Funny thing is that I came from other nation, so I can say with the authority granted by you that me and my family does want all Americans to have access to health care.
Now lets see [looks back] nope, you are still wrong about Angelina Jolie.
Still unable to admit you’re wrong when you accuse me of defaming Angelina Jolie? Check.
Still unable to show that Angelina Jolie manages to help all kids who have life-threatening medical issues? Check.
Well, I notice that there are less checks on every round so at least you are learning 
Maybe one less will have to come next, I already pointed out several times that not even any conservative icon of your choice manages to help all kids who have life-threatening medical issues, it was a moot point of yours, the whole attempt to try to make me to admit that I was showing something else than your sorry knowledge of what an specific celebrity (Liberal or conservative) does on helping cancer sufferers is a sad one.
Just as sad that when you return to point and mention what immigrants that rely on themselves and their family could support you regarding your points on American health care.
It’s not less checks, it’s me being concise.
You are still wrong when you accuse me of defaming Angelina Jolie.
You’re still wrong accusing me of saying all celebrities are liberals.
Now you’re just dancing.
Irrelevant. I said it’s impossible to cover all those kids no matter what you do. Apparently you avoided this inconvenient statement in order to make up this phony escape route.
Oh so you DO still believe that celebrities help all kids with life-saving illnesses. Even though you cannot show this you still believe it. Gotcha.
I’m still waiting to see who else here agrees that
a) Celebrities help all kids with life-saving illnesses.
b) I defamed Angelina Jolie.
b) That I said all celebrities are liberals.
We’re beyond any hope of you being able to prove these things, which you clearly can’t. At this point we’re just trying to see who else buys into your misinterpretations.
Oh look, a can of worms, I wonder what’s inside. Perhaps you’ll enlighten us on what you consider to be “community involvement” and how you think that will fix health care in the US.
I don’t think “inaccurate” would have been the word I would have chosen, but then again, I come from a place where words have meanings, and where government provides for health care.
So, care to back that assertion up with some facts? Or is it simply your perception that some people leaving a store are liberals? Does it matter how many? What if I live in Provo, Utah?
Again, do you have any facts to go along with these random assertions of the political leanings of people that leave a store? Do you know how much they spent in said store? Do you know how much they donate to charity? Do you know if they were in the store to make a donation to what ever charity the store supports? Do you know what they were planning to do with the item they may or may not have purchased? Maybe they’re donating it to charity?
I’m not trying to flamebait, but do you actually know anything about these people. Or is more about “what you see?”
uh, what now? You want liberals to stop rampant consumerism, so they can be more charitable, so that, uh, what’s the next part? So that you might be able to avoid taxes? Feel free to provide a coherent argument, or continue riding your pony, either way is fine with me.
Again, “sensible” is not the word I would have chosen to describe those questions, nor “uncomfortable.” Did they make you uncomfortable?
Nope. You made an inaccurate statement about her, deliberately, and included what you considered to be sufficient weasel words to weasel your way out of your weasely existence. Then you got called on it. Careful backpedaling, you could hurt your pony, then it wouldn’t’ be able to do that one cool trick.
I can guarantee that no one will agree with you that I believe that.
What I do believe is that recently [del]Marshall McLuhan[/del] I was pulled from behind a screen and told you that you do not know anything about what immigrants think overall about the current health system that there is in America.
It is impossible to “fix” health care.
In Canada and Europe they have problems such as waiting lists for cancer treatment. It’s a known fact that cancer survival rates are higher in the US than Canada or Europe.
Each system has its own set of problems. Throwing the Government at it is obviously not a solution.
Oooooh, you got me good man. I was wrong. Liberals don’t shop at stores.
What I see is charities this year are short on donations. Someone’s not giving, obviously.
It’s a good start. You look like a hypocrite when you engage in rampant consumerism and then complain because someone can’t afford chemo or an organ transplant.
Edited: “You look like” means “people in general”, not emacknight in particular.
LOL, I’m starting to like you!
Of course not. It doesn’t benefit your ego.
So you are saying that Angelina Jolie does in fact help all poor kids who need life-saving care? Really? Because if you are not saying that then you cannot say I made an inaccurate statement. In fact, you can’t say I made an inaccurate statement for another reason - I said I did not SEE Angelina Jolie doing this, that is not lying. Not seeing something and saying you didn’t see it is not lying. I would in fact be lying if I said I saw her helping out every kid out there who needs life-saving medical care.
I’m calling you out for falsely accusing me of lying (and calling you out on the flawed logic that led to your accusation), and you’re responding by lashing out with personal attacks. How predictable and entertaining!
Well, I think we need to pull one more expert from behind the screen*:
Hans Rosling explaining how wasteful the US is regarding the health care costs and the supposed return on the investment. The US is using 15 to 16 % of GNP in health care compared to the next one under it: Switzerland uses 11% and in Switzerland they get a higher life span **with **universal coverage.
Actually he was posted already but some just think that all readers will ignore him.
Oh? Is it possible to break it? Is it possible to make it worse? If it can be made worse, can it be made better?
Yup, a known fact, that was sufficiently debunked. Do you know how much “higher” those survival rates are? Do you know why they are “higher?” Do you know if they are “higher” in proportion to the amount the US spends compared to Canada and “Europe.”
I notice that you chose “cancer survival rates” as your go-to statistic. Since those are higher in the US then surely infant mortality should be lower, and life expectancy should be higher. Are they? I’ll let you practice goggling to see if you can come up with an answer. I can wait.
You see very sure about that, nice to have you admit the current system has problems.
Last year too, and the year before. Might have had something to do with the recession.
No wait, I have it! In 2008/2009 there were more liberals (as evident by the election). More liberals mean less charitable donations. What we need are more conservatives.
Uh, no, but good try.
I don’t see conservative celebrities guarding the border, or volunteering for military duty, and I ready lots of conservative stuff.
See how when you flip conservative for liberal and [liberal cause] for [conservative cause] your statement looks really stupid? Even more stupid would be if I tried to insert the name of some random conservative celebrity, who then turned out to be very active with both. Icing on the cake would be trying to weasel my way out of it after being called on it.
Does this all come down to the word “all?” You want to hang your reputation on the fact that she might have missed one while trying help someone else?
Seriously, I’m not trying to flamebait here. No wait, I am. But seriously, how much money does she have to donate, and how many kids does she have to help before you’ll recognize your statement was stupid? I also find it suspect that you haven’t “seen” her involved with charitable work. The woman is every where, she even went and adopted multiple children from war torn countries. But your criticism is that she’s a hypocrite because she doesn’t help ALL children? Cut the woman some slack, she still has to make movies if she’s going to be able to afford million dollar cancer wings–for children.
So really, all this is your thinly disguised attempt to label liberals hypocrites because they think UHC is good? Now they have to voluntarily pay for it? Weak. Got anything new?
ETA I’d still like to know what “community involvement” means. Odd that it wasn’t explained.
Why not just put it to the free market? Let insurance companies sell across the entire country, without compulsory enlistment (a la Obama/Romney Care), and get all the stupid regulations out of the way?
Debunked? You mean there are stats that show cancer survival rates are higher in Canada or Europe than the US?
Well, as I said, no system is perfect.
Probably, since Conservatives donate more to charity than liberals do.
Bad attempt at an analogy. If these Conservative celebrities supported the draft, you’d have a point. (Side point: I for one support ending selective service much less the draft… the State does not own a wo/man’s body anymore than it has a right to own his/her wealth.)
Even stupider when you use a horribly inaccurate analogy like that.
LOL. You’re pissed. Must have something to do with you finding out you were wrong when you accused me of lying about Angelina Jolie.
Words do mean things, do they not?
I mean, Marley23 called me on that in another thread and I was man enough to admit he was right because words mean things.
In any case, Angelina Jolie doesn’t come anywhere CLOSE to helping all the poor kids who need life-saving treatment. No one does. Even when the Government tries to close the gap you get program cuts, long waiting lists and other ways for people to die as they fall through the gaps.
Ooooh, now we’re betting my reputation. My internet reputation, no less.
Yup. I’ll bet on that. If she misses someone what do I win? Certainly not an apology from you.
And if she doesn’t miss someone what do I lose? Your respect? Oh noes. I’m wounded. So wounded. Angelina Jolie save me I’m wounded! What will I do now? sobs
Wow, I thought flamebaiting was against SDMB rules.
I explained it in my first thread to Marley23. Perhaps if s/he notices this thread s/he will also endeavor to explain to you the rules of the SDMB.
Got any evidence to suggest that would do anything worthwhile? You can’t, after all, “fix” health care. So why bother?
Odd that you didn’t answer my question about infant mortality, or life expectancy. I understand, those sorts of questions are “uncomfortable” to answer.
As to cancer survival rates, the is a long list of reasons why you shouldn’t try to use that to bolster your case. Of note, the US spends way more, but the survival rates don’t correlate, other countries with UHC spend far less but still get very comparable rates. The US is also very good at finding cancer. And when I say cancer, what I mean is that the US medical system is very good at finding benign cancer, the kinds that doesn’t kill. But then it still puts a notch on its belt for “saving” that person. Lastly, the term ‘cancer’ is very broad. Some countries are better at treating some cancers than the US.
That’s right. The US system is not perfect, nor would a “free market” system what ever the hell that means.
So given that no system is perfect, wouldn’t you be better off choosing the system that costs 1/5th as much, but provides better care? Sounds like a win win to me.
As for the rest, I’m still waiting to hear what community involvement means, and how it will help the government not have to do stuff.
It would result in lower taxes and regulatory costs for insurance companies, while achieving no worse than what you have now.
We have people here who hate birth control because it’s… whatever they think of it. Teens who have no sex education and who hide pregnancy from their parents. There’s all kinds of things involved here that more Government involvement won’t fix, and which aren’t problems in Europe or Canada.
Basically, let’s address infant mortality. What proof do you have that more people would seek prenatal care if the nanny state took over financing it?
So the US is very good at finding cancer. I wonder why.
And why do so many people come here for care? I remember some Canadian politician coming here for care not too long ago. Pity I don’t remember his name but it did happen. That’s not what you would call having faith in the UHC system… is it?
So why plow more tax dollars into this system?
As long as you have the fattest country in the world throwing the Government at this will have no effect on America’s health problems.
Donate to charities. Donate to your local church. Corporations manage to donate, too. If people care about these lives and feel so strongly about compulsory taxation to save lives, then they should be willing to donate directly. Right?
Note to Puppy Dopers: Old fart Gigo is referencing a classic film called Annie Hall, which is before even, like, Princess Bride. Marshall McLuhan was Deputy Dawg’s boss.
Yes, that’s right! Why didn’t I see that before! If I care so much about, say, child abuse, I should give my money to the Church! Oh, wait…
So all churches abuse kids?
Not every church is mostly kiddie-diddlers, you know. In fact, none that I know of are. Not even the Roman Catholic church.
And besides, what does that have to do with charitable giving? If someone’s breaking the law, charge 'em and thrown 'em in jail.
Donating money/breaking the law…two different things.
Do you have any proof or is this more of your idle speculation based on what you really want to believe? I noticed you brought up Canada and Europe as comparisons of what sucks, surely there are countries with a free-market health care system that is doing better than the US.
No, that’s not the argument you’re supposed to make. Eventually you’re going to need to say “that if the nanny state is providing it more people will try to use it, then there won’t be enough.”
I really shouldn’t have to argue both sides of the debate, makes me wonder what use you are to the process. The answer you are supposed to use is that the US supposedly will try riskier premature births, and is more likely to make heroic measures at birth. Would you like to know why the US does that?
Well, like heroic measures at birth, medical imagining is crazy profitable. It makes good financial sense to scare people into thinking they might have cancer. It requires extensive testing, and when those tests turn up negative it will require even more expensive tests. You know how you can’t prove a negative, well, in the medical world you still can’t prove a negative, but you can spend a fortune trying.
It was Danny Williams, you can read more about his thoughts on the matter here. Again, this is not a feather in your cap. It actually shows how great the Canadian system is, because we’re smart enough to make use of the US system. The procedure he needed was extremely specialized, and is unlikely to be found on an island province of 500,000. What you’ll notice is that even within the US people, will travel to to Mount Sinai if they need specialized treatment.
The Canadian health care system is set up to pay for people to get treatment in the US when needed. Every single Canadian has that availability. Do you think that ever American has the option of going to Mount Sinai and getting care? Would you like to hear about cases where US hospitals refuse to treat people without insurance?
Don’t. That’s the exact wrong thing to do.
None? I thought you said it would make things worse.
Wait what? Throw money at the problem? If you feed a bird it will keep coming back…
The simple reality is that charities are an inefficient method for achieving results. And I say that as an employee of a non-profit. What you’ll see, time and again, is that “popular” charities get lots of money, instead of those that are actually needed.
You’ll notice from the earlier links that childhood cancer gets lots of money, so does breast cancer. Very profitable charities to be in right now. Sadly, no one gives a shit about colorectal cancer.
Good catch, thank God you’re here, that might have gone completely unnoticed. I feel much more reassured that you personally know a church that didn’t diddle a kiddie. Which is all the proof we need.
“Mostly.” You left out “mostly.” I’d say the odds are that most churches have a few kiddie-diddlers, but then so do most fast-food chains, bookstores, hotels, airlin…well, you get the picture.
I did not say I personally know a church where there are no child molesters. Why you have to resort to misstating what I clearly said, even in your own post, is a mystery to me. Oh, wait, no it isn’t. You think you’ll gain points by making people think I said something I never in fact said.
But you blew it, doofus. Not only is what I actually said immediately upthread, but you quoted it in your own post.
What a moroon! 