-profit fenced-in system (where money allocated for healthcare can only be spent on healthcare), then what benefit is there for them to keep you sick?

    A private system wants to keep you sick and paying for treatment. A public system wants to cure you as quickly and as cheaply as possible SO YOU CAN GET BACK TO WORK AND PAY YOUR TAXES AGAIN!

    There`s no gain for them to increase their costs (more treatment) AND to reduce your payments (keep you sick and not paying tax). The exact opposite, in fact!
  94. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 3:36 am
    A private system wants to keep you sick and paying for treatment. A public system wants to cure you as quickly and as cheaply as possible

    Actually insurance companies, In a private system, Want you cured ASAP and do audits to make sure that is the case.
  95. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 4:19 am
    Npdarren:
    "I`d be a little more swayed by this graph if it included more countries without universal health care."

    There is no developed nation without universal healthcare. This too should be a clue.

    That`s why it`s so irritating to see "It doesn`t work" as an argument. It is a lie to the nth degree.

    It is as relevant as arguing that electricity doesn`t work. It is tried, and tested, and has worked for decades EVERYWHERE.

    You cannot argue that we`re not representing your view. Your view is unrepresentable. Your view does not exist outside your neighborhood. It is that silly.
  96. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 4:22 am
    Oceanbeast:
    "The OECD is a ..."

    Awesome.

    Feel free to argue one of the stats on the chart. Are you saying any of them are a lie? Is there anything about the info they have provided that changes if they`re the KKK or Time Travelling Nazi Assassins?
  97. Profile photo of ProXLaw
    ProXLaw Male 30-39
    122 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 4:52 am
    While I readily admit healthcare costs are astronomical in the U.S., this graph doesn`t necessarily prove there`s a correlation between Universal Health Care and a longer life. There are far too many variables attributable to longevity, e.g. healthier diets, exercise, higher standards of living, and genetics.
  98. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 9:09 am
    " In a private system, Want you cured ASAP and do audits to make sure that is the case. "

    And when those audits show how expensive certain people with pre-existing conditons will be to care for, they CANCEL YOUR INSuRANCE. Thank you Obama for stopping that cruel practice.
  99. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 10:02 am
    @CrakrJak

    Please direct me to the comment that indicated that I didn`t like capitalism.
  100. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 11:55 am
    @Baalthazaq

    There is no developed nation without universal healthcare. This too should be a clue.

    Ignoring the United States as a developed nation, what exactly does this "clue" indicate?
  101. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    I forgot to mention yesterday when this was posted that in those countries with universal health care their tax rate is nearly twice that of the United States` (except Japan who somehow manages lower taxes). The Fed collects roughly 23% in taxes, whereas England`s govt. takes over 40%. It isn`t just universal health care that is responsible for this difference, but it does help to make "affordable health care for everyone" not much more affordable after one pays his/her taxes.
  102. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 1:27 pm
    @Musuko42

    I would have addressed your comment earlier, but I didn`t notice it until just now.

    It`s not rubbish. The more care sick people "need" then the more medical officials will demand from the state and the more they`re able to keep from themselves because the fake increase in demand. This is also true under a private system, but at least you`re able to chose between which company is providing the most cost-efficient service. So you get less fraud that way. Not to mention the lack of competition that increases prices and decreases efficiency under a universal healthcare system.

    Besides I can make the same dumb argument for insurance companies. The insurance companies want to cure as fast as possible so you can go back to work and continue paying your premiums. You see how it`s a dumb argument?
  103. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 1:38 pm
    And when those audits show how expensive certain people with pre-existing conditons will be to care for, they CANCEL YOUR INSuRANCE. Thank you Obama for stopping that cruel practice.

    Everyone would understand this if this was X insurance. Let`s say that you have an X and it is enviable that it will break in a certain way. It doesn`t make any sense for insurance company to provide for service to fix X if its failure is enviable.

    Forcing the insurance company to require to provide coverage for X when the break is enviable is practically the same as providing coverage after it has already broken. Forcing this kind of policy will bankrupt the company.
  104. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 30-39
    2591 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    the moral of the story is, if you can`t afford your insurance, tough.
  105. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    @Musuko42 (cout)

    Not to mention that private companies have a greater incentive to be efficient so they can have a greater profit. Which in turn gives the company a better chance at survive in the market. The state is not worried about it`s survival because it knows it can just tax the people. The profit motive is a good thing and it betters the lives of everyone.
  106. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    @Musuko42 (cout)

    Why would insurance companies want to keep you sick anyway? If you`re covered then the longer you`re sick the more they have to pay. They`re incentivized to get you healthy as quick as possible so they will look for the cost-efficient services.

    The public system on the other hand just wants to throw money at you when you`re sick and just raise taxes. The state doesn`t have to worry about losing customers because taxation is not voluntary. It has little to no incentive to be the most efficient which is why the public healthcare system sucks.
  107. Profile photo of Puddingbrood
    Puddingbrood Male 13-17
    75 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 2:42 pm
    "You canNOT jump to conclusions just by looking at the facts.
    For example, Bob smoked cigarettes all his life and Jim never smoked. Bob lived to be 60 and Jim live to be 50.

    What are the facts?
    Bob died at the age of 60 and smoked.
    Jim died at the age of 50 and did not smoke.
    Therefore (by your logic), smoking cigarettes increases life expectancy by 20%.

    Try to use your head when looking at the facts."

    Yeah of course you don`t test this on 2 persons but on 2 million?
    You`re argument makes no sense.

  108. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 3:45 pm
    "There is no developed nation without universal healthcare."

    Then what is the point of this graph? How can you say universal health care is a triumph over private health care when there really is no other standard than the U.S and Mexico? All you can reasonably draw from this graph is that U.S health care is the most expensive and Mexico`s is the least expensive. What does that say about private health care? Nothing.
  109. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    Another correlation that may or may not be true that you can make from this graph is that there is no correlation between type of health care and life expectancy. If there was you might expect a more uniform positive or negative correlation, but it is not uniform.
  110. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 4:23 pm
    1) Anarchist: You`re doing it again.
    You are trying to argue effectively that "good business practice" makes healthcare good (quest for profit motivates efficiency, etc). However, you at the same DEFEND poor HEALTH DECISIONS by those businesses by saying it would be a poor BUSINESS DECISION to do otherwise.

    This in itself demonstrates the two are not synonymous. This is an argument against you.

    2) Npdarren: The cost the UK pays (in the graph) is inclusive of Tax towards healthcare. It is, with all reasonable considerations in place, the actual cost of healthcare, comparatively.

    There is no "well if you take into consideration"s here. It is taken into consideration. All of it. This is the bottom line of the equation.

    "So what is this graph meant to show".

    Reality, without commentary. If it upsets you, that is not reality`s fault.
  111. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    Additionally:
    Anarchist: You can always make decisions based on the facts. "What if he gets shot! That changes the numbers!"
    1) Joe getting shot is a fact. Add it to the data.
    2) Outliers tend to average out for large scale tests, of which this is one.
    3) You can reasonably discount outliers who become ineligible for your study. This is done often. (The FBI listing of officers killed in the line of duty separated those killed in 9/11 as it would skew the data. Those deaths were listed separately).

    For all of you in the "stats can show you anything". No. Accurate stats show you exactly what they are meant to show you.

    You just need to make sure to read the headings properly.

    Now if you think there is something wrong with the graph. Argue away. Did they lie, did they skew, did they misrepresent, did they omit, did they add? What makes this misleading other than it being damning to your cause?
  112. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    Finally: "Ignoring the United States as a developed nation, what exactly does this "clue" indicate?"

    I didn`t ignore it Anarchist. It can now be considered having universal healthcare.

    The clue indicates that:
    It works.

    The arguments so far are that you`ll pay more (No examples of that), you`ll get worse healthcare (No evidence of that), companies will go bankrupt (No evidence of that), the apocalypse will occur (No, no no no no).

    It`s one thing to argue the LHC will cause a black hole. I can call you names for saying it, but you might have a case.

    You don`t have a case if there is an up and running LHC in every country on earth that have been running for decades. Like healthcare has, everywhere that has running water that isn`t chewy.
  113. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 8:54 pm
    @Baalthazaq
    I am saying that consumers will look for cheapest price so the providers will be trying to be the most cost-efficient. This is what`s best for the consumer AND the producer because of the money that`s saved by the consumer helps boost the economy. Businesses that make poor decisions in any field will be blackballed and go out of business.

    [quote">Accurate stats show you exactly what they are meant to show you. [/quote">
    This graph may be accurate, but is still not a case for a universal system. Nowhere does it say that they discounted outliers who become ineligible for the study (such as murder). They simply wanted to show average life expectancy. (but if it does then please let me know how you know) Which even if they did exclude murder it wouldn`t matter anyway because I can point to another variable such as obesity and how America is the fattest.
  114. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 8:55 pm
    @Baalthazaq (cout)

    It can be considered having universal healthcare.
    I don’t know how you define “universal healthcare”, but just so you know the bill is not a single payer plan and it’s not even a public option. It’s mostly insurance reform. It forces companies to provide coverage for people even if they have a pre-existing condition. Which even that is a stupid idea and I explained why in my comment posted on “April 10, 2010 1:38:14 PM”.
  115. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 8:57 pm
    @Baalthazaq (cout)

    You keep saying that there is no evidence or example of what I am saying. Concepts such as natural selection (evolution) and consumer selection (free market) need little to no evidence at all. A creationist’s “argument” against evolution is that there is not enough evidence (transitional fossils) therefore evolution cannot be the best way to improve sutabily in an ecosystem. A statist’s “argument" against the free market is that there is not enough evidence to support it therefore the free market cannot be the best way to provide healthcare. (For the record we don’t have a free market in healthcare. We have a corporatist`s system.)
  116. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 8:59 pm
    @Baalthazaq (cout)

    You claiming that there is not enough evidence is NOT an argument. For example, let’s say that democracy is better than a dictatorship, but you live in a world where democracy has never been tried and you live under a dictatorship. It’s not an argument to discredit democracy because there’s no evidence that it works. Just like it’s not an argument to discredit the free market because there’s no evidence that it works when it comes to healthcare.

    And Finally: Universal Healthcare is a form of socialism and socialism doesn’t work. Police, roads, education, etc.. All these things are socialized and they “work”. But they don’t “work” because they’re socialized. They work because there’s a surplus in the market.
  117. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 9:03 pm
    @Baalthazaq

    Here is an example about the surplus. Bob wants X, but X is not socialized. So he has to pay out of pocket. Now he would have paid 10$ but instead paid 11$ because of taxation. To Bob, X was worth more than 11$ so he bought it. That one dollar is the surplus and is used to fund whatever is socialized. If X was socialized then he would not have bothered working for it. When people don’t bother working for things then the supply line shifts to the left and that raises the costs to the state and the consumer. If nothing was socialized he would have been able to keep that dollar (which would accumulate to thousands over time) and he would be able to pay for what was previously socialized and would have a lot left over to give charity. The charity given out by choice is better than a state welfare because all welfare does is de-incentivize people from taking risks and producing more which again just would more the supply line to the left.
  118. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 9:04 pm
    Here are some cool videos if anyone is interested.

    Video 1

    Video 2
  119. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 9:33 pm
    @Puddingbrood

    It doesn’t matter if it’s two or two million. As addler has stated before, there are too many variables on life expectancy to make a comparison between countries.
  120. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 10:55 pm
    Correction

    At 9:03:45 I typed which again just would more the supply line to the left.

    I meant to type "which again just would MOVE the supply line to the left."

    Sorry about that.
  121. Profile photo of stunami
    stunami Male 18-29
    8 posts
    April 10, 2010 at 11:36 pm
    Life expectancy is a horrible indicator of national health care provision as life expectancy is controlled by many outside factors. On average, Americans die from traffic accidents, murders, accidents, and other violent deaths more than any other country. Also, we`re more obese, which has nothing to do with quality of care, and more to do with lifestyle. Controlled for violent deaths and obesity, the US ranks as #1. Also, better statistics for determining the value of health care include access to late breaking drugs, 5 year cancer survival rates, heart attack survival rates, and medical tourism, etc. All of these stats have the US ranking #1.

    Liberals need to think through their actions just a little more.
  122. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:05 am
    Anarchist:
    1) As I stated, outliers average out in large studies.
    2) No, you demonstrated why forcing companies to give universal coverage is bad for the companies. You made no argument for those who recieve healthcare.

    You optimize the MARKET for the PEOPLE`S benefit. Not the PEOPLE for the benefit of some pooty MARKET ideals you hold.

    "Concepts such as natural selection (evolution) and consumer selection (free market) need little to no evidence at all"

    Bull. poo. The argument for evolution is the evidence. Reality is not lining up with your expectations. Your theories time and again are failing to link to reality.

    Your theories are all theories mapping to reality. If I hand you a map, and tell you it`s a map of the world, it should drating line up to the real world.

    There should be evidence of this. This is not rocket surgery.
  123. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:15 am
    Also, whilst it`s true that the US is more obese than much of Europe as an average, it is less so than say Scotland, which still pays a third of what you do, and still has higher life expectancy.

    Furthermore still, lower life expectancy actually lowers the cost of healthcare as the largest drain on healthcare resources are not the overweight, or even the smokers or cancer patients.

    It is the elderly.
  124. Profile photo of Call
    Call Male 13-17
    76 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 3:14 am
    yay im average
  125. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 11:47 am
    "Reality, without commentary."

    I wish that`s what everyone else concluded about the graph, but it seems people make the unjustified leap in logic and say "See, this is reason for the U.S to have universal health care", when the reality of this graph makes no such distinctions. Yes, the U.S needs to find a way to lower its costs but this graph in no way takes into account the reasons why its so expensive. The main difference between the U.S and the rest of the world when it comes to health care is its technology. When some countries might have one or two MRI machines (which are multi-million dollar machines) in total, nearly every U.S medical facility has one. The U.S has an over supply of advanced technologies because of the competition between HMOs. What I would argue is that universal health care will not lower costs because the govt. would still have to pay for these technologies.
  126. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    Also, Baalthazag, I`m surprised that you`re making the "It`s always worked before" argument. I thought you`d be more logical than that.
  127. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    @Baalthazaq
    As I stated, outliers average out in large studies.
    Yes that’s true but it doesn’t matter but when you compare groups that are very different. For example, Let’s say that you’re trying to figure out which system is better for producing X. These groups have two different systems. Now let’s also say that one group values producing X more than the other. Because of just this one variable it will only seem like one group has better system that produces X over the other so you can’t make a good comparison. My apologies I should have addressed that earlier.
  128. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    @Baalthazaq
    No, you demonstrated why forcing companies to give universal coverage is bad for the companies. You made no argument for those who recieve healthcare.
    If it’s bad for the company, then it’s ultimately bad for the consumer (I thought that was obvious). Universal healthcare is a form of socialism and I debunked socialism at "April 10, 2010 8:59:30 PM" and at "April 10, 2010 9:03:45 PM"
  129. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    @Baalthazaq
    You optimize the MARKET for the PEOPLE`S benefit. Not the PEOPLE for the benefit of some pooty MARKET ideals you hold.
    Bob buys a coke for 1$ from Jim. Bob values the coke more than the dollar and Jim values the dollar more than the coke. Both parties are better off than they were before. There’s your evidence and that’s the beauty of the free market. (Not like the evidence for this needed)

    Company A is known for honoring its contracts and Company B is not. Company B goes out of business. There’s your evidence and that’s the beauty of the free market. (Not like the evidence for this is needed) This is axiomatic. (Just as a reminder we don`t have a free market on the macro level)
  130. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    @Baalthazaq
    Bull. poo. The argument for evolution is the evidence.
    Very little evidence is needed. Did Darwin need access to knowledge about DNA? No. Did Darwin need access to millions of years of transitional fossils? No. Very little evidence is needed to prove natural selection (evolution) and very little evidence is needed to prove consumer selection (free market). Just so you know both the free market and evolution work in a bottom up manner while a god and a state work in a top down manner.
  131. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    @Baalthazaq
    Reality is not lining up with your expectations. Your theories time and again are failing to link to reality.
    They don’t fail! They are true and there is evidence on the micro level, but there is no evidence on the macro level because as I have already stated we do NOT have a free market system in healthcare. We have a corporatist’s system.

    Baalthazaq, you may not realize it, but you constantly resorting to the “there is no evidence” “argument” is NOT an argument and is just a defense mechanism that is used only by the intellectual lightweights.
    Here are your 3 main options.
    1. Logically debunk my theories point by point.
    2. Agree with me.
    3. Continue making yourself look like a fool.
  132. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm
    @npdarren
    Also, Baalthazag, I`m surprised that you`re making the "It`s always worked before" argument. I thought you`d be more logical than that.
    Just so everyone knows, socialism NEVER works. It only seems like it works. I explain why in my comment on "April 10, 2010 8:59:30 PM" and at "April 10, 2010 9:03:45 PM".
  133. Profile photo of mamba
    mamba Male 18-29
    628 posts
    April 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm
    Can i recomend the film "Sicko" for any americans that think free healthcare is pointless
  134. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 12, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    To anyone who thinks that America has a free market system in healthcare, just know that we can`t even buy insurance policies outside of our home state.

    Someone TRY and defend that.
  135. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 12, 2010 at 1:39 pm
    Not only are we corporatized, but we`re also partially socialized. We have medicare and medicaid which subsidizes the use of these products and services.
  136. Profile photo of AnarchistGod
    AnarchistGod Male 70 & Over
    893 posts
    April 12, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    @Baalthazaq
    Also, whilst it`s true that the US is more obese than much of Europe as an average, it is less so than say Scotland, which still pays a third of what you do, and still has higher life expectancy.

    Furthermore still, lower life expectancy actually lowers the cost of healthcare as the largest drain on healthcare resources are not the overweight, or even the smokers or cancer patients.

    It is the elderly.


    Furthermore still, even if you did somehow prove that universal healthcare is better than our system you would have only proved that a corporative system is worse than universal healthcare. So no one can look at our system and say that the free market is worse then a universal system in healthcare because we don`t have one. So Americans having a low life expectancy and high costs does NOTHING against what I said.

    Here`s your 4th option.
    4. Ignore me
  137. Profile photo of oceanbeast
    oceanbeast Male 18-29
    549 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    sicko is a overly biased film, how can you use a film by michael moore who is one of the most left winged people out there as a barometer of actuality. no i don`t think so, try again, sicko is a propaganda piece.

Leave a Reply