I do not understand volunteer firefighters in America

Users who are viewing this thread

Cass

Plumber
Messages
5,947
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
Ohio
I was waiting for this...thats not how it was when it started...it took years to change it to what you found and that is my point...a gov. run health care system doesn't work because the government is not in health care buisness... and I don't want graft and corruption to run it which is what will happen...that is why Medicare and Medicade is backrupt...How in the world do they think they can run a full blown health care system when they can't run the one they have now....

BTW Ian is a Pinko...:D

You're as bad as he is - worse, even - only in reverse.

Have you ever lived there? Ever even visited?

"I have heard"... says it all, right there. At least he's actually reacting to things that he sees, instead of internet rumors.

...

Englishmen can choose to pay out-of-pocket, or use private insurance, to supplement their NHS coverage. A 3-second google would have told you that:

http://www.consumerrightsexpert.co.uk/PrivateHealthCare.html

http://www.healthinsurance.co.uk/he...surance-and-National-Health-Service-FAQs.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/talking_to_your_doctor/gp_private.shtml

http://www.monetos.co.uk/insurance/health-insurance/private/

They can even get treated at an NHS hospital, with their private insurance covering it:

http://www.privatehealthadvice.co.uk/private-health-nhs-hospitals.html
 

Cass

Plumber
Messages
5,947
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
Ohio
"In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount...."


Compare this with the United States Constitution, which says: "No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt..." and which also says: "Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof..."

Here is an excelent read.... http://home.absolute.net/xode/nwofraud/Bankruptcy_fraud/Bankfraud1.htm
 

Cass

Plumber
Messages
5,947
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
Ohio
Ha Ha Ha ha...I swear...there flying over my house now....see here...


633630696275008040-paranoia.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...n&rlz=1T4SKPB_enUS341US341&sa=N&start=54&um=1
 
Last edited:

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
a gov. run health care system doesn't work because the government is not in health care buisness... and I don't want graft and corruption to run it which is what will happen

As a Canadian ex-pat, I disagree with that first statement... Some data points to consider:

Per capita total expenditure on health:
can__3912
usa__6714
uk___3361

total expenditure on health as % of gdp:
can__10.0
usa__15.3
uk___8.4

life expectancy
can__81
usa__78
uk___79

infant mortality rate
can__5
usa__7
uk___5


You have a point, with the second statement, though. We Americans seem to have a problem running government programs efficiently.

I include this because it's so counter-intuitive...

Per capita GOVERNMENT expenditure on health:
can__2754
usa__3074
uk___2939

government expenditure on health as % of total government expenditure:
can__17.9
usa__19.1
uk___16.5

source:
http://apps.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp


The weird thing, to me, is: 20 years ago, when I lived in Vancouver, if I wanted to mail a letter to Montreal, it'd take 5-7 days (once it took 10 days!), and not get there at all about 1/4 of the time. If I mailed the same letter from Washington State (had friends there, visited often) it'd take 3 days; and never once did it get lost. A Canuck stamp cost almost twice as much as a US stamp, too.

So, how come our mail is more efficient than theirs, but their health care system is more efficient than ours?
 

Scuba_Dave

Extreme DIY Homeowner
Messages
868
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
South of Boston, MA
Website
holidaves.com
Taxes men. TAXES!

Raise 'em and have a paid professional pull you and your loved ones from the burning embers.

We need the feds involved and quick. I didn't realise some poor Floridians and Californians can't afford a force. Where's my checkbook and who's got the address for the IRS?

Just send the $$ to me
I'll make sure it gets to the right people
And feel free to pay the IRS as much $$ as you want
NO wait....send that to me too.....I'll make sure the needy get it
 

Jimbo

Plumber
Messages
8,918
Reaction score
18
Points
0
Location
San Diego, CA
Frenchie, be careful of those figures, as they come from the Democrats without explanation.

What I mean is, infant mortality for the VAST majority of the population is much better than indicated. There is a small minority population of people, imigrants, drug addicts, etc. who skew the statistics. Not that we should not do something to help THOSE people. But the proposed healthcare reform will foist a system NOT NEEDED, at great social cost, on the entire population.

As for the cost of healthcare, that is also skewed. Our health care cost more BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE MONEY. Drug companies spend BILLIONS developing new drugs, and in this country, we pay through the nose for them, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MONEY....and they are then able to market those drugs throughout the world at much lower costs.

Trust me on this one.....if you take the PROFIT out of drug research, there will be no drug research.


Adding to the costs.....the lawyers. Doctors here must practice defensive medicine....ordering all kinds of expensive and in many cases un-needed tests, because if they don't they will be sued. I have not seen anything in the legislation which addresses tort reform and combatting medicare fraud. Just those two items could save us enough money to provide needed healthcare to all who otherwise don't have it.\
 

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
thats not how it was when it started...it took years to change it to what you found and that is my point...

I have to ask - do you have a cite for any of that? I've been digging a bit, and asked one of my friends, and that's not what I'm finding / hearing.


Seems they've had private insurance companies, the whole time. Some examples:

http://www.axappphealthcare.co.uk/about/about-axa-ppp-healthcare/our-history

http://www.bupa.com/about/timeline

http://www.wpa.org.uk/about/examine_us.html
flip a few pages - they've been around since 1901


Under the NHS, doctors are / have always been private contractors. AFAIK there's never been anything preventing them from working in the private sector as well as for the NHS.


Ditto, private hospitals - not only does the NHS not do anything against them, it contracts out to them as needed. If/when an NHS hospital is short on space, it rents beds from private hospitals, etc.


I don't live & have never lived in the UK, but this is the picture google & my English friends paint. If you've got info that contradicts it, please share.
 
Last edited:

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
Frenchie, be careful of those figures, as they come from the Democrats without explanation.

I cited my source: those numbers are from the World Health Organization. Not the democrats. I've never seen those numbers in a democrat's speech, or pamphlet, or anything like that. Those numbers are as much of an indictment against the democrats, as the republicans.

If the dems were interested in actually reforming healthcare for the better, instead of just changing who it is that rips us off, then they might use these numbers... but they don't.

What I mean is, infant mortality for the VAST majority of the population is much better than indicated. There is a small minority population of people, imigrants, drug addicts, etc. who skew the statistics.

So what? The same is true for child mortality in Canuckistan & Ye Olde Merry Englande...

Not that we should not do something to help THOSE people. But the proposed healthcare reform will foist a system NOT NEEDED, at great social cost, on the entire population.

Considering that you and I already pay MORE than the English or Canadians, in healthcare-related GOVERNMENT spending... and that we still have to pay for private insurance on top of that? I disagree. The system needs fixing. Medical costs in the US have been climbing twice as fast as inflation. It can't last, the way it is now.

As for the cost of healthcare, that is also skewed. Our health care cost more BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE MONEY.

Did you miss the "as percent of GDP" numbers, or are you willfully ignoring them? Here they are again:

total expenditure on health as % of gdp:
can__10.0
usa__15.3
uk___8.4

We pay more, as a proportion of our wealth; not just in absolute numbers.

Drug companies spend BILLIONS developing new drugs, and in this country, we pay through the nose for them, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MONEY....and they are then able to market those drugs throughout the world at much lower costs.

Trust me on this one.....if you take the PROFIT out of drug research, there will be no drug research.

Who said we should take the profit out of pharma research? Even Obama cut a side-deal to avoid that.

I'm not too clear on why we should bear a disproportionate share of the cost, though. The other countries should be chipping in a bit more, you know? We don't make that much more than they do...

gross national income per capita:

can__36280
usa__44070
uk___33650

Adding to the costs.....the lawyers. Doctors here must practice defensive medicine....ordering all kinds of expensive and in many cases un-needed tests, because if they don't they will be sued. I have not seen anything in the legislation which addresses tort reform and combatting medicare fraud. Just those two items could save us enough money to provide needed healthcare to all who otherwise don't have it.\

I agree. But tort reform wouldn't make as big a difference as you might think. Comparing States that have brought in tort reform (before & after, and compared to States that haven't), tort reform would only bring costs down about 5%, at most.

Still, 5% is 5%, and it's straightforward. It's low-hanging fruit. Any 'reform' that doesn't incorporate tort reform, is clearly not a genuine attempt at fixing the system.


Medicare fraud... I agree, is a huge problem. Way bigger than anyone credits. Probably a big part of the reason (the main reason?) why we spend so much government money while getting so little back, compared to other developed countries.

But that one is a much harder nut to crack. You'd need to make some radical changes to the system, and seniors get very nervous when you mess with their medicare. So your opposition, whichever party is not you, gets to play boogieman with the seniors for political points.

I really wish everyone in Washington would grow the hell up.
 
Last edited:

Jimbo

Plumber
Messages
8,918
Reaction score
18
Points
0
Location
San Diego, CA
Your raw numbers are accurate. But you have to study the full context. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics!

Bottom line, the door is open for anyone who thinks medical care is better in GB or Canada. Unfortunately the door is also open for a lot of people who KNOW that medical care is better here!!!
 

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
Door's open? :confused:

Canada actually enforces its immigration laws.

:p


Full context? I've lived in both countries: 30 years there, 12 years here.


Bottom line... this is one thing they do better than us.

And there's no logical or reasonable explanation for it - no reason why they should be better than us at administering healthcare.

None.
 

Cookie

.
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Home
If you get a big disease you got a much better prognosis in the US.
 

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
You're talking about the numbers on 5-year survival for cancer...?

Not talking about most of Europe, or England, where I agree the difference starts being significant - but Canada? Canada is basically part of the US, on cancer survival stats.

Overall, you have a 3% better chance of surviving cancer, here, than in Canada. I have a 4% better chance.

There's WAY more difference between different States, or between different Provinces, within the countries, than between the countries.

Take 5-year survival rate for breast cancer: there's 20% difference between the best (BC) and worst (NS) Canadian Provinces; about 25% between the best (HI) and worst (NY) American States... less than 5% between the two countries.
 

Cookie

.
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Home
Frenchie, trust me, you get cancer, get it here in the states. There are far too many variables of why, to cite.
 

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
And using 5-year survival is misleading, because we do a lot more screening than Europe - that exaggerates the difference.

Like Jimbo said, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

You compare USA 5-year survival rates for prostate cancer, for example: 99% in the US, 78% for the UK. You get Rudy Guiliani saying he's really happy he didn't live in England...

Thing is, a lot of prostate cancers progress slowly, and occur in men over the age of 65 - so they aren't actually life-threatening, in the first place, because you die from a heart attack or something, long before the cancer becomes a real issue.

We do a lot more screening than the UK, and detect those slow-growing cancers. England doesn't do as much screening, the guy dies (of something else) without ever knowing he had it.

The honest number to look at, is cancer mortality - which is identical, for both countries, at 25 per 100k men.
 

Jimbo

Plumber
Messages
8,918
Reaction score
18
Points
0
Location
San Diego, CA
Let's talk about infant mortality: because of the availability of medical care during pregnancy, and the advances in prenatal care, a lot of babies who might otherwise be subject to Darwin's principles, actually make it all the way to birth. Naturally, they are still at risk, and some of them won't survive their first year, or whatever time period that infant mortality is counted. In poorer countries, they don't make it to birth and are not counted as infant mortality.
 

Frenchie

Jack of all trades
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Brooklyn, NY and Fire Island, NY
I dunno about that logic, Jim. Poorer countries tend to have higher, not lower, infant mortality rates. It's over 154 in Angola, 157 in Liberia, 159 in Sierra Leone... 29 in Mexico, 26 in Indonesia, 57 in India, 42 in North Korea...


Leaving out the poor countries, looking at just the three we've been looking at... here's some relevant indicators, give us an idea of the availablity & quality of prenatal care:

percentage of births attended by skilled personnel (%):
100 for Canada,
100 for the US,
99 for the UK.

newborns with low birth weight(%):
6 for Canada,
8 for the US,
8 for the UK.

maternal mortality rate (per 100k):
7 for Canada,
11 for the US,
8 for the UK.


Gotta go, now, running late...
 

Jimbo

Plumber
Messages
8,918
Reaction score
18
Points
0
Location
San Diego, CA
I hope everyone has taken this discussion in the good natured manner in which it was intended. No desire to antagonize anyone. I think we all agree that no system is perfect, and for us at least, we are free to do what we want and go where we want.
 
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

This is awkward, but...

It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.

If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks