Yea, and I can even spell “oligarchy” with both a “y” and a “c”! http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908310034
And when the minorities who are running the death panels exterminate enough of the (current) majority that the (current) minorities are the (new) majority . . . what then?
You’re OP is just pathetic. The responses are pathetic. This is the SDMB, people. Try to be non biased and logical. Let’s look at that ad.
The fact is, the U.K. does not have a good track record when it comes to cancer. We, as the U.S., should not emulate their model. The ad, as a warning, is telling us not to do it. That’s it. It’s not disingenuous. Pick it apart, if you will. But at least make a point other than “Conservatives…BAD!.”
Before attack me, I do support single payer health care. I like the French system. And I hate the French!
So, if they ran an ad comparing it to, say, ancient Sparta’s medical practices, your reaction would be the same?
Is a U.K.-style health care system anywhere near what’s being proposed? No. The ad is a bullshit scare tactic, a flaming strawman (who may or may not be wearing epaulets) meant to rally the ignorant.
Nah, I say stick to the SS/Totenkopf/Auschwitz paraphernalia. I mean, as you know Obama is Hitler. Might as well stay in theme.
What?
Are you telling me I can’t accuse the OP and the responses of using Straw Men, too? Show me in the link where it where it mentions gays or death panels. At least explain why the fuck the replies reference the fucking nazis.
Gaudere’s law and all that.
Damn, not Gaudere’s law, that’s grammar. Godwin’s law.
Whatever you call it, this thread is made of straw.
Bullshit. This is a perception largely derived from direct comparisons of incomparable survival rates (mixed in with a healthy dose of ancient surveys and plain good ol’ fashioned fiction). As anyone with half a brain should expect, it’s rather more complicated than that.
Indeed. Especially when you consider that all of the replies in this thread are just reeking of sincerity.
I sincerely have no problems with the eating of Republicans … as long as they’re cooked properly.
CMC fnord!
Aren’t you people listening?! I don’t like the right wing nut-jobs either. Just don’t be left wing nutjobs. Dead badger’s link doesn’t even…
I don’t even know what to say if you won’t listen. Maybe this will help:
That’s her cite.
also:
Her magazine article tries to refute that, but it can’t! It cites it, but how do you refute fuckin Lancet and retain credibility?
Man, are you a sucker for their ploy. Look, there is no serious attempt to model US health care on U.K. health care. It’s a scare tactic. SCARE TACTIC :eek:
Go back and watch the commercial, but every time you year U.K. or similar comparison, imagine they are saying “Haiti,” or “Antarctica,” or “Planet Tittlebottom.” Notice how none of that makes sense? Notice how fucking irrelevant the comparisons are? Oh, right, at least the U.K. has some form of UHC, so there must be some germ of sense to it… oh bullshit. It’s a fucking scare tactic and you got played.
It fucking well does. The USA routinely uses a far more sensitive detection method for prostate cancer, whose efficacy is disputed because it picks up people with tumours that would never become a problem, not to mention people without tumours at all. So the US is diagnosing more people, many of whom wouldn’t need treatment at all; hence the USA’s massive apparent prostate cancer rate. So they get treated, they survive (which they would have anyway), and lo! the apparent survival rate is much higher in the US, but we can’t tell from this figure how effective the actual treatment is.
And the point with the breast cancer figure is a) that the figure most commonly being bandied around by the right wing nutjobs is unsourced and vastly overstated, and b) that it is subject to the same species of incomparability demonstrated above; given different diagnosis regimes, survival rates simply can’t be directly compared like that. And even if they were, it sure as hell isn’t a straight line from them to “OMG SOCIALISED MEDICINE BAD!”
I’m sure you don’t like the right wing nutjobs. I’m not a left wing nutjob, either; there’s plenty wrong with the NHS, but I object to the idea that these utterly retarded attacks on it deserve the time of day. They are scientifically illiterate, and warrant little more than scorn.
Last I checked, Lancet was English.
It is also a very respected journal that respects science more than politics
Are you kidding me? Have you even read the article I linked to? It’s not the figures that are in dispute, it’s the retarded way they’re being used. Hell, Cancer Research funded the study those figures came from. They are correct. No-one is saying otherwise. The dispute is whether they are comparable.
The point is to ask why they are so different. Right wing American cretins would have you believe it is because socialised medicine is intrinsically worse. Anyone with half a brain and a passing familiarity with oncological practice in the US and the UK knows that the USA diagnoses prostate cancer far more, in the process catching people with no tumours, or tumours that would never hurt them. As an inevitable result, their survival rates are better, as they include people who, in the UK, would never even be given the classification of “prostate cancer sufferer”, and would happily live out their lives until something else got them.
Please try to understand this. It’s really not hard.
Huh.
You must think I’m serious. I’m just devils’ advocate.
You miss spelled “socialized”
I’m English, you tit. Now, have you made the barest attempt to understand why different screening programmes make survival rates incomparable, or are you just going to nitpick spelling?
Oh, and you misspelled “misspelled.”
OK, now that’s Gaudere’s law.