• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care


No it shouldn't. Some of the dirt bags I see out there disgust me. What gives a woman the right to abandon her husband and father of three kids to run off with some abusive woman and ONE of her three kids move the kid from school to school (about 5 times a year) and then get free health care? This scum can rot in a ditch for all I care. That kid has been through hell and back. I can only pray he makes it out okay.

What gives a successful construction business owner the right to federal health care? That cheating the system. They could easily afford their own.

When I go and work on someone's house, someone foreign, and they say, "You Americans don't know how to take advantage of the system," I feel like taking my pliers and shoving them down their throat. This person doesn't deserve any help either.

These are just a couple examples.

Now the woman who works 60 hours a week as a single mother to support two kids going to college and is struggling to buy enough food for herself? Sure, I'll help that person.

Health care is NOT a right and there are many people in this country that are not an asset at all. In fact some are less of an asset than the weeds that grow on my lawn (at least you can eat some of those, so I hear!).
 
That's true as well. I just put it as other to keep things on topic.

You also forgot the fact that the US counts a live birth much differently then the rest of the world.
I sure did, thank you for reminding me of that. Yeah, it again speaks to the dishonesty of the WHO international statistics.
 

And it is colder in Sweden so there is a larger chance people freeze to death. Lets not forget it is also darker there, so people can die of depression. How about in Souther Europe where there is a higher risk of dehydration during the summer, or Greece has a lot of forest fires, or floods in Poland, or left over radiation from Chernobyl and on and on.. in other words... a lame excuse. It statistically means nothing. The only thing that might have a statistical impact is the diet of some regions of the world, but even then it is not really worth mentioning too much since it is evening it self out as even these nations are turning to the same food stuffs as American's.


Actually another lie by the US right wing. While you are correct countries have different rules on birth, the actual difference is statistically non existent. For example, some countries say that children born before 23 weeks of gestation are not counted as live births. Yes that is different than the US version of any child born is considered live, however what your right wing friends forget to mention is that there is a only a handful if that many babies born under 23 weeks of gestation that have ever lived. Hence those few children around the world that have been born before 23 weeks of gestation and lived ... it is statistically irrelevant when talking about thousands of births a year. And if you think for a second that European doctors dont try to save a child born under 23 weeks then you are frankly a moron.. of course they do. But the chance of such a child surviving is under 1% and at some point every medical professional has to make the call if the amount of energy and money spent on trying to save a lost cause is worth it. If a child is born at say 10 weeks, even in the US... it is considered dead at birth since it can survive.

Teen pregnancies

Yes, that is another subject.

and fertiliity treatments are also much higher in the US then most other countries. All things that can affect numbers.

Hmm prove your fertility treatment claim. Fertility treatments are very common here in Europe. But what the hell does it have to do with health statistics? As for effecting the numbers.. how exactly does teen pregnancy effect child mortality rates under 5 years? Are you saying your teens murder their kids?
 
 
Feel free to use your source that's as reputable as an organization as WHO.


LaMidRighter said:
The U.S. has a doctor shortage due to legally limited doctor enrollment by federal law in which the AMA lobbied for in the early part of the 1900's, guess your little WHO propoganda piece didn't give you that piece of info did it?
What federal law is that? Are you talking about in 1997 when, to save money and prevent a doctor glut, Congress capped the number of residents that Medicare will pay for at about 80,000 a year.

That's not quite the same as "legally limited" doctor enrollment.

The government even pays for more doctors with another 20,000 residents that are financed by the Veterans Administration and Medicaid.

Durn guv'ment, ought to keep their hands ouffa training my doctor...LOL


The thing with comparing the stats from one health care system to another is not to show which one has a percentage point advantage over another. It's to show that all of the industrialized nations health care system's outcomes are very similar.

If one country's life expectancy is .6 of a percent higher than another, what does that mean to you? It doesn't speak to the quality of life for that extra few months AND it doesn't speak to you specifically.

What does a country having .2 doctors more per capita mean to you if you live in rural Montana? What about NYC?


With all industrialized system having comparatively similar health care systems, guess which one costs the most, by far, and covers the least amount of it's citizens?
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
Some of the dirt bags I see out there disgust me.
Rightwingnutjob said:
Now the woman who works 60 hours a week as a single mother to support two kids going to college and is struggling to buy enough food for herself? Sure, I'll help that person.
So if a system is not picture perfect (whose standards should we use?), let's just not do it at all?
 

Your sarcasm aside, you sort of make the point. Sure...every country has different risks, dangers, etc. And for expediency sake people often give truth to the old quote statistics dont lie, statisticians do. makes it kind of hard to give those figures any type of credibility doesn it?

let me ask you...when discussing Cubas health care and statistics who do you think people think of...this




or this?



Or this?



No...of course not. They think of the fancy hotels rich tourists go to to get their plastic surgeries and their 'free health care'.

WORLDS of differences...
 

We are not talking about 3rd world countries, but comparable western industrialized countries.
 
VanceMack said:
let me ask you...when discussing Cubas health care and statistics who do you think people think of...this
Probably about as much as they think about the following when talking of U.S. superior medical system.



Inglewood, Ca free clinic




2007 Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corps (RAM) free clinic in Wise, Virginia



Lining up for medical care in Va.





When RAM came to Knoxville, Tennessee, in January, people started arriving at midnight, even though the doors did not open until seven -- and temperatures dropped below freezing that night. Asked why they'd come to early, people said they "just wanted to be seen" by a medical professional.
 
So if a system is not picture perfect (whose standards should we use?), let's just not do it at all?
I'm not real sure what exactly you were saying due to your strange sentence structure, but I'll take a stab anyway.

If a system is not perfect then fix the system. Whose standards should we use? Mine, most definitely.
 
They prefer mediocore over priced healthcare to real change that would improve their lives. Cause if Gov't didn't run it.. they might be *GASP* responsible for their own lives again.

Can't have that.

Mediocore sure. Over priced? You must be drinking :lol:
 

How can you compare a free clinic to actual hospital and doctor's office conditions and expect it to show that U.S. health care is poor? In all of your pictures I didn't see any 'filth' or sanitation issues, just simple, temporary setups.
 
How can you compare a free clinic to actual hospital and doctor's office conditions and expect it to show that U.S. health care is poor? In all of your pictures I didn't see any 'filth' or sanitation issues, just simple, temporary setups.

I see charity at work. Something that makes America so great.
 

Two obvious points...

1-The pictures I posted are the societal norm for Cuba...a system which everyone holds out as desirable in the socialized health care realm whereas the pictures you depicted are 'events'.

2-There is a world of difference even in the voluntarily provided and free (notice...people did it without government mandate) healthcare services you posted and the standard ops in Cuba.

And the funny part is I bet you think you made a POINT by posting your pics. Well..you did...you made mine...
 

I believe the word you are looking for is...'Touche'...
 
We are not talking about 3rd world countries, but comparable western industrialized countries.

Point remains the same...and how dare you call Castros Cuba a third world country. Why, their health care is something every nation should aspire to become. Statistically of course...
 

Duno. Why don't you point to statistics that show that people in Sweden are more likely than people in the US to freeze to death. Then find statistics that people are dying in S.Europe due to dehydration in greater numbers than are dying in the US. Then show that the people that are dying due to those causes tend to be young, and are therefore having a greater impact on life expectancy then when an older individual dies due to the same reason.

People are more likely to die in the US due to violence and due to an MVA then in other nations that are "ahead of us" in the WHO reprot. These are causes of death that are not very likely to be solved by "nationalized healthcare". And in both cases, younger people are far more likely to be victims than the older, items that are not taken into account in the WHO report when ranking things such as life expectancy. Which makes those statistics fairly useless in determining effectivness of a nations healthcare system.
 
Last edited:
How can you compare a free clinic to actual hospital and doctor's office conditions and expect it to show that U.S. health care is poor? In all of your pictures I didn't see any 'filth' or sanitation issues, just simple, temporary setups.
He is a dishonest debator, which is why I have him on ignore.
 
 
I'm just going to save myself any future headaches an address the first misinformed point. Are you familiar at all with how a mortality table works? Seriously AT ALL? Mortality tables look at deaths per x in y time in all classifications. Morbidity tables break that down further, the WHO uses mortality as a general weight. So yes, everything statistically affects it.
 


Because the fact that they are killing each other in Iraq should not be used by people with an agenda to disparage their health care systems. When trying to prove a point that Iraq's healthcare system and delivery is inadequate, you would want to remove those deaths caused by suicide bombers, and gun shot wounds. At least if you want to be honest. You just admitted that those causes of death are impacting life expetancy in that country. Would giving them nationalized healthcare improve that? Unlikely, unless they can reattach explded body parts that get strewn across the country for blocks.

Same way you would want to remove the amount of violent deaths and MVAs in the US, since we have much greater number of violent deaths than in say Japan, or motor vehicle accidents than say those in France. At least if you are trying to prove the point that the US health care system is worse then those country's.

If you are just looking to see which country you are most likely to live longer in, without regard to healthcare systems, then the WHO report is just perfect. But to use that report to prove that the US healthcare system sucks, is disingenuous at best outright lying at worst.
 
Last edited:

Why dont you point out your statistics? That having more cars and disposable income some how makes American's want to kill themselves more? And how that impacts the over all life expectancy. I mean by your standard the population of some very rich middle eastern and gulf nations must be on the verge of mass suicide!

And if you did not get it. I was pointing out the stupidity of the argument that many right wingers try to promote.

People are more likely to die in the US due to violence and due to an MVA then in other nations that are "ahead of us" in the WHO reprot.

Yes. You are a violent society. So is Russia, and they drink far more than anyone else. But then explain this.. Costa Rica has a far higher murder rate than that of the US

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5.4 for the US versus 7.68 for Costa Rica... and yet Costa Rica has a higher life expectancy than that of the US. How does that fit into the theory that the US numbers are twisted because the US is so violent? Do the Costa Ricans have some sort of wonder drug that prolongs their life? Diet?

Oh and by the way..

List of countries by traffic-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Costa Rica also beats you at deaths due to bad driving.. and yet they live longer!?!?!?

In fact there are a few countries that live longer and kill more of their citizens in cars than the US. Chile for example.

These are causes of death that are not very likely to be solved by "nationalized healthcare".

I never said it would.. so stop putting words in my mouth. The real question is how big part of the life expectancy statistic are they.. ball is in your court. While you are at it, find it for all countries so we can remove them there too. Also dont forget drinking and smoking habits and so on and so on.


No, but then again it is not taken into account for anyone. The British binge drinking is not taken into account, the fatty foods that Danes have started to consume is not accounted for. and so on and so on. It is only and explanation of what might be a reason for the lower or higher life expectancy. However the biggest part of any life expectancy number will be the ability of said healthcare system to cater for its citizens and keep them alive. It is not a perfect statistic, but it is an over all statistic that can be used. Add in statistics for different diseases, and so on, and you can break down where the different health care systems are good and bad. That in turn has an impact on life expectancy much more than car wrecks.
 

It certainly wont help it was a private system, but that was never the point of life expectancy. I have explained in a different reply why a large part of the life expectancy statistic is the quality and coverage of the healthcare system.


Sure but remove them from all countries. Dont forget the high suicide rate in Japan, the possible deaths from the British binge drinking and so on and so on. How about removing all black people from the US statistic since you have a higher ratio of black people vs those of the European countries? How about Hispanics? You can go on and on.


No it is quite accurate if you go down on the specific diseases and so on. I mean aids is aids regardless where you are.. so is the measles and what not. Even with infant mortality, if you can get past the right wing propaganda.
 
Pete, there are more factors to life expectancy than health care quality. The USA has the highest cancer survival rate in the world, while the UK has the lowest survival rate in Europe. Cancer survival rates more accurately depict a nations health care quality.

Source:UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe - Telegraph
 
For the excessive money we spend on healthcare, no one should be with ten points of us in any category.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…