It's a Trap!

#51
#51
I also heard a statistic that there are more MRI machines on Long Island than are in the entire country of Canada.
 
#52
#52
wouldn't surprise me. their expensive. so what do you do if you want the newest and best technology? either wait till it's available and probably live in pain for months or take something inferior. horrible to imagine.
 
#53
#53
MG1968 said:
I also heard a statistic that there are more MRI machines on Long Island than are in the entire country of Canada.
Click to expand...

I've told this before but a friend in Toronto and I tore our knees up at roughly the same time a couple years ago. I had an MRI, surgery and was released from PT before he got an MRI. He gladly would have paid out of pocket for the service I received
 
#54
#54
MG1968 said:
droski and I aren't denying anything. we know the system has problems that can be fixed without creating 110 new federal bureaucracies and adding trillions of dollars to the deficit.

not even Keynes would agree with the democrats' plan.
Click to expand...

droski said:
it certainly has it's problems, but that doesn't mean we should blow it up and replace it with something far far worse. something similar to countries overseas that have it and whose taxes are far higher, economies grow at a far lower rate, and have higher unemployment. it hasn't worked anywhere else in the world so why the hell would it work here?
Click to expand...

The plan would actually reduce the deficit. The Republican's plans do little to nothing to fix the crisis.

Keynes would agree. Because it would create more jobs. WPA/TVA/etc.

Far far worse? Says who? I know the WHO doesn't say so, but according to your logic they are bias and incorrect. Is that the bandwaggoner logic now?
 
#55
#55
jesus. you can't seriously believe it would reduce the deficit. why is it that the countries in europe with socialized medicine all have far highers deficits to gdp than we do despite FAR higher taxes if socialized medicine SAVES MONEY? England, france, portugal, etc.

keynes was an idiot. his models were ridiculously simplistic.
 
#56
#56
droski said:
it certainly has it's problems, but that doesn't mean we should blow it up and replace it with something far far worse. something similar to countries overseas that have it and whose taxes are far higher, economies grow at a far lower rate, and have higher unemployment. it hasn't worked anywhere else in the world so why the hell would it work here?
Click to expand...

It also happens to be the case that these countries have 24 hour on call doctors, and no out of pocket payments.
 
#57
#57
droski said:
jesus. you can't seriously believe it would reduce the deficit. why is it that the countries in europe with socialized medicine all have far highers deficits to gdp than we do despite FAR higher taxes if socialized medicine SAVES MONEY? England, france, portugal, etc.

keynes was an idiot. his models were ridiculously simplistic.
Click to expand...

Just ask the CBO, but do they lie too?

Keynes was a genius in comparison to Hayek and Friedman.
 
#59
#59
bam15 said:
It also happens to be the case that these countries have 24 hour on call doctors, and no out of pocket payments.
Click to expand...

How does this statement in any way correlate to the post you quoted?
 
#61
#61
droski said:
so you just take a look at the benefits and ignore all the costs right?
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring the costs, and it would save money over the long run and create jobs, while providing basic health insurance for those who need it. You're the one who thinks that health care treatment takes months to get.
 
#62
#62
bam15 said:
I'm not ignoring the costs, and it would save money over the long run and create jobs, while providing basic health insurance for those who need it. You're the one who thinks that health care treatment takes months to get.
Click to expand...

In countries with socialized health care it is very often the case.
 
#63
#63
bam15 said:
Just ask the CBO, but do they lie too?

Keynes was a genius in comparison to Hayek and Friedman.
Click to expand...

the CBO can only issue findings on the numbers they're given. With regards to Obamacare, the funding is done with smoke, mirrors and the assumption of economic growth rates in excess of 6%.

Keynes was, to quote Rahm Emmanuel, an effin' 'tard.
 
#64
#64
droski said:
jesus. you can't seriously believe it would reduce the deficit. why is it that the countries in europe with socialized medicine all have far highers deficits to gdp than we do despite FAR higher taxes if socialized medicine SAVES MONEY? England, france, portugal, etc.

keynes was an idiot. his models were ridiculously simplistic.
Click to expand...

France's deficit to hit 8.2% of GDP
France's deficit to hit 8.2% of GDP

USA, 2010 10.64% of GDP
US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP in United States 1900-2010 - Federal State Local

Hrm....
 
#65
#65
bam15 said:
I'm not ignoring the costs, and it would save money over the long run and create jobs, while providing basic health insurance for those who need it. You're the one who thinks that health care treatment takes months to get.
Click to expand...

if i break my arm in europe i'll get it fixed as fast as here and i will pay less. if i get cancer, or need an mri, or need advanced treatment, i'm screwed.

in what world do you live in where revenues go down (since you say we are going to save money, which is laughable), yet people hire more people?
 
#68
#68
droski said:
if i break my arm in europe i'll get it fixed as fast as here and i will pay less. if i get cancer, or need an mri, or need advanced treatment, i'm screwed.

in what world do you live in where revenues go down (since you say we are going to save money, which is laughable), yet people hire more people?
Click to expand...

Lets look at the facts:

Canada: Single-Payer "Socialist" vs America


1. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead.

2. Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's.

3. There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined.
 
#69
#69
MG1968 said:
the CBO can only issue findings on the numbers they're given. With regards to Obamacare, the funding is done with smoke, mirrors and the assumption of economic growth rates in excess of 6%.

Keynes was, to quote Rahm Emmanuel, an effin' 'tard.
Click to expand...

Rahm is a blue dog, that quote is understandable coming from him.
 
#70
#70
droski said:
so since obama took office we are now higher than france (notice it was well lower for the past 30 years). thanks for proving my friggin point.
Click to expand...

Duh, we are in a recession. Holy crap, basic economics.
 
#72
#72
MG1968 said:
the CBO can only issue findings on the numbers they're given. With regards to Obamacare, the funding is done with smoke, mirrors and the assumption of economic growth rates in excess of 6%.

Keynes was, to quote Rahm Emmanuel, an effin' 'tard.
Click to expand...

My god, do you honestly hate Obama and the Government that much?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top