Is the US headed twords Socialized Medicine?

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
We have the best medical care in the world. Why would we even think of changing it?

Ahem.

You are wildly incorrect, sir.

But, please, don't take my word for it. Some distressing excerpts:

COST: First of all, ours is the most expensive health care system in the world. Second place Switzerland is not even close!! In 1998, the US cost per capita was $4,178. Switzerland's was $2,794.

COVERAGE: We are the only country in the developed world, outside of South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of it's citizens.

HEALTH AND WELL BEING:
In 1996, the US ranked 26th amongst industrialized nations in infant mortality rate.
We rank 24th among high income countries in disablity adjusted life expectancy.

SATISFACTION AMONGST ORDINARY CITIZENS: Denmark was highest at 91%. Italy was wretched at 20%. The US was disappointing low at 40%, trailing even England which, despite the well publicized woes of it's cash strapped National Health Service, handily outperformed America with a 60% satisfaction rating.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I think doctors should just stop messing up so much.

You sir are an @ss.
I graduated in the top of my high school class.
i graduated in the top of my college class (Phi Beta Kappa) - i went to a "highly selective college"
i graduated in the top of my medical school class (Alpha Omega Alpha)
i trained in a general surgery program that was top ranked, and had a "Pyramid" that means 24 of us started, years later only 8 of us "finished" (kind of like "survivor")
i then did additional training at the most prestgious health institution in the country to become a heart surgeon.

i don't "mess up"

but i get sued by moron lawyers who represent idiot patients who have no clue.

every single case has been thrown out for being complete crap (never even went to trial)
i had one case where the plantiffs lawyer used his brother-in-law as a "expert winess" against me. the brother-in-law ended up confessing I did everything correctly.
i'm being sued currently by a patient who had a successful operation and a good outcome!
don't believe me, then you just don't have a clue.

malpractice law suits are becoming like email spam...the lawyers fire off hundreds of mapractice claims on the off chance that 1 might stick...literally.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I think doctors should just stop messing up so much.

You sir are an @ss.
I graduated in the top of my high school class.
i graduated in the top of my college class (Phi Beta Kappa) - i went to a "highly selective college"
i graduated in the top of my medical school class (Alpha Omega Alpha)
i trained in a general surgery program that was top ranked, and had a "Pyramid" that means 24 of us started, years later only 8 of us "finished" (kind of like "survivor")
i then did additional training at the most prestgious health institution in the country to become a heart surgeon.

i don't "mess up"

but i get sued by moron lawyers who represent idiot patients who have no clue.

every single case has been thrown out for being complete crap (never even went to trial)
i had one case where the plantiffs lawyer used his brother-in-law as a "expert winess" against me. the brother-in-law ended up confessing I did everything correctly.
i'm being sued currently by a patient who had a successful operation and a good outcome!
don't believe me, then you just don't have a clue.

malpractice law suits are becoming like email spam...the lawyers fire off hundreds of mapractice claims on the off chance that 1 might stick...literally.

I'm sure that claims are like spam but I think the bean counters are more at fault for the correct situation then anything else. Some one at one point decided to start settiling with every nut job with a lawsuite but once that happened every found out that all they have to do is make up some claim and they can get a nice rebate on the cost of surgery.

To fix the problem I think that lawsuite need to be settled by the courts faster and applies harder.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
We have the best medical care in the world. Why would we even think of changing it?

Ahem.

You are <EM>wildly</EM> incorrect, sir.

<a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf" target=blank>But, please, don't take my word for it.</A> Some distressing excerpts:

<STRONG>COST:</STRONG> First of all, ours is the most expensive health care system in the world. Second place Switzerland is not even close!! In 1998, the US cost per capita was $4,178. Switzerland's was $2,794.

<STRONG>COVERAGE: </STRONG>We are the only country in the developed world, outside of South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of it's citizens.

<STRONG>HEALTH AND WELL BEING</STRONG>:
In 1996, the US ranked <STRONG>26th</STRONG> amongst industrialized nations in infant mortality rate.
We rank <STRONG>24th</STRONG> among high income countries in disablity adjusted life expectancy.

<STRONG>SATISFACTION AMONGST ORDINARY CITIZENS: </STRONG>Denmark was highest at 91%. Italy was wretched at 20%. The US was disappointing low at 40%, trailing even England which, despite the well publicized woes of it's cash strapped National Health Service, handily outperformed America with a 60% satisfaction rating.

I have a news flash for you. A Mercedes Benz costs more than Kia.

/PSA

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I think doctors should just stop messing up so much.

You sir are an @ss.
I graduated in the top of my high school class.
i graduated in the top of my college class (Phi Beta Kappa) - i went to a "highly selective college"
i graduated in the top of my medical school class (Alpha Omega Alpha)
i trained in a general surgery program that was top ranked, and had a "Pyramid" that means 24 of us started, years later only 8 of us "finished" (kind of like "survivor")
i then did additional training at the most prestgious health institution in the country to become a heart surgeon.

i don't "mess up"

but i get sued by moron lawyers who represent idiot patients who have no clue.

every single case has been thrown out for being complete crap (never even went to trial)
i had one case where the plantiffs lawyer used his brother-in-law as a "expert winess" against me. the brother-in-law ended up confessing I did everything correctly.
i'm being sued currently by a patient who had a successful operation and a good outcome!
don't believe me, then you just don't have a clue.

malpractice law suits are becoming like email spam...the lawyers fire off hundreds of mapractice claims on the off chance that 1 might stick...literally.

I'm sure that claims are like spam but I think the bean counters are more at fault for the correct situation then anything else. Some one at one point decided to start settiling with every nut job with a lawsuite but once that happened every found out that all they have to do is make up some claim and they can get a nice rebate on the cost of surgery.

To fix the problem I think that lawsuite need to be settled by the courts faster and applies harder.

Accountants are the problem?

Cases need to be easier to settle, so that more lawsuits are filed? You are a prime example of verbal diarrhaea.

You obviously need some remedial education, starting with English classes. Then we'll start working on the legal system.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor We have the best medical care in the world. Why would we even think of changing it?

Ahem. You are wildly incorrect, sir. But, please, don't take my word for it. Some distressing excerpts: COST: First of all, ours is the most expensive health care system in the world. Second place Switzerland is not even close!! In 1998, the US cost per capita was $4,178. Switzerland's was $2,794. COVERAGE: We are the only country in the developed world, outside of South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of it's citizens. HEALTH AND WELL BEING: In 1996, the US ranked 26th amongst industrialized nations in infant mortality rate. We rank 24th among high income countries in disablity adjusted life expectancy. SATISFACTION AMONGST ORDINARY CITIZENS: Denmark was highest at 91%. Italy was wretched at 20%. The US was disappointing low at 40%, trailing even England which, despite the well publicized woes of it's cash strapped National Health Service, handily outperformed America with a 60% satisfaction rating.

I have a news flash for you. A Mercedes Benz costs more than Kia. /PSA

Um, thanks for the news flash, but, according to these statistics, our Kia of health care system, with pitiful low satisfaction rates that more befit a bent bicycle, nevertheless costs more than a Rolls Royce stretch limo with a spare Maserati in the trunk.

Yet, unlike the real Kia, a veritable triumph of South Korean motoring know-how, 42 million Americans in our Kia health care system not only don't get a warranty, they don't get keys, tires or an engine.

Pitiful, really.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I think doctors should just stop messing up so much.

You sir are an @ss.
I graduated in the top of my high school class.
i graduated in the top of my college class (Phi Beta Kappa) - i went to a "highly selective college"
i graduated in the top of my medical school class (Alpha Omega Alpha)
i trained in a general surgery program that was top ranked, and had a "Pyramid" that means 24 of us started, years later only 8 of us "finished" (kind of like "survivor")
i then did additional training at the most prestgious health institution in the country to become a heart surgeon.

i don't "mess up"

but i get sued by moron lawyers who represent idiot patients who have no clue.

every single case has been thrown out for being complete crap (never even went to trial)
i had one case where the plantiffs lawyer used his brother-in-law as a "expert winess" against me. the brother-in-law ended up confessing I did everything correctly.
i'm being sued currently by a patient who had a successful operation and a good outcome!
don't believe me, then you just don't have a clue.

malpractice law suits are becoming like email spam...the lawyers fire off hundreds of mapractice claims on the off chance that 1 might stick...literally.

Isn't there a demonstrated correlation between "bedside manner" (for lack of a better term) and frequency of lawsuits? IIRC, there was a study showing that doctors who treated patients well, were friendly, open, communicated and listened well, etc., weren't sued nearly as often as doctors who were rude, condescending, aloof, insensitive, etc.

You can draw you own conclusions about why I ask that question, HS.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I think doctors should just stop messing up so much.

You sir are an @ss.
I graduated in the top of my high school class.
i graduated in the top of my college class (Phi Beta Kappa) - i went to a "highly selective college"
i graduated in the top of my medical school class (Alpha Omega Alpha)
i trained in a general surgery program that was top ranked, and had a "Pyramid" that means 24 of us started, years later only 8 of us "finished" (kind of like "survivor")
i then did additional training at the most prestgious health institution in the country to become a heart surgeon.

i don't "mess up"

but i get sued by moron lawyers who represent idiot patients who have no clue.

every single case has been thrown out for being complete crap (never even went to trial)
i had one case where the plantiffs lawyer used his brother-in-law as a "expert winess" against me. the brother-in-law ended up confessing I did everything correctly.
i'm being sued currently by a patient who had a successful operation and a good outcome!
don't believe me, then you just don't have a clue.

malpractice law suits are becoming like email spam...the lawyers fire off hundreds of mapractice claims on the off chance that 1 might stick...literally.

I'm sure that claims are like spam but I think the bean counters are more at fault for the correct situation then anything else. Some one at one point decided to start settiling with every nut job with a lawsuite but once that happened every found out that all they have to do is make up some claim and they can get a nice rebate on the cost of surgery.

To fix the problem I think that lawsuite need to be settled by the courts faster and applies harder.

Accountants are the problem?

Cases need to be easier to settle, so that more lawsuits are filed? You are a prime example of verbal diarrhaea.

You obviously need some remedial education, starting with English classes. Then we'll start working on the legal system.

Accountants where wrong when they assumed it would be cheaper to settle. The faster a law suite is settled by the courts the less it will cost both parties. Half the problem with the system is that you could spend years before seeing the inside of a court room, making settling a good deal for the defendent.

For expample lets say I go get a tripple heart bypass but the scar is the wrong color so I sue the heart surgon. Under the current system I could waste so much time and money of the defendent with various BS. Of course the surgonwould rather settle for say 2k dollars then deal with me. Under a reformed court system where the trial occured quickly I could only waste a day or so then I would be lucky to get a 1K settlement.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor We have the best medical care in the world. Why would we even think of changing it?

Ahem. You are <EM>wildly</EM> incorrect, sir. <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf" target=blank>But, please, don't take my word for it.</A> Some distressing excerpts: <STRONG>COST:</STRONG> First of all, ours is the most expensive health care system in the world. Second place Switzerland is not even close!! In 1998, the US cost per capita was $4,178. Switzerland's was $2,794. <STRONG>COVERAGE: </STRONG>We are the only country in the developed world, outside of South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of it's citizens. <STRONG>HEALTH AND WELL BEING</STRONG>: In 1996, the US ranked <STRONG>26th</STRONG> amongst industrialized nations in infant mortality rate. We rank <STRONG>24th</STRONG> among high income countries in disablity adjusted life expectancy. <STRONG>SATISFACTION AMONGST ORDINARY CITIZENS: </STRONG>Denmark was highest at 91%. Italy was wretched at 20%. The US was disappointing low at 40%, trailing even England which, despite the well publicized woes of it's cash strapped National Health Service, handily outperformed America with a 60% satisfaction rating.

<STRONG>I have a news flash for you. A Mercedes Benz costs more than Kia.</STRONG> /PSA

Um, thanks for the news flash, but, according to these statistics, our Kia of health care system, with pitiful low satisfaction rates that more befit a bent bicycle, nevertheless costs more than a Rolls Royce stretch limo with a spare Maserati in the trunk.

Yet, unlike the real Kia, a veritable triumph of South Korean motoring know-how, 42 million Americans in our Kia health care system not only don't get a warranty, they don't get keys, tires or an engine.

Pitiful, really.

You're basing your determination of the quality of our care on satisfaction rates? Americans are the Paris Hilton's of the world. Bring us a Benz and will spit on it. Bring us a Bentley and we'll grudgingly take it. After working on a orphanage in Tecate for several months, I'll never take clean water for granted again...I find any place in America to be paradise. My point...satisfaction is relative.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor We have the best medical care in the world. Why would we even think of changing it?

Ahem. You are <EM>wildly</EM> incorrect, sir. <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf" target=blank>But, please, don't take my word for it.</A> Some distressing excerpts: <STRONG>COST:</STRONG> First of all, ours is the most expensive health care system in the world. Second place Switzerland is not even close!! In 1998, the US cost per capita was $4,178. Switzerland's was $2,794. <STRONG>COVERAGE: </STRONG>We are the only country in the developed world, outside of South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of it's citizens. <STRONG>HEALTH AND WELL BEING</STRONG>: In 1996, the US ranked <STRONG>26th</STRONG> amongst industrialized nations in infant mortality rate. We rank <STRONG>24th</STRONG> among high income countries in disablity adjusted life expectancy. <STRONG>SATISFACTION AMONGST ORDINARY CITIZENS: </STRONG>Denmark was highest at 91%. Italy was wretched at 20%. The US was disappointing low at 40%, trailing even England which, despite the well publicized woes of it's cash strapped National Health Service, handily outperformed America with a 60% satisfaction rating.

<STRONG>I have a news flash for you. A Mercedes Benz costs more than Kia.</STRONG> /PSA

Um, thanks for the news flash, but, according to these statistics, our Kia of health care system, with pitiful low satisfaction rates that more befit a bent bicycle, nevertheless costs more than a Rolls Royce stretch limo with a spare Maserati in the trunk.

Yet, unlike the real Kia, a veritable triumph of South Korean motoring know-how, 42 million Americans in our Kia health care system not only don't get a warranty, they don't get keys, tires or an engine.

Pitiful, really.

You're basing your determination of the quality of our care on satisfaction rates? Americans are the Paris Hilton's of the world. Bring us a Benz and will spit on it. Bring us a Bentley and we'll grudgingly take it. After working on a orphanage in Tecate for several months, I'll never take clean water for granted again...I find any place in America to be paradise. My point...satisfaction is relative.

So you are saying we are healthier than the Danes, but less satisfied?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor We have the best medical care in the world. Why would we even think of changing it?

Ahem. You are <EM>wildly</EM> incorrect, sir. <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf" target=blank>But, please, don't take my word for it.</A> Some distressing excerpts: <STRONG>COST:</STRONG> First of all, ours is the most expensive health care system in the world. Second place Switzerland is not even close!! In 1998, the US cost per capita was $4,178. Switzerland's was $2,794. <STRONG>COVERAGE: </STRONG>We are the only country in the developed world, outside of South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of it's citizens. <STRONG>HEALTH AND WELL BEING</STRONG>: In 1996, the US ranked <STRONG>26th</STRONG> amongst industrialized nations in infant mortality rate. We rank <STRONG>24th</STRONG> among high income countries in disablity adjusted life expectancy. <STRONG>SATISFACTION AMONGST ORDINARY CITIZENS: </STRONG>Denmark was highest at 91%. Italy was wretched at 20%. The US was disappointing low at 40%, trailing even England which, despite the well publicized woes of it's cash strapped National Health Service, handily outperformed America with a 60% satisfaction rating.

<STRONG>I have a news flash for you. A Mercedes Benz costs more than Kia.</STRONG> /PSA

Um, thanks for the news flash, but, according to these statistics, our Kia of health care system, with pitiful low satisfaction rates that more befit a bent bicycle, nevertheless costs more than a Rolls Royce stretch limo with a spare Maserati in the trunk.

Yet, unlike the real Kia, a veritable triumph of South Korean motoring know-how, 42 million Americans in our Kia health care system not only don't get a warranty, they don't get keys, tires or an engine.

Pitiful, really.

You're basing your determination of the quality of our care on satisfaction rates? Americans are the Paris Hilton's of the world. Bring us a Benz and will spit on it. Bring us a Bentley and we'll grudgingly take it. After working on a orphanage in Tecate for several months, I'll never take clean water for granted again...I find any place in America to be paradise. My point...satisfaction is relative.

So you are saying we are healthier than the Danes, but less satisfied?

Healthy? I suspect we're in the lower half of the western world as far as health, but that's not the fault of our medical industry. We treat ourselves very badly.

 

[Perknose]

I'll never take clean water for granted again.

Really? If Bush stay's in office, where are you moving to, then?


Some excerpts:

Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water.

But administration critics greeted the announcement by saying the EPA had no choice but to retain the 10-parts-per-billion standard. They argued that a recent study commissioned by the administration showed that it should have adopted an even tougher standard of 3 parts per billion.

</NITF>Then came the National Academy of Sciences report, which Olson said showed that a standard of 10 parts per billion resulted in a cancer risk "far higher than anyone had previously estimated." According to Olson, the study said that exposure to water with arsenic levels of 10 parts per billion is associated with a risk of 30 cancer deaths per 10,000 people drinking the water, which would be 30 times the EPA's acceptable rate of one death per 10,000 drinkers. </NITF>
<NITF>"They ordered a new study as a delaying tactic, and it came back and bit them in the arsenic," Boxer said."</NITF>

In sum, Bush tried to roll back the "acceptable level" to 50 ppg, met outrage, then tried to delay implemeting the 10ppg with a study, which bit them in the arse.

So they reluctantly adopted the lower 10 ppg standard, even though their own study showed it would yield a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate! :Q

You want some old lace with that glass of water, Hero?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Perknose

I'll never take clean water for granted again.

Really? If Bush stay's in office, where are you moving to, <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20926-2001Oct31¬Found=true" target=blank>then?</A>

<STRONG>
</STRONG>Some excerpts:

Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water.

But administration critics greeted the announcement by saying the EPA had no choice but to retain the 10-parts-per-billion standard. They argued that a recent study commissioned by the administration showed that it should have adopted an even tougher standard of 3 parts per billion.

</NITF><STRONG>Then came the National Academy of Sciences report, which Olson said showed that a standard of 10 parts per billion resulted in a cancer risk "far higher than anyone had previously estimated." According to Olson, the study said that exposure to water with arsenic levels of 10 parts per billion is associated with a risk of 30 cancer deaths per 10,000 people drinking the water, which would be 30 times the EPA's acceptable rate of one death per 10,000 drinkers.</STRONG> </NITF>
<NITF>"They ordered a new study as a delaying tactic, and it came back and bit them in the arsenic," Boxer said."</NITF>

In sum, <STRONG>Bush tried to roll back the "acceptable level" to 50 ppg</STRONG>, met outrage, then tried to delay implemeting the 10ppg with a study, which bit them in the arse.

So they <STRONG>reluctantly adopted the lower 10 ppg standard, even though their own study showed it would yield a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate!</STRONG> :Q

You want some old lace with that glass of water, <STRONG>Hero?
</STRONG>

So they had studies done and came to the correct conclusion and our water is and will be as safe as it has been.

Next time you feel really ill or need surgery...go to Canada for treatment.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

I'll never take clean water for granted again.

Really? If Bush stay's in office, where are you moving to, then? Some excerpts: Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water. But administration critics greeted the announcement by saying the EPA had no choice but to retain the 10-parts-per-billion standard. They argued that a recent study commissioned by the administration showed that it should have adopted an even tougher standard of 3 parts per billion. </NITF>Then came the National Academy of Sciences report, which Olson said showed that a standard of 10 parts per billion resulted in a cancer risk "far higher than anyone had previously estimated." According to Olson, the study said that exposure to water with arsenic levels of 10 parts per billion is associated with a risk of 30 cancer deaths per 10,000 people drinking the water, which would be 30 times the EPA's acceptable rate of one death per 10,000 drinkers. </NITF><NITF>"They ordered a new study as a delaying tactic, and it came back and bit them in the arsenic," Boxer said."</NITF> In sum, Bush tried to roll back the "acceptable level" to 50 ppg, met outrage, then tried to delay implemeting the 10ppg with a study, which bit them in the arse. So they reluctantly adopted the lower 10 ppg standard, even though their own study showed it would yield a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate! :Q You want some old lace with that glass of water, Hero?

So they had studies done and came to the correct conclusion and our water is and will be as safe as it has been. Next time you feel really ill or need surgery...go to Canada for treatment.

Correct conclusion?!? My God, man, can't you read?

Their own study said even the 10ppg standard yielded a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate!

They went with it anyway.

Drink up, sucker.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
We have the best medical care in the world. Why would we even think of changing it?

Ahem.

You are <EM>wildly</EM> incorrect, sir.

<a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf" target=blank>But, please, don't take my word for it.</A> Some distressing excerpts:

<STRONG>COST:</STRONG> First of all, ours is the most expensive health care system in the world. Second place Switzerland is not even close!! In 1998, the US cost per capita was $4,178. Switzerland's was $2,794.

<STRONG>COVERAGE: </STRONG>We are the only country in the developed world, outside of South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of it's citizens.

<STRONG>HEALTH AND WELL BEING</STRONG>:

We don't have a Country anymore, it's an overpriced cesspool. So sad.
In 1996, the US ranked <STRONG>26th</STRONG> amongst industrialized nations in infant mortality rate.
We rank <STRONG>24th</STRONG> among high income countries in disablity adjusted life expectancy.

<STRONG>SATISFACTION AMONGST ORDINARY CITIZENS: </STRONG>Denmark was highest at 91%. Italy was wretched at 20%. The US was disappointing low at 40%, trailing even England which, despite the well publicized woes of it's cash strapped National Health Service, handily outperformed America with a 60% satisfaction rating.

 

[Martin]

You know, the US spends almost as much public money on its patchwork of public healthcare initiatives as do other countries with national, universal healthcare. If you can have universal health coverage without extra cost, then why don't you?

If you doubt my figures, here is the CDC webiste
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hexpense.htm

US public funds are 6% of GDP. Canada's universal heath systems costs us about 6.7% of GDP.

 

[Jhhnn]

I suspect thaat UHC is inevitable in the long run, like it or not. A variety of factors are pushing it in that direction- explosive health insurance and malpractice insurance rates coupled with stagnant or falling wages and benefit packages. Ordinary citizens are being priced out of the market, Physicians can't afford to practice. As the % of the population covered by insurance falls, the taxpayers will pick up more of the slack all the time. At some point, UHC will probably become a necessity just from a cost control perspective.

None of this is hurting guys like Bill Frist, insurance companies, or drug and medical supply companies. Both Physicians and patients are being victimized by a system designed to profit a very few entities.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

I'll never take clean water for granted again.

Really? If Bush stay's in office, where are you moving to, <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20926-2001Oct31¬Found=true" target=blank>then?</A> <STRONG></STRONG>Some excerpts: Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water. But administration critics greeted the announcement by saying the EPA had no choice but to retain the 10-parts-per-billion standard. They argued that a recent study commissioned by the administration showed that it should have adopted an even tougher standard of 3 parts per billion. </NITF><STRONG>Then came the National Academy of Sciences report, which Olson said showed that a standard of 10 parts per billion resulted in a cancer risk "far higher than anyone had previously estimated." According to Olson, the study said that exposure to water with arsenic levels of 10 parts per billion is associated with a risk of 30 cancer deaths per 10,000 people drinking the water, which would be 30 times the EPA's acceptable rate of one death per 10,000 drinkers.</STRONG> </NITF><NITF>"They ordered a new study as a delaying tactic, and it came back and bit them in the arsenic," Boxer said."</NITF> In sum, <STRONG>Bush tried to roll back the "acceptable level" to 50 ppg</STRONG>, met outrage, then tried to delay implemeting the 10ppg with a study, which bit them in the arse. So they <STRONG>reluctantly adopted the lower 10 ppg standard, even though their own study showed it would yield a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate!</STRONG> :Q You want some old lace with that glass of water, <STRONG>Hero? </STRONG>

<STRONG>So they had studies done and came to the correct conclusion</STRONG> and our water is and will be as safe as it has been. Next time you feel really ill or need surgery...go to Canada for treatment.

Correct conclusion?!? My God, man, can't you read?

Their own study said <STRONG>even </STRONG>the 10ppg standard yielded a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate!

They went with it anyway.

Drink up, sucker.

I love when people link to something they didn't even read.

Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water.

Even the dems think this is right.

House Minority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) said he was pleased the administration had done "what they should have done months ago." He said there would be continued battles over the issue but added, "I think right now people will accept the 10 parts per billion, and that will be the standard."

Embarassed enough yet or are you going to try and talk your way out of this?

Ah hell here's some more from YOUR link, genius.

The EPA said that water systems across the country will have to be in compliance with the 10-parts-per-billion standard by 2006. In her letter to Congress, Whitman said that almost 97 percent of the water systems that will be affected by the new standard serve fewer than 10,000 people each. She said the EPA plans to provide $20 million during the next two years for research and development of cost-effective technologies to help small water systems meet the standard.

Now, scram before you make even more of a fool out of yourself.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

I'll never take clean water for granted again.

Really? If Bush stay's in office, where are you moving to, then? Some excerpts: Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water. But administration critics greeted the announcement by saying the EPA had no choice but to retain the 10-parts-per-billion standard. They argued that a recent study commissioned by the administration showed that it should have adopted an even tougher standard of 3 parts per billion. </NITF>Then came the National Academy of Sciences report, which Olson said showed that a standard of 10 parts per billion resulted in a cancer risk "far higher than anyone had previously estimated." According to Olson, the study said that exposure to water with arsenic levels of 10 parts per billion is associated with a risk of 30 cancer deaths per 10,000 people drinking the water, which would be 30 times the EPA's acceptable rate of one death per 10,000 drinkers. </NITF><NITF>"They ordered a new study as a delaying tactic, and it came back and bit them in the arsenic," Boxer said."</NITF> In sum, Bush tried to roll back the "acceptable level" to 50 ppg, met outrage, then tried to delay implemeting the 10ppg with a study, which bit them in the arse. So they reluctantly adopted the lower 10 ppg standard, even though their own study showed it would yield a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate! :Q You want some old lace with that glass of water, Hero?

So they had studies done and came to the correct conclusion and our water is and will be as safe as it has been. Next time you feel really ill or need surgery...go to Canada for treatment.

Correct conclusion?!? My God, man, can't you read? Their own study said even the 10ppg standard yielded a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate! They went with it anyway. Drink up, sucker.

I love when people link to something they didn't even read.

Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water.

Even the dems think this is right.

House Minority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) said he was pleased the administration had done "what they should have done months ago." He said there would be continued battles over the issue but added, "I think right now people will accept the 10 parts per billion, and that will be the standard."

Embarassed enough yet or are you going to try and talk your way out of this? Ah hell here's some more from YOUR link, genius.

The EPA said that water systems across the country will have to be in compliance with the 10-parts-per-billion standard by 2006. In her letter to Congress, Whitman said that almost 97 percent of the water systems that will be affected by the new standard serve fewer than 10,000 people each. She said the EPA plans to provide $20 million during the next two years for research and development of cost-effective technologies to help small water systems meet the standard.

Now, scram before you make even more of a fool out of yourself.

Scram? Go fvck yourself, you little pea brained twerp.

You're the one with the reading comprehension problem, sparky. Try reading what I posted again, perhaps with an adult supervising.

The 10 ppg standard (that the Bush administration only reluctantly adopted, after being embarrassed into doing so) IS the one that is their own EPA's study said would yield a death rate 30 times their own acceptable standard.

Here's the sentence pulled from the very excerpt I posted and you "quoted" above:

"They argued that a recent<U> study commissioned by the administration</U> showed that it should have adopted an even tougher standard of <U>3 parts per billion</U>."

What part of that don't you understand? :|

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose

I'll never take clean water for granted again.

Really? If Bush stay's in office, where are you moving to, <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20926-2001Oct31¬Found=true" target=blank>then?</A> <STRONG></STRONG>Some excerpts: Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water. But administration critics greeted the announcement by saying the EPA had no choice but to retain the 10-parts-per-billion standard. They argued that a recent study commissioned by the administration showed that it should have adopted an even tougher standard of 3 parts per billion. </NITF><STRONG>Then came the National Academy of Sciences report, which Olson said showed that a standard of 10 parts per billion resulted in a cancer risk "far higher than anyone had previously estimated." According to Olson, the study said that exposure to water with arsenic levels of 10 parts per billion is associated with a risk of 30 cancer deaths per 10,000 people drinking the water, which would be 30 times the EPA's acceptable rate of one death per 10,000 drinkers.</STRONG> </NITF><NITF>"They ordered a new study as a delaying tactic, and it came back and bit them in the arsenic," Boxer said."</NITF> In sum, <STRONG>Bush tried to roll back the "acceptable level" to 50 ppg</STRONG>, met outrage, then tried to delay implemeting the 10ppg with a study, which bit them in the arse. So they <STRONG>reluctantly adopted the lower 10 ppg standard, even though their own study showed it would yield a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate!</STRONG> :Q You want some old lace with that glass of water, <STRONG>Hero? </STRONG>

<STRONG>So they had studies done and came to the correct conclusion</STRONG> and our water is and will be as safe as it has been. Next time you feel really ill or need surgery...go to Canada for treatment.

Correct conclusion?!? My God, man, can't you read? Their own study said <STRONG>even </STRONG>the 10ppg standard yielded a death rate 30 times their own acceptable rate! They went with it anyway. Drink up, sucker.

I love when people link to something they didn't even read.

Seven months after it set off a political firestorm by suspending the Clinton administration's toughened standard for acceptable levels of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water, the Bush administration announced yesterday that it is adopting the same standard of 10 parts arsenic per billion parts water.

Even the dems think this is right.

House Minority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) said he was pleased the administration had done "what they should have done months ago." He said there would be continued battles over the issue but added, "I think right now people will accept the 10 parts per billion, and that will be the standard."

Embarassed enough yet or are you going to try and talk your way out of this? Ah hell here's some more from YOUR link, genius.

The EPA said that water systems across the country will have to be in compliance with the 10-parts-per-billion standard by 2006. In her letter to Congress, Whitman said that almost 97 percent of the water systems that will be affected by the new standard serve fewer than 10,000 people each. She said the EPA plans to provide $20 million during the next two years for research and development of cost-effective technologies to help small water systems meet the standard.

Now, scram before you make even more of a fool out of yourself.

Scram? Go fvck yourself, you little pea brained twerp.

You're the one with the reading comprehension problem, sparky. Try reading what I posted again, perhaps with an adult supervising.

<STRONG>The 10 ppg standard (that the Bush administration only reluctantly adopted, after being embarrassed into doing so) IS the one that is their own EPA's study said would yield a death rate 30 times their own acceptable standard.

</STRONG>Here's the sentence pulled from the very excerpt I posted and you "quoted" above:

<STRONG>"They argued that a recent study commissioned by the administration showed that it should have adopted an even tougher standard of 3 parts per billion."
</STRONG>
What part of that don't you understand? :|

I said this

So they had studies done and came to the correct conclusion and our water is and will be as safe as it has been.

And you vehemently disagreed. It's still 10!! They were going to change it and decided not to. You seem to be the only person who thinks this is some disgrace on the administration or that it has any relevence to this thread.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
You know, the US spends almost as much public money on its patchwork of public healthcare initiatives as do other countries with national, universal healthcare. If you can have universal health coverage without extra cost, then why don't you?

If you doubt my figures, here is the CDC webiste
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hexpense.htm

US public funds are 6% of GDP. Canada's universal heath systems costs us about 6.7% of GDP.

Because then folks here wouldn't be able to rant about uninsured poor people who have the nerve to show up in ER's expecting medical care instead of just dying quietly at home.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I think doctors should just stop messing up so much.

You sir are an @ss.
I graduated in the top of my high school class.
i graduated in the top of my college class (Phi Beta Kappa) - i went to a "highly selective college"
i graduated in the top of my medical school class (Alpha Omega Alpha)
i trained in a general surgery program that was top ranked, and had a "Pyramid" that means 24 of us started, years later only 8 of us "finished" (kind of like "survivor")
i then did additional training at the most prestgious health institution in the country to become a heart surgeon.

i don't "mess up"

but i get sued by moron lawyers who represent idiot patients who have no clue.

every single case has been thrown out for being complete crap (never even went to trial)
i had one case where the plantiffs lawyer used his brother-in-law as a "expert winess" against me. the brother-in-law ended up confessing I did everything correctly.
i'm being sued currently by a patient who had a successful operation and a good outcome!
don't believe me, then you just don't have a clue.

malpractice law suits are becoming like email spam...the lawyers fire off hundreds of mapractice claims on the off chance that 1 might stick...literally.

Isn't there a demonstrated correlation between "bedside manner" (for lack of a better term) and frequency of lawsuits? IIRC, there was a study showing that doctors who treated patients well, were friendly, open, communicated and listened well, etc., weren't sued nearly as often as doctors who were rude, condescending, aloof, insensitive, etc.

You can draw you own conclusions about why I ask that question, HS.

How 'bout it, HS? Did you have time to look for that study?