Yes, hospitals do lie in reporting

[roguenuke]

You should use the ons numbers that I linked to earlier ...look at the last column of age adjusted mortality rates...


https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsintheukfrom1990to2020?

And the second to last column shows otherwise. Why are you using only the last column? Please show why that one should be used rather than the 2nd to last one, especially when it comes to evaluating for Covid deaths.

 

[Big Eye]

Fact check: Posts inaccurately compare 2020 deaths in England and Wales with previous years

Social media posts have presented misleading statistics about the death toll in England and Wales as supposed evidence the coronavirus pandemic is not real.

www.reuters.com

The ons figures I’ve linked to do not show 2020 as having lower mortality rates to previous years...they are higher than 2019 for instance ..just not as high as some seem to hope.

 

[Big Eye]

And the second to last column shows otherwise. Why are you using only the last column? Please show why that one should be used rather than the 2nd to last one, especially when it comes to evaluating for Covid deaths.

Because an ageing population will have an increasing death rate..
but even if you went with the crude mortality numbers they are still less than 2003...which I can also remember as a very normal year...one of our hottest summers ever...great times.

 

[Big Eye]

Let’s get this straight...Covid has increased the death rate...but to no greater extent than a bad flu year...and many excess deaths are caused by our response to it .

 

[EagleFreedom47]

Research Claire Edwards and Lew Rockwell. From the beginning, the total of Covid cases were inflated 30% higher than actual cases. So were the number of deaths from Covid. Actually not one country did an autopsy on a person. Where Covid was the main cause of death. Families requested autopsy on love one. They were all denied. Those who died had other medical conditions. In which Covid WAS a contributing factor. So every case of Covid, having it. Actual death totals and confirmed new cases. Were all inflated by 30% of the actual totals.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Let’s get this straight...Covid has increased the death rate...but to no greater extent than a bad flu year...and many excess deaths are caused by our response to it .

You keep making the same claims over and over, but neglect to cite any viable proof outside of the realm of conspiracy theory. That's a problem.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Research Claire Edwards and Lew Rockwell. From the beginning, the total of Covid cases were inflated 30% higher than actual cases. So were the number of deaths from Covid. Actually not one country did an autopsy on a person. Where Covid was the main cause of death. Families requested autopsy on love one. They were all denied. Those who died had other medical conditions. In which Covid WAS a contributing factor. So every case of Covid, having it. Actual death totals and confirmed new cases. Were all inflated by 30% of the actual totals.

Fact check: Video makes multiple false claims about COVID-19 pandemic

Facebook users have been sharing a video that makes multiple false claims about COVID-19, for instance that Bill Gates planned the pandemic and 5G technology was involved in its spread.

www.reuters.com

 

[MAGAnificent]

Tort reform would be the government messing with healthcare and legal issues. Tort reform is done through the government.

Your argument is ludicrous. Tort reform would simply mitigate a serious fault in our legal system. And the reform would also benefit Americans in areas having nothing to do with healthcare. You libruls like to push the concept of socialized medicine so much should take note that our jackpot justice system with it's ambulance chasing lawyers is one of many significant reasons why such a system simply would not work here.

 

[MAGAnificent]

So does American medical. There are waiting lists for procedures like MRIs and other such advanced medical needs in the US. I know because my son had to wait weeks for his first MRI when he started having seizures. And the more people in the US that are actually able to get these things done, the longer the wait lists will be. Many people need these medical procedures but can't even get put on a wait list because they cannot afford to go to the doctor to give the recommendation to get it or their doctor knows that they aren't covered and can't afford to get it.

You are not being completely honest. There are no built in waiting periods for MRI or anything else in the US short of organ transplants. My brother started having seizures on a Saturday and had an MRI the following Monday.

 

[roguenuke]

You are not being completely honest. There are no built in waiting periods for MRI or anything else in the US short of organ transplants. My brother started having seizures on a Saturday and had an MRI the following Monday.

I'm being honest from my experience. The ones in those countries with NHS/UHC are not "built in" but rather a result of everyone being able to get those services, so, like pretty all things where demand outdoes ability to supply, there is a wait. That happens in the US. It is dependent on many factors, but it does absolutely happen. Just because you know someone who got it sooner doesn't mean that other places, in the US do not have waits, some being very long.

 

[roguenuke]

Your argument is ludicrous. Tort reform would simply mitigate a serious fault in our legal system. And the reform would also benefit Americans in areas having nothing to do with healthcare. You libruls like to push the concept of socialized medicine so much should take note that our jackpot justice system with it's ambulance chasing lawyers is one of many significant reasons why such a system simply would not work here.

Your argument is essentially "I only approve of government meddling that I approve of, agree with". Tort reform is government meddling. I agree with tort reform, but recognize it for what it is. Then I also agree with government meddling in our healthcare system. We need a UHC.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I'm being honest from my experience. The ones in those countries with NHS/UHC are not "built in" but rather a result of everyone being able to get those services, so, like pretty all things where demand outdoes ability to supply, there is a wait. That happens in the US. It is dependent on many factors, but it does absolutely happen. Just because you know someone who got it sooner doesn't mean that other places, in the US do not have waits, some being very long.

Granted, there are places where there is less of some services available. I have at times lived in such areas as well. However it's still not government rationing as they have in nations with socialized medicine. There is nothing legally preventing more of those services from being offered in your area. Your complaint is based on supply and demand in a specific area, not rationing.

 

[roguenuke]

Granted, there are places where there is less of some services available. I have at times lived in such areas as well. However it's still not government rationing as they have in nations with socialized medicine. There is nothing legally preventing more of those services from being offered in your area. Your complaint is based on supply and demand in a specific area, not rationing.

It is rationing. Rationing is not just done by governments, which is what people have been pointing out to you. The reasons that UHC, government run healthcare have waiting lists are for the same reasons our own VA system has waiting lists, when a lot of people are able to utilize the system, get a service that also has a shortage, then you will be on a waiting list for that service. The more obscure or unavailable that service is, the longer the wait. It isn't manufactured by the governments running those systems, it is part of supply and demand that runs our own healthcare.

The only difference is that monetary concerns create the limitation, the "rationing" that we see rather than simply the actual supply and demand for it.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Your argument is essentially "I only approve of government meddling that I approve of, agree with". Tort reform is government meddling. I agree with tort reform, but recognize it for what it is. Then I also agree with government meddling in our healthcare system. We need a UHC.

You are attempting to spit hairs. The civil court system is something that already exists I am not asking for the elimination of government. Tort reform is not government meddling. In fact it's undoing the meddling of congress critters over the years. The vast majority of congress critters are or have been lawyers themselves and have a nasty habit of writing laws that benefit their trial attorney brethen, both in the civil court system and criminal court system. Tort reform would simply weed out the frivolous lawsuits, not only in medicine, but other areas....for instance the con artist types that walk into your local grocery store and stage a fall, she sue the grocery chain. I am sure that even you will admit that such occurs.

 

[roguenuke]

You are attempting to spit hairs. The civil court system is something that already exists I am not asking for the elimination of government. Tort reform is not government meddling. In fact it's undoing the meddling of congress critters over the years. The vast majority of congress critters are or have been lawyers themselves and have a nasty habit of writing laws that benefit their trial attorney brethen, both in the civil court system and criminal court system. Tort reform would simply weed out the frivolous lawsuits, not only in medicine, but other areas....for instance the con artist types that walk into your local grocery store and stage a fall, she sue the grocery chain. I am sure that even you will admit that such occurs.

I didn't say you were asking for the elimination of government in tort reform. You are requesting the government to interfere in civil court matters. There is no evidence of Congress having anything to do with why people can sue other people in court.

 

[MAGAnificent]

It is rationing. Rationing is not just done by governments, which is what people have been pointing out to you. The reasons that UHC, government run healthcare have waiting lists are for the same reasons our own VA system has waiting lists, when a lot of people are able to utilize the system, get a service that also has a shortage, then you will be on a waiting list for that service. The more obscure or unavailable that service is, the longer the wait. It isn't manufactured by the governments running those systems, it is part of supply and demand that runs our own healthcare.

The only difference is that monetary concerns create the limitation, the "rationing" that we see rather than simply the actual supply and demand for it.

Try as you must, supply and demand does not translate to rationing. That's like saying that I want to pick up a specific Trailer hitch at Home Depot and they are sold out and I have to wait for their next delivery is rationed. It's not. Monetary concerns do create some limitation. For instance, I would lover to own a Rolls Royce automobile, however its well above my pay grade. That does not translate to rationing of Rolls Royce automobiles.

 

[roguenuke]

Try as you must, supply and demand does not translate to rationing. That's like saying that I want to pick up a specific Trailer hitch at Home Depot and they are sold out and I have to wait for their next delivery is rationed. It's not. Monetary concerns do create some limitation. For instance, I would lover to own a Rolls Royce automobile, however its well above my pay grade. That does not translate to rationing of Rolls Royce automobiles.

Yes it does. That is in fact exactly what is going on in those countries that have UHC. They have supply and demand still, still do not have enough doctors, nurses, techs, and/or equipment/time in the day to provide all those who need these services with these services on a "right now" basis. Pretty much no place could do that.

The USA doesn't do that either only it uses money rather than these "lists"/wait times to do much of the "rationing". You are the one who first called supply and demand "rationing".

 

[MAGAnificent]

I didn't say you were asking for the elimination of government in tort reform. You are requesting the government to interfere in civil court matters. There is no evidence of Congress having anything to do with why people can sue other people in court.

You are kidding, right? Congress and state legislatures make changes in the court system all the time. Sometimes it's beneficial improvements, sometimes its simply changes to benefit their trial attorney brethen. I am only proposing changes that benefit rank and file Americans. Do you want change that benefits rank and file Americans obtaining healthcare? Or not? At least consider developing an open mind when it comes to tort reform. I am all for someone's ability to sue the medical profession for legitimate reasons. I am just against those who game the system.

 

[roguenuke]

You are kidding, right? Congress and state legislatures make changes in the court system all the time. Sometimes it's beneficial improvements, sometimes its simply changes to benefit their trial attorney brethen. I am only proposing changes that benefit rank and file Americans. Do you want change that benefits rank and file Americans obtaining healthcare? Or not? At least consider developing an open mind when it comes to tort reform. I am all for someone's ability to sue the medical profession for legitimate reasons. I am just against those who game the system.

Change that benefited all of us would take multiple changes, changes that you have already stated that you don't agree with.

I've already stated I support tort reform. Not sure why you have an issue there. I simply am pointing out that it is government interference.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Yes it does. That is in fact exactly what is going on in those countries that have UHC. They have supply and demand still, still do not have enough doctors, nurses, techs, and/or equipment/time in the day to provide all those who need these services with these services on a "right now" basis. Pretty much no place could do that.

The USA doesn't do that either only it uses money rather than these "lists"/wait times to do much of the "rationing". You are the one who first called supply and demand "rationing".

The reason those countries with UHC have supply and demand issues is because it's the government that is calling all the shots. The government decides on how many doctors there are, how many hospitals and hospital beds there are, and how much high tech medical equipment is purchased. It's government bean counters making the decisions as it is the taxpayers who are financing it. That's why they have government rationed healthcare. We do not have that problem here with a profit based system. Where I have now lived for the past 31 years for instance, in my city, there are 5 major hospitals and at least as many MRI units. There is no shortage of doctors or specialists. If we were under a universal healthcare system run by the government, that would not be the case.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Change that benefited all of us would take multiple changes, changes that you have already stated that you don't agree with.

I've already stated I support tort reform. Not sure why you have an issue there. I simply am pointing out that it is government interference.

No...it's government reform. It's part of representative government. That is after all what the congress critters are supposed to exist for....legislation to benefit their constituents.

 

[roguenuke]

No...it's government reform. It's part of representative government. That is after all what the congress critters are supposed to exist for....legislation to benefit their constituents.

So would be UHC. That too would be legislation to benefit the constituents.

 

[roguenuke]

The reason those countries with UHC have supply and demand issues is because it's the government that is calling all the shots. The government decides on how many doctors there are, how many hospitals and hospital beds there are, and how much high tech medical equipment is purchased. It's government bean counters making the decisions as it is the taxpayers who are financing it. That's why they have government rationed healthcare. We do not have that problem here with a profit based system. Where I have now lived for the past 31 years for instance, in my city, there are 5 major hospitals and at least as many MRI units. There is no shortage of doctors or specialists. If we were under a universal healthcare system run by the government, that would not be the case.

We have the same supply and demand issues. There are not enough doctors, nurses, techs, and/or equipment/time slots for all those who truly need such procedures done. The only reason that we don't see the same waiting lists is because many of those who need those same procedures here cannot afford them.

 

[MAGAnificent]

So would be UHC. That too would be legislation to benefit the constituents.

No it wouldn't. The left just thinks it would. UHC in the US would in effect be "Medicare for All". It simply would not work here. The government can barely handle providing it to seniors/ It comes with premiums and limitations. Medicare without adding at least part C is limited. It does not cover as much as private health insurance. The premiums are low now, however it it went to a Medicare for all system, those premium costs would rise so fast, it would make your head spin. At some point you would be paying as much or more then you are now paying for private insurance and for rationed healthcare. The weeks waiting time that you claimed would turn to months and in some cases years.

 

[roguenuke]

No it wouldn't. The left just thinks it would. UHC in the US would in effect be "Medicare for All". It simply would not work here. The government can barely handle providing it to seniors/ It comes with premiums and limitations. Medicare without adding at least part C is limited. It does not cover as much as private health insurance. The premiums are low now, however it it went to a Medicare for all system, those premium costs would rise so fast, it would make your head spin. At some point you would be paying as much or more then you are now paying for private insurance and for rationed healthcare. The weeks waiting time that you claimed would turn to months and in some cases years.

I'm not talking "Medicare for All". I want a real UHC/NHS, paid by taxes. A lot like VA or military medicine.

And making claims like you do above aren't supported by facts, nor have you really shown that you have evidence that a UHC would not benefit most if not all Americans.