• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Notice

commy

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
the industrialized countries with....eh, every other industrialized country i should say, has universal health care.


and the US is what, 25th in the rankings on health care?


obviously, universal health care works. given those who have implemented it and those who have not, and their records.


so what's holding the US back? greed?


another thing





where are all the christians when its comes to this health care debate? they'll give $200 million and hop on a bus to zimbabwe to help other people, but now that its a system that helps those who can't help themselves, they are loudly silent. how very unchristian, yet typical.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am for universal healthcare, but many countries can't financially sustain it. To function properly it must be efficient and financially stable. America has the highest quality healthcare and I would say it is more efficient that other nations. However it is also more expensive and privatized. By the way I am a Christian. I support healthcare for all and I have personally gone to Haiti in 2007 (before anyone knew it existed) to help the poor there.
 
Last edited:

commy

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am for universal healthcare, but many countries can't financially sustain it. To function properly it must be efficient and financially stable. America has the highest quality healthcare and I would say it is more efficient that other nations. However it is also more expensive and privatized. By the way I am a Christian. I support healthcare for all and I have personally gone to Haiti in 2007 (before anyone knew it existed) to help the poor there.
right on. and that is really great that you are helping others, i really do think that is the way to go.


the US (used to be?) is? the richest country in the world. we can afford to spend on violence as much as the next 27 countries combined. how can we not set our priorities and take some of that money and put it towards saving lives, instead of taking them? of course we can afford it.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
115,068
Reaction score
32,526
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There's only one superpower and it doesn't have universal health care. Why are all the other countries remaining crappy instead of trying to be a superpower?
 

pendulum_jaw

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
209
Reaction score
107
Location
U.S.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I've been reading through this Health Care forum and I'm appalled at the number of people like yourself who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

I'll address a few problems with your post:

Firstly, health care is not medical care. The leftist government in the United States may have succeeded in establishing a strong connotation between these two concepts, but don't allow yourself to be fooled--they are two very different things. As consumers who wish to have quality medical help available when we may need it, it is medical care that is most important. Contrary to what you are implying in your post, the United States has the best medical care industry in the world. Whether you're suffering from cancer, or you've just had a stroke, or you've caught a rare, deadly tropical disease, you're chances of survival are no where better than in the United States. The U.S. is not #25, it is #1. To convince yourself, why not compare survival rates for patients with these various diseases among all countries or compare waiting time to surgery or diagnostics between the medical industries of the different countries?

I'd like to see the study you obtained that ranking from so please cite it. I'm going to guess that some socialist organization created a bunch of subjective scores to various things like obesity, happiness, environmental safety, etc. I strongly doubt it is an apples to apples, objective comparison of the various medical industries of the world.
 
Last edited:

commy

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I've been reading through this Health Care forum and I'm appalled at the number of people like yourself who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

I'll address a few problems with your post:

Firstly, health care is not medical care. The leftist government in the United States may have succeeded in establishing a strong connotation between these two concepts, but don't allow yourself to be fooled--they are two very different things. As consumers who wish to have quality medical help available when we may need it, it is medical care that is most important. Contrary to what you are implying in your post, the United States has the best medical care industry in the world. Whether you're suffering from cancer, or you've just had a stroke, or you've caught a rare, deadly tropical disease, you're chances of survival are no where better than in the United States. The U.S. is not #25, it is #1. To convince yourself, why not compare survival rates for patients with these various diseases among all countries or compare waiting time to surgery or diagnostics between the medical industries of the different countries?

I'd like to see the study you obtained that ranking from so please cite it. I'm going to guess that some socialist organization created a bunch of subjective scores to various things like obesity, happiness, environmental safety, etc. I strongly doubt it is an apples to apples, objective comparison of the various medical industries of the world.
the rankings come from the World Health Organization.


they measure things like infant mortality rate and longetivity. its basically a measure of overall health care.

and the US is actually 33rd.

and i'm not arguing that the US has the best doctors or actual treatment, nobody is contesting that. the problem, and point of the thread is that care isnt' available to everyone.




the US has the best health coverage/care/treatment in the world, sure i agree with that....provided you can pay for it, which the majority cannot.
 

commy

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There's only one superpower and it doesn't have universal health care. Why are all the other countries remaining crappy instead of trying to be a superpower?
interesting to see you are ok with lining the pockets of Haliburton, (with your tax dollars, to an already wealthy corporation) but when it comes to saving lives, and tax spending on things that save lives, you are opposed to it.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
There's only one superpower and it doesn't have universal health care. Why are all the other countries remaining crappy instead of trying to be a superpower?
Why do you lag behind the northern european countries in almost every aspect of social health if you're such a superpower?
 

commy

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why do you lag behind the northern european countries in almost every aspect of social health if you're such a superpower?

best in the world at taking lives..not so good at saving them.
 

commy

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I disagree, America is great at saving lives, if you can afford it.
which most can't. european heath care/coverage/treatment is better for the majority, which is the point of it all, yeah? to save as many lives as possible?
 

pendulum_jaw

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
209
Reaction score
107
Location
U.S.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
the rankings come from the World Health Organization.
Again, please provide a source for your information. It's always good form to do so. Certainly, we can agree on this.

measure things like infant mortality rate and longetivity. its basically a measure of overall health care.
Infant mortality rate and longevity statistics convey no meaningful information about medical care or health care. It is a well known fact that different nations adhere to different criteria with respect to reporting infant mortality rates. For example, some nations only report a fatality if the fetus was developed beyond a certain stage or is beyond a certain length. Others only report deaths if the fetus was outside the womb. However, the United States practices by far the strictest reporting standards--the U.S. reports every, each and every known instance of an infant death. That is partially why the rates are higher.

The longevity measurement is another favorite pseudo-statistic that which universal health care proponents try to sell to the mathematically challenged. If one is trying to assess the quality of a "health care system" using the statistic, then one must demonstrate that every person counted actually used the the health care system in their country. But as anybody knows, this cannot be done. These longevity statistics are nothing more than reported deaths. They are not epidemiological studies with careful controls. Comparing death rates in one country to death rates in another country allows you to do nothing except compare and contrast death rates. It doesn't say anything meaningful about any health care system because there isn't anyway to know whether that system influenced the outcome!

But there's even a more egregious error here. I'll illustrate by way of example. Let's say we want to know whether China's health care system is better at treating it's citizens for Disease X than the U.S, and let's assume that Disease X is deadly and we're just counting deaths due to Disease X. We count up all the deaths per year and determine that China had far more deaths than the United States (and all people were treated by the system in both countries). Is it now valid to conclude that the U.S. system is better at treating Disease X than the Chinese system? Before you answer, consider this: suppose people of Chinese descent have a genetic predisposition to contract Disease X. Now what do you think of this hypothetical study? It's garbage, right? Why? Because we compared apples with oranges--we compared to populations that are nothing alike. This is exactly the type of nonsense the WHO is uses to hypnotize the scientifically-illiterate. Don't buy it.

and the US is actually 33rd.

and i'm not arguing that the US has the best doctors or actual treatment, nobody is contesting that. the problem, and point of the thread is that care isnt' available to everyone.
Where in the United States is medical care unavailable? Sorry, but your statement is simply not true.

the US has the best health coverage/care/treatment in the world, sure i agree with that....provided you can pay for it, which the majority cannot.
A majority of Americans cannot pay for their own health care? A majority as in greater than 50%? Care to rephrase that?
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Infant mortality rate and longevity statistics convey no meaningful information about medical care or health care. It is a well known fact that different nations adhere to different criteria with respect to reporting infant mortality rates. For example, some nations only report a fatality if the fetus was developed beyond a certain stage or is beyond a certain length. Others only report deaths if the fetus was outside the womb. However, the United States practices by far the strictest reporting standards--the U.S. reports every, each and every known instance of an infant death. That is partially why the rates are higher.
Australia reports infant mortality in exactly the same way as the US, yet we're ranked better, you can't use that as an excuse.
 

pendulum_jaw

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
209
Reaction score
107
Location
U.S.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why do you lag behind the northern european countries in almost every aspect of social health if you're such a superpower?
Please define "social health". In your definition, indicate how taxpayer-funded government healthcare influences the outcome of social health (this is an assumption you've made in your post). Finally, provide an example of at least one aspect of "social health" that the United States is lagging behind the northern Ruropeans in and cite the evidence that has convinced you that this is so.
 

pendulum_jaw

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
209
Reaction score
107
Location
U.S.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Australia reports infant mortality in exactly the same way as the US, yet we're ranked better, you can't use that as an excuse.
Are you saying that, in your opinion, it is statistically valid to compare the behaviors of Americans with the behaviors of Australians? Do you believe this is an apples to apples comparison? Similarly are you also saying that you believe the healthcare system is responsible for mothers' behaviors?
 
Last edited:

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Please define "social health". In your definition, indicate how taxpayer-funded government healthcare influences the outcome of social health (this is an assumption you've made in your post). Finally, provide an example of at least one aspect of "social health" that the United States is lagging behind the northern Ruropeans in and cite the evidence that has convinced you that this is so.
I define social health as the wellbeing of the population of a whole, including physical and mental health; Taxpayer funded healthcare ensures the health of the population as a whole, as opposed to that segments of population that can afford it.

One of the most obvious indicators of social health is life expectancy, which, in Sweden, is 81 years, but in America, is only 78. These statistics are found here, which is the World Health Organisation statistics.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Are you saying that, in your opinion, it is statistically valid to compare the behaviors of Americans with the behaviors of Australians? Do you believe this is an apples to apples comparison? Similarly are you also saying that you believe the healthcare system is responsible for mothers' behaviors?
No, what I'm saying is that the argument that the difference to how the statistics are recorded is invalid in many cases.
 

commy

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Again, please provide a source for your information. It's always good form to do so. Certainly, we can agree on this.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems


insignificance being wether or not the US is ranked 37th or 30th, we can agree its one of the two or somewhere in between,






Infant mortality rate and longevity statistics convey no meaningful information about medical care or health care. It is a well known fact that different nations adhere to different criteria with respect to reporting infant mortality rates. For example, some nations only report a fatality if the fetus was developed beyond a certain stage or is beyond a certain length. Others only report deaths if the fetus was outside the womb. However, the United States practices by far the strictest reporting standards--the U.S. reports every, each and every known instance of an infant death. That is partially why the rates are higher.

infant mortality rates aren't objective. either the baby dies or it does not. and they can write that **** down and calculate which countries have a better birth rate. its not an opinion. and they keep track and rate.
The longevity measurement is another favorite pseudo-statistic that which universal health care proponents try to sell to the mathematically challenged. If one is trying to assess the quality of a "health care system" using the statistic, then one must demonstrate that every person counted actually used the the health care system in their country. But as anybody knows, this cannot be done. These longevity statistics are nothing more than reported deaths. They are not epidemiological studies with careful controls. Comparing death rates in one country to death rates in another country allows you to do nothing except compare and contrast death rates. It doesn't say anything meaningful about any health care system because there isn't anyway to know whether that system influenced the outcome!
either you are 80 and alive or you're not. its a simple stat to keep. i can make an assumption based on longevity. say people in mexico city live to be 40, on average...maybe it isnt' a health care issue that is the reason why, but you can still be sure there is a problem. that's what this is measuring.

were i worried about longetivity, i'd go to where they lived the longest. simple.

But there's even a more egregious error here. I'll illustrate by way of example. Let's say we want to know whether China's health care system is better at treating it's citizens for Disease X than the U.S, and let's assume that Disease X is deadly and we're just counting deaths due to Disease X. We count up all the deaths per year and determine that China had far more deaths than the United States (and all people were treated by the system in both countries). Is it now valid to conclude that the U.S. system is better at treating Disease X than the Chinese system? Before you answer, consider this: suppose people of Chinese descent have a genetic predisposition to contract Disease X. Now what do you think of this hypothetical study? It's garbage, right? Why? Because we compared apples with oranges--we compared to populations that are nothing alike. This is exactly the type of nonsense the WHO is uses to hypnotize the scientifically-illiterate. Don't buy it.

the world health organization doesn't make things up. its a respectable organization and i'm sure its facts stand for themselves. question the source, if you will, but they spend their time researching this kind of thing. its like questoining a university for their answer to a problem. its an institution geared towards figuring these kinds of things out.


Where in the United States is medical care unavailable? Sorry, but your statement is simply not true.



A majority of Americans cannot pay for their own health care? A majority as in greater than 50%? Care to rephrase that?


when 53 million are without coverage.....i agree not a majority, there is a still a very big problem.
 
Last edited:

pendulum_jaw

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
209
Reaction score
107
Location
U.S.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I define social health as the wellbeing of the population of a whole, including physical and mental health;
But this isn't any kind of objective definition of the concept. How would you go about objectively measuring this so-called "social health"? You didn't answer the question.

Taxpayer funded healthcare ensures the health of the population as a whole, as opposed to that segments of population that can afford it.
But this is nothing more than an opinion. I asked you what evidence convinced you your opinion was sound. Is this your strongest argument?

One of the most obvious indicators of social health is life expectancy, which, in Sweden, is 81 years, but in America, is only 78. These statistics are found here, which is the World Health Organisation statistics.
But I've already addressed this issue above. Do you not follow the thread? For comparison statistics to have any validity, they must be making apples to apples comparisons. Are you stating that you reject the argument that ethnic and genetic background influences life expectancy? If so, please explain why.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
But this isn't any kind of objective definition of the concept. How would you go about objectively measuring this so-called "social health"? You didn't answer the question.
I would take the indicators of general health, life expectancy, infant mortality, disease rates, mental disorder rates, things like that, to compare social health.


But this is nothing more than an opinion. I asked you what evidence convinced you your opinion was sound. Is this your strongest argument?
My strongest argument is that most of the countries rated better than America in any health field you choose have socialised health care.

But I've already addressed this issue above. Do you not follow the thread? For comparison statistics to have any validity, they must be making apples to apples comparisons. Are you stating that you reject the argument that ethnic and genetic background influences life expectancy? If so, please explain why.
I do not reject those factors have influence, however, genetics are not limited to single countries, and thus are irrelevant in this case, and I ask you to identify which race in America is dragging down the statistics, andprove that it is due to being a member of that race, rather than the culture attached to it. And I ask you why you believe the level of healthcare available to the population is irrelevant to the life expectancy.
 

pendulum_jaw

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
209
Reaction score
107
Location
U.S.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
insignificance being wether or not the US is ranked 37th or 30th, we can agree its one of the two or somewhere in between,
This is merely a link to the rankings, not the original WHO analysis. May I ask you some serious questions here? When you see a ranking like this, do you just take it to be true because it as posted on a website? Did you actually read the WHO report upon which this ranking is based? Did you think through their methodology at all? Do you understand how they came up with these rankings?

Here is the link to the actual report: PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

Here is a letter that Dr. Phillip Musgrove wrote to the New England Journal of Medicine about this report. You might wonder who Dr. Musgrove is--he was one of the editors of the WHO report. He writes,

"In their Perspective article (Jan. 14 issue),1 Murray and Frenk review a number of indicators of the relatively poor state of the population's health in the United States. Most, if not all, of this information is well known to readers of the Journal, and the authors' use of it is not objectionable. However, Murray and Frenk begin their discussion by referring to the World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, from the World Health Organization (WHO), which ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, and this is objectionable. (I was editor-in-chief of the World Health Report 2000 but had no control over the rankings of health systems.) Fully 61% of the numbers that went into that ranking exercise were not observed but simply imputed from regressions based on as few as 30 actual estimates from among the 191 WHO member countries. Where the United States is concerned, data were available only for life expectancy and child survival, which together account for only 50% of the attainment measure. Moreover, the “responsiveness” component of attainment cannot be compared across countries, and the estimates of responsiveness for some countries were manipulated. This is not simply a problem of incomplete, inaccurate, or noncomparable data; there are also sound reasons to mistrust the conceptual framework behind the estimates, since it presupposes a production function for health system outcomes that depends only on a country's expenditure on health and its level of schooling, ignoring all cultural, geographic, and historical factors.2
The number 37 is meaningless, but it continues to be cited, for four reasons. First, people would like to trust the WHO and presume that the organization must know what it is talking about. Second, very few people are aware of the reason why in this case that trust is misplaced, partly because the explanation was published 3 years after the report containing the ranking. Third, numbers confer a spurious precision, appealing even to people who have no idea where the numbers came from. Finally, those persons responsible for the number continue to peddle it anyway. To quote Wolfgang Pauli's dismissal of a theory opposed to quantum mechanics, “Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!” Analyzing the failings of health systems can be valuable; making up rankings among them is not. It is long past time for this zombie number to disappear from circulation."


infant mortality rates aren't objective. either the baby dies or it does not. and they can write that **** down and calculate which countries have a better birth rate. its not an opinion. and they keep track and rate.
As I stated previously, you have no understanding of what you're discussing. It's not true that they simply record dead babies and add them up. The reality is that there exist specific sets of criteria that are applied in determining whether the death will be counted or not. My point is that these sets of criteria are not the same across countries. A valid, meaningful comparison is impossible. Add to this that the mother's behaviors, eating habits, etc., also affect this outcome and the comparison becomes even more invalid. What I find perplexing is how people like you fall prey to accepting these obviously flawed arguments. Please state why you reject standard statistical requirements for valid comparisons.


either you are 80 and alive or you're not. its a simple stat to keep. i can make an assumption based on longevity. say people in mexico city live to be 40, on average...maybe it isnt' a health care issue that is the reason why, but you can still be sure there is a problem. that's what this is measuring.
Again, please explain why you believe apples to oranges comparisons are legitimate in the field of mathematical statistics. Every single math book I've read disagrees with your sentiments.

were i worried about longetivity, i'd go to where they lived the longest. simple.
REally? So if Eskimos are genetically predisposed to living longer than other people, you believe you're just going to move to Alaska and live longer? Do you not see how ridiculous your statements are?

the world health organization doesn't make things up. its a respectable organization and i'm sure its facts stand for themselves. question the source, if you will, but they spend their time researching this kind of thing. its like questoining a university for their answer to a problem. its an institution geared towards figuring these kinds of things out.
I quoted for you above a doctor who was part of the very editing board at the WHO that generated the report you cited. He basically stated the report was crap and explained why. I've also provided a rational explanation why it is crap. But you haven't yet explained why you think it is valid, other than to profess your worship for the WHO. Do you just blindly do as your told and think what people to tell you to think in life?


when 53 million are without coverage.....i agree not a majority, there is a still a very big problem.
Health coverage has nothing to do with health care, which has nothing to do with medical care. Do you really have a problem distinguishing between these three different things?

Did you know that the United States spends more money on health care per capita than any other country?
 
Last edited:

pendulum_jaw

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
209
Reaction score
107
Location
U.S.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I would take the indicators of general health, life expectancy, infant mortality, disease rates, mental disorder rates, things like that, to compare social health.
Ok, but you haven't explained how differences in those indicators can be validly compared between two dissimilar populations in a logically valid way so as to obtain meaningful comparative information about different countries' medical care systems. Why do you believe that basic statistical standards can be ignored? Surely you can understand my objection here.

My strongest argument is that most of the countries rated better than America in any health field you choose have socialised health care.
So in other words you can't explain your rational....the WHO tells what reality is and you believe them. You can't think for yourself? By the way, America has had socialized health care for quite some time, it's just less socialized than other countries.


I do not reject those factors have influence, however, genetics are not limited to single countries, and thus are irrelevant in this case,
Say what?! Please explain what you mean by this as I don't understand what you're saying. You really need to work on articulating your position a little better if you wish to communicate.

and I ask you to identify which race in America is dragging down the statistics, andprove that it is due to being a member of that race, rather than the culture attached to it.
Well, blacks for one. Take infant mortality as an example. The rate amongst whites in AMerica is about 5.6 deaths per 1000 live births. The rate amongst blacks is a whopping 13.4. There are many other examples like this. Again, the point is that your comparisons are invalid--they are apples to oranges.

And I ask you why you believe the level of healthcare available to the population is irrelevant to the life expectancy.
But it makes no sense that you would ask this, given that I've already explained why. Many people who die have no interaction with the health care system. How can you attribute their death to a health care shortcoming if they don't even use the system?
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
the industrialized countries with....eh, every other industrialized country i should say, has universal health care... and the US is what, 25th in the rankings on health care?
by the WHO, whose standards are, shall we say, 'questionable' at best. for example, take health care access equity, which factors large in their calculations; the basic question is "does every member of that society have the same access to healthcare", and the closer the two are, the higher a nations' score. in other words, if a nation were to develop (say) a treatment that cured a particularly difficult kind of cancer, but due to one restriction or another only be able to offer it to half of its' population; then according to the WHO's accounting that nations' healthcare status would go down, even though they were now saving more lives.

the US has by many objective measures the best health care system in the world. what we have is a foolish method of paying for it, via a third-party payment system that was left in place by FDR. the solution is not to make that problem worse.

obviously, universal health care works.
if your goal is to reduce the amount of care that is available, yes. if your goal is to maximize the amount of care that goes to those who need it, then no, not so much.

so what's holding the US back? greed?
we have a more independent nature, and are generally more libertarian as a nation. we are less willing to accept poorer results for all in the name of 'equality' than those nations who rose up with true class struggles. we also recognize the power of a free market to produce better results for all concerned.

where are all the christians when its comes to this health care debate?
donating 10% of our income to charity. The New Testament teaches that only the most helpless of people should ever depend on a social safety net (for example, aged widows with no surviving children), and certainly does not teach that we should let the violence and coercion inherent in government fill that function.

consider, for example, 2 Thess 3:10 in light of our unemployment benefit system:

Paul the Apostle said:
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
 
Last edited:

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
115,068
Reaction score
32,526
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The WHO health care index is just as much BS as the HDI. End of story.

I thank pendulum_jaw for pointing some of this out.


People should stop using generalizations and public poll-based crap (presented as scientific evidence) to push their agenda (or America-hate, as the case may be).
 
Top Bottom