I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Extreme Humor

Gorilla Mask

Funny Games

Funny Stuff

Funny Videos

Oddee

Free Samples

Crazy Games

Not Healthy

Viva La Games

I hate retail

Comic World

Urlesque

CityRag

Pandasmash

FreeGame Heaven

Escape Games 24

Pugorama

Angelsfire.nl

Hot Games

Insane Pictures

Lastminute Auct

123 Games



Back to Listing

US Healthcare: Case For Reform? [Infographic FIXED

Hits: 24055 | Rating: (2.4) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: davymid
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
oceanbeast
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 549 Posts
Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:56:26 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Monday, April 12, 2010 6:09:31 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

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Monday, April 12, 2010 1:39:19 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Monday, April 12, 2010 1:33:58 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.

mamba
Male, 18-29, Europe
 618 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:42:21 PM
Can i recomend the film "Sicko" for any americans that think free healthcare is pointless

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:27:40 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".

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:25:05 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:19:16 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:15:55 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)

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:11:43 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"

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:08:12 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.

npdarren
Male, 18-29, Western US
 603 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:01:46 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.

npdarren
Male, 18-29, Western US
 603 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:47:58 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.

Call
Male, 13-17, Europe
 75 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:14:36 AM
yay im average

Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
 4753 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:15:43 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.

Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
 4753 Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:05:47 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.

stunami
Male, 18-29, Western US
 8 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:36:46 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:55:05 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:33:09 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:04:30 PM
Here are some cool videos if anyone is interested.

Video 1

Video 2

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:03:45 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:59:30 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.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:57:16 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.)

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:55:52 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”.

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:54:25 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.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.