JustinW

iNow, Where does it say this? Here, look again: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 Phi, You do such a fabulous job of twisting the context of people's word applications. The part you quoted wasn't the whole of the sentence and is broadly taken out of context. The end of the sentence needs a coma followed by the fact that in an emergency most people call 911 with a cell phone. It's not followed by "people only need healthcare in an emergency". Well that makes one of us. I could give you a list if you like. About as impartial and objective as the WHO. Why don't I dig up some dirt on the members of some of those other organizations. I've got a hunch and I'll get back to you on it. John, Try finding one of those around every corner. It's not as easy as it used to be. Anyway, the point of the analogy is what's on the table, not the details of it. The way yall attack analogies it's a wonder you ever let any of them slide. None of them would hold up to the qualifications that yall apply to the ones I post. As do they all. It was a point, not a situation to be taken literally. Apply the point to any analogical subject you want.

Because we're not just talking of wait times and my damn computer keeps messing up. I've tried to respond about 3 times already and right before I finished every time somehow it would all get erased and I would have to start all over again. Aside from being frustrating as hell I must have lost track of a few things. But let's see if I can get around to providing you with something. Here's two things quoted from wiki which establishes who does the studies. " As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians, and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment. [58" "Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S" That last one could hardly be dismissed as right-wing since that is the same group that provided you with those lovely graphs. Let e ask a serious question here. If wait times were not an issue in NHS countries, then why is it such a big policy issue over there?It seems that people usually don't adress things that aren't problems. Kind of like your moral dilema when it comes to providing each and everyone with healthcare. Is what you "feel" moot, or is that what drives you on this subject? What exactly did your sources suggest as far as prices and who those prices are applying to? Did they refer to the CONSUMER/PRACTITONER cost relation? Or was it refering to 1-2% of the overall costs? My term "big reason" was applying to direct costs from practiToners. So you're saying the people that CHOOSE not to buy healthcare have a proximal impact on the cost of healthcare, and you're using this as the reason that costs are so high? Not yet. If the number of emergencies that were not responded to in time were to show that it was a lack of cell phone ownership. And this number looked worse than another country that provided their people with cell phones, would you be in support of our government mandating that we buy cell phones? It seems that if you follow your own moral imperative,that you would for the sake of those who suffer. It might fail in comparison to healthcare and what a practitioner is obligated to do, but it does not fail when compared to coverage.

I think, after catching up on the incident, that there are some misconceptions here. From what I understand there was a couple of eye witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, the ambulance treated zimmerman for superficial wounds on the scene, and people are creating scenarios based on suppositions and assumptions. The police treat people a certain way due to what they find at the scene. If the situation looked to be what Zimmerman stated it was, then why would the police treat it differently? Not to mention these witnesses must have coroborated the state of the situation or else the police would have acted differently in my view. What I don't get is why people automatically make these types of situations race related. They do so before they even know the facts. I don't know all of the facts but only have my feeling of the situation by relating the attitude of those who took control of the scene with the little I do know. Which in no way insinuated a hate crime. Racial profiling maybe. But then there is more I could say about that which might get misconstrude. The fact of the matter is that this guy has already been found guilty by activist groups everywhere. Why? Just because the victim was black and the perp was white? It doesn't make sense when considering the actions of those at the scene.

iNow, I think you know what I was getting at. And no, I don't think I was misrepresenting the argument. You can't expect every point that I try to make to encompass the whole of the argument. Most of which I have provided contradictory reasons and reports. Like this one, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 , is this not peer reviewed? Is the National Center for Policy Analysis a co-conspirator with the right-wing propoganda machine? The fact of the matter is that I can provide just as many reports that oppose as you can those that support. This is why I haven't argued it too much. Though I believe this is a big reason prices between providers and consumers are up, I just mentioned that it was a valid point. And yes I think it does fit into the discussion due to the fact that this will transform the insurance industry. I have a feeling there will be a lot of people that will be looking for a job if they allow this to proceed. Yes I didn't phrase that right. And it isn't looking good for your side so far is it? Phi, Alright let's use a different one. I'll use someone elses so it's not so "off the cuff". This is what was said in the supreme court yesterday. " Because health care is something we might all need some day in an emergency. A cell phone is also something we might need some day in an emergency. If the government can force us to buy insurance we might need some day to address an emergency that hasn't happened yet, it stands to reason they could force us to buy the cell phone we will need to call 911 to get the emergency response." I would half way agree that this analogy, but I would change it up a little bit to better fit the situation. I would have said that the government should PROVIDE you with a cell phone, MANDATE that the people buy the phone service, and TAX you either for sales tax on the service or as a penalty for those who decide to opt out. John, Maybe you should take a look at the percentage numbers of the last link I have provided. Oh I forgot, it's probably to right-wing to pay attention to. Is this why your always whinning about those governments trying to privatize portions of it? It seems that at least some want to change it by your own admissions. And most of us are damn proud of it.

I must have missed it. What were the circumstances around the shooting? And what was this vigilante being vigilant about?

John, And why should we set our standards by the rest of the world's? That's kind of like a kid trying to play with a gun because he saw someone do it on TV don't you think? Or start a new one, but I highly doubt you would like what I have to say on the matter. It would be another subject where I lack any empathy, sympathy, or any feeling even coming close to good will. A little sarcasm never hurt. Strawman? Like when you said this and this Which one? iNow, What exactly qualifies as a good source for you gentlemen? The ones that agree with your point of view and support your agenda? If I recall John just said " The daily mail and the telegraph are noted for their right wing bias so it's entirely possible they do make stuff up." So that just tells me, if it could possibly be right wing, you dismiss it automatically. I have purposely been trying to avoid right-wing studies for that reason. Was I wrong to do so? Also please refrain from speaking ill of Dora, she's teaching me spanish at the moment. doG, I don't think you missed a thing and are actually making a very valid point as to why costs are so high. Like I've told John before, this is something that could be fixed. But I think he just wants me to buy a new one. iNow, It's all good. I feel that all angles really apply with this topic since most angles will change if this reform is allowed to pass.

iNow, Hence the words NEW LAW.

zapatos, Back from what? A socialists agenda? A greater utopian society where we're just one big happy family? Where it's no longer politically correct to want what's yours because someone else doesn't have it or wants it for free? Now that's just ignorant. Is it your right to survive? No. It's your right to do what YOU can to survive. If that means bearing arms against an enemy who wishes to harm you, then so be it. If it is to WORK to gain the means to provide for your future health, then so be it. But it is not your right to make others pay to ensure your own future health OR safety. John, By who's standards? Those who wish to change it for their own sense of fairness? Those who wish to make it like their own? That way no one's ever justly punnished. I think this could be a whole new topic. Yeah, people are suffering all around me. That's the reason I have to type instead of talk, due to all the moans of bitter dispair I can't hear a f***in' word. iNow, Myth? I guess people just make this crap up. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490987/NHS-waiting-times-longest-compared-western-nations.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8825165/48-rise-in-patients-waiting-too-long-for-NHS-treatment.html http://news.uk.msn.com/health/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158895035 Touching sob story by the way. Do you want me to pull up those I've heard from NHS nations?

zapatos, Actually those of whom I provide for do quite well thank you. It must be hard to carry the worlds burdens on your shoulders. I live in a world where nothing's free and everything's earned. A place where we still understand that healthcare is a privilege not a right. I heard, just this morning, the same comparison made between healthcare and driving. Driving is still a privilege, yet look at the necessity of it. And we have programs for those people. What's your point? I'm sorry but this isn't even close to being related to what I've said. 18 or not she would still be my child and if I could help I would. But that doesn't mean I have help every body else. They're not my responsibility like my children are. And in the process of helping my own child I would hope to pass on the lesson of preparing herself for the future and working hard to insure that she is. Tell me what's so wrong with that. I think you have missed the point of government somewhere along the way. WE fight for ourselves and our families. Do you mean GIVING you a way around those barriers? It seems to me we used to WORK through those barriers. That which your family should provide if you have so conveniently failed to do so yourself. We already provide it. What's so hard to understand about that? We have programs for the indigent already. They may not get the same level of care but why do you feel that they have to. You don't know anything about me. A gun makes everybody equal mister. Phi, Like who? Who doesn't recieve treatment through no fault of their own? I didn't know the point of war was to make friends. We better pay more attention to that in the future. This is my point. First it's lack of care, then people argue that those same people are getting cared for, it's just costing too much. Let's cover all of them that way it'll cost less. That really makes sense. Okay...let's foot the bill for all Americans. Then we can pay for their doctor bills plus emergency room visits. Because you know that most of the people that use the ER these days would prefer the waiting lists that I hear are racking up for the NHS for regular doctors visits. Our own waiting lists aren't that great, do you think a NHS will make them better or worse?

And how many people hire on under an employment contract? It doesn't apply the way you're trying to argue it. If we are talking about employment contracts then I would agree with you, but we're not. We are talking about regular everyday employment benifits. The incentives they recieve for doing so. What else? I'm not saying they do it out of the kindness of their hearts, even though I would say that an employer may be glad that they can do so. iNow, Ah touche, I stand corrected. I think why I didn't recall saying it was because I was thinking of it in a different context. I think I was referring to it as a way to increase competition in the job market from an employers prospective. Rather than deciding to up and quit due to benifit provisions. But yet I concede to your point. Again you're in the wrong thread. We're not talking about overall healthcare, we're talking about what decisions an employer can make about the insurance they provide for their employees.

iNow, Your moral imperative really doesn't move me all that much. I think you need to read back in the thread to understand what we are talking about. Or you can transition this comment onto the other thread where it's more relevant. When did I say this? I will have to admit, it sounds pretty easy when I say it though doesn't it? You're going to have to refresh my memory here, I've looked back several pages and couldn't find where I've said this. Are you sure you're in the right thread? Maybe you meant to post on the other one. I don't know where this fits in with an employer deciding what coverage to provide. Swansont and Phi, This is really where I need to remember my Babel Fish. If an employer were to drop an employees health insurance would they be required to pay that employee the equivalent of the money they were paying in for that insurance? If not I don't see how you can consider it the employees money. That is my point and maybe I haven't been saying it right.

John, That's a bunch of crap. While healthcare benifits are an incentive to choose a certain employment, they are in no way turning people into SLAVES. If someone is too chicken s**t to find a new job out of fear of not having healthcare, then they know nothing about the access to healthcare in the US. Do you people think we are just letting people die in the streets? First people argue that because we can walk in off the streets and get medical attention that it's costing the taxpayer too much. The they turn right around and say people are dying right and left from the lack of access. I wish they would make up their minds. It's not a joke. There are some of us out there who don't like to help someone who won't help themselves. I agree with Phi on one thing he has said in the past, "that no one want's to see a single mother with two children, who happens to have fallen on hard times do without", but I frankly don't give a damn about the lazy SOB that wont get of his arse to get a job. You know...those who want something for nothing, those who feel the world owes them something just because they're here. Facts and data huh? Like when you say things like this? Everything listed here besides highways are put to use in matters of emergency. We also have healthcare for that. It's called an "emergency room". And at least we are not waiting outside in an ambulance so we can keep up with the waiting time quotas. http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?Src=RSS&docid=212666359

doG, You've made a good point. One that I've failed to mention, but haven't overlooked completely. I know tort reform had a big impact here in Texas. John, Yes and I've also cited reasons that they are wrong to compare systems using those numbers. Not to mention that the WHO have been labeled as biased due to the fact that their studies give bad marks for countries that have fee-paying treatment and rate countries by comparison with THEIR EXPECTED performance rather than objectively comparing quality of care. Sure I accept the fact that we could do a lot to cut down on spending. A good way to start is with tort reform such as doG brought up above. I never thought that spending shouldn't be adressed. It's just in the way that we are thinking about adressing it that I have a problem with. No, but I buy a better quality. Sure we are. So we can look forward to healthcare being added to this list http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/full_list/ or do you think they'll suddenly get better at what they do?

iNow, And this really only applies to those who aren't living up to their responsibilities to provide for themselves. The same people that will get the benifit from such a healthcare system. And when did THAT stop being an individual responsibility? My arguement on this point is ,yes, it is a persons individual responsibility to provide this for themselves. Since when did we have to treat the majority of our population like children? If someone doesn't take responsibility for themselves, let them suffer the consequences. That may seem harsh, but I don't believe in pampering a grown adult. And I don't believe my government should mandate that I provide for them. Us middle class Americans have a hard enough job of providing for our own as it is. Since the arguement is getting the government involved in doing just that, "protecting us from ourselves" or "doing this for our own good", I believe it is relevant to the specifics of the subject. And my point is that it's so good, you still have to include a PRIVATE insurance to get the coverage you need. Goes to show how much "better" it is. Phi, Efficiency and quality of a universal system is still one of the fundamental debating topics of the arguement. Not to mention that the government doesn't mandate that you use the highway system or how you use the highway system(barring certain circumstances). It's not like their taking away the option not to drive, or the option to drive on smaller streets. So the analogy doesn't quite fit.

iNow, I think the question is completely relevant to the context of the conversation. People used to be responsible for providing the means to pay for their family's as well as their own healthcare. Just over the past century it has become a matter for someone else to provide it. Just something else that some feel they're entitled to. Which has problems of it's own, not to mention that seniors have to have private insurance just to get the coverage they need.http://www.seniorcor...-with-medicare/ It's great that someone can call it facts when information can be provided that dispute the reasoning and integrity of the so called "facts" that have been provided. I have never claimed that any information that I have provided are FACTS, because I know that anything can, and probably will, be disputed. Someone provides numbers, and if I can list the reasons that those numbers are inaccurate or at least cannot be a basis for arguement, then that is why I would disagree about them being FACTS. Are you talking about people's mobility? The freedom to move around? Or the freedom to enjoy other aspects of life without having to burden themselves with responsibilty to provide for themselves? I think you nailed it with what I have bolded in your statement. So we are trading freedom for security? And that's okay? How far will we let a government go to protect us from ourselves? It seems that I have picked the proper signature for the times huh? And yes this arguement is as much ideological as it is a factual one. People can have opinions that combine the two, and there is no reason they shouldn't. John, Okay that is the reason you posted the links. So? I quite clearly told you why I think you were wrong in using that information as a basis for your arguements. You said you listed that information because YOU THOUGHT it was indisputable. I then gave reasons as to why it WAS disputable for arguing the matter of healthcare quality.Okay you thought it was indisputable fact, ( however it's NOT in the context of the arguement). I retract my statement about not believing your reasons for posting it. Good enough? Now, for Pete's sake, let's quit beating a dead horse and move on.

Phi, I understand what you're saying, and from an accounting standpoint it would be that cut and dry. But from a workers prospective those are just benifits that are dictated at the will of an employer. Sure the employee would be pissed if they were automatically dropped, but what could they do about it from a legal standpoint? Nothing. This really depends on what exactly you're talking about. The way you're speaking of health insurance as being part of your wage is not the same as reducing your pay if they dropped it, which is illegal in Texas without expressed written permission from the employee. An employer cannot take wages away unless it fits a certain criteria for doing so. I think you hit the nail on the head here Phi. I think we were talking about the same thing, just in two different ways. You see this compensation as something that should be decided by the employee, while I see this compensation as what it is. "Dictated by the employer." If an employee doesn't like their benifits then they can always find a better place of employment. But to see this compensation as a part of your wage is strictly an accounting viewpoint. This statement here I don't hear too much about. It must be different elsewhere because here it is illegal to take a persons wages without just cause. And those causes usually have something to do with government. And if it did get taxed like wages, do you think there would be as many employers providing it? It is ther choice, and the incentive is there for them to provide it. Well...it is for now anyway.

iNow, And when do people's responsibility for their own lives come into play? How far are to go to insure that people have no responsibility for their own well being? Like government bureaucracies doesn't? Let's provide a new arena so now they get to play politics with our healthcare at an even scarier level than they do already. Doesn't sound that morally acceptable to me. And we have put a policy into effect that gives them no choice. That is until every employer dumps their employees into the government plan because it will now cost them less to do so. It's a nice setup if you ask me. Once the majority of Americans have been dumped into the government plan, there will no longer be any excuse not to fully turn it over to government. I would get used to it if I were you. Any time there is something to argue about, you can bet someone like me will come along and argue about it. Collective freedom huh? John, No, I said that iNow might have a point "IF" we can assume the numbers are accurate. I still believe that the reasons I gave play just as much of a role in infant mortality as do the reasons that iNow gave. And does this source give you the reporting criteria? I couldn't find it. So? We also make more money. Generally speaking the more you make the more you spend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income Do you normally take people's words out of context to support your arguments? I said that refering to new technology and new procedures that give at-risk pregnancies more of a chance to survive. The state indications over the first graph were amounts of GDP (PPP) on average, NOT health expendatures per GDP. I usually don't. Are you saying that we don't? To say that a doctor doesn't do everything technologically possible for his patient needs a little more backing than just saying it. That's not what I said. I said that medical avances allow more at-risk pregnancies come to be born for hopes in a saving of it's life. It seems that you're twisting my words around to look like they have different meanings. john5746, I don't think we were talking about FACTS. It was an assumption that the numbers were true, in which I also stated that I had a feeling that something was missing. Let's let the government dictate that too. Yeah

Phi, Then why is that something that they can take away without compensating you for the loss of it? Where if we talk about wages, an employer cannot just deduct from your wages. That would be illegal. So classifying benifits as monetary sums that you work for isn't the same. They CHOOSE to give you these benifits. Whether it is in their best interests to give these benifits is irrelevant. They might do it for tax reasons or to get a more competitive corner on the employment market, but all of that doesn't matter when it comes to what they provide and if they can take it away AT THEIR CHOOSING. They are not legally bound to give you that kind of compensation and if they take it from you, they are not legally bound to recompensate you to make up for it. So my origional arguement stands, that they pay for it, they can dictate whether you get it or not, other than an employees WANTS, who is to say what part of that coverage they pay for? zapatos, Sorry, didn't mean to move the goal posts. I just wanted to give a reason why this argument didn't mean much anyway.

I'd be lying if I said you didn't have a point, if we DID assume these numbers were correct, but I have a feeling we're missing something here though I'm not quite sure what it is yet. The fact of the matter is that we do spend a lot on healthcare. Can we figure out how to spend less while remaining at the forefront of innovation and quality? I think we can. Can we figure a way to make coverage more accessible to those who fall into the gap of too much/not enough income? I think we can. BUT, I don't feel that it's necessary to copy a fundamentaly different system, that has it's own flaws, in order to do so. I also don't feel that we need to put policies in place that will make our problems worse in order to establish a reason for making this change. And I above all don't feel that this issue should be turned over to bureaucracies that have hardly ever had good track records at anything else they do. From that, we can only expect quality and efficiency to go down, especially because the older it gets the more it becomes a self preservation of the organization rather than a means to provide a service. But you may have some differing thoughts on the matter.

Does that study refer only to private health care or is medicaid included? Because if it's not, and I saw nothing that indicated it was, this can more than make up for it. http://statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=222&cat=4

Bilko, Let's hope not. Like I said arguement for arguement sake. That damn Orwell. Always sees right through me. Moontanman, Do you think someone has the right to make their employer conform to their's just because they want them to pay for something they're not willing to pay for themselves? If an employer is providing employees with a benifit, shouldn't they get to decide what that benifit is? I know this sort of thinking went out the door with union labor, but let's talk privately owned companies. No, I pay full price for my wifes contraception. She takes it religiously. (no pun intended) Like I said, the convo seemed a little one sided. I thought I would try and bring the other point of view to light. He was raised by Catholic parents, but no where does it say his motivations were religious. I said "so?", because I didn't see your point. Explain better if you want a more robust answer. Phi, Yeah they may explain it that way, but...they already have control over that part of your "compensation". They can change policy, price, and even drop the damn thing if they chose to. They can take your bonus, why not your contraception. So you're ultimately saying that any employer that wants to opt out of contraception should just drop the whole damn plan instead of adjust to provide without contraception? Now that's rather extreme. And what evidence have I ignored? I'd hate to be on a fast track. Boy, do I feel sheepish. You keep claiming that insurance is like your money that your employer has no say over. When that is not the case at all. It seems that we have two different definitions of compensation. Now that makes a little more sense, although I would have to say that they still pay for it. It may not seem fair, but it is what it is. In todays economy would we have a choice? Some had no choice but to drop their employee's coverage during the peak of the recession. So it can be done. Protest is a different matter. As you can see they hardly get the job done. Who ever offered more pay instead? I don't remember any. It's gotta be one of those pesky corporate conspiracies. zapatos, Sorry to turn this into a political conspiracy, but http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/08/huge-number-of-businesses-to-drop-health-insurance-thanks-to-obamacare/ http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Obamacare-Small-Businesses-Drop/2011/07/26/id/404838 http://www.naturalnews.com/033662_Obamacare_health_coverage.html http://www.bluewavenews.com/2011/06/study-that-claims-businesses-will-drop.html Probably won't happen... Just sayin'.

Computer's been down, took me a couple of days to respond. John, Scroll down to "comparing infant mortality ratings" http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Infant+mortality+rateAnd this one http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/prematurebirths.aspx helps to explain why we have a higher preterm birth rate. Again it is more than likely that countries have a different way of reporting classifying what exactly constitutes being alive. Show me something that can back up that statement. There are theories about causes for preterm percentages going up, but I haven't seen anything definite on the matter. My point on this was, that if the US's technology is gaining ground in the area of saving at-risk pregnancies, then countries that are behind in that area will have more abortions due to the fact that the odds of saving the child are lower. Therefoe would have fewer at-risk births lowering their rate, while the US is having MORE at-risk births upping their rate. Does that make sense?Because now when a doctor finds something wrong in a sonogram, they will have a way to fix it rather than automatically thinking of abortion. Where in a less advanced country abortion may be the option thought of first. This can affect that rate. And again you're missing my point. This makes absolutely no sense. How so? Feeling a little cheeky are we? I think I answered this above. For an answer to spending percentages and amounts, let me ask a question of my own. What's wrong with this? http://politicalcalc...ate-part-1.html iNow, speaking of economics, I'll ask you the same question. What's wrong with this? http://politicalcalc...ate-part-1.html http://politicalcalc...-in-united.html who's outcome iNow? I'm not saying the datas flawed. I'm saying the arguement based on the datas flawed, and I gave my reasons. You're good at pulling up graphs...show me some numbers that support your assertion that "pregnant women lose their babies for lack of healthcare". PLEASE. Just so you can live up to your own standards when I make assertions based on a seeming assumption. Not really.http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/09/01/hospital-waiting-lists-keep-growing/ http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10503101 http://nahealth.blog...ian-system.html

Phi, What are you talking about? Employer provided insurance is a benifit that they have the option of providing. It doesn't matter what kind of tax breaks or whatever else they recieve for doing it. It's not like they are compensating you for anything. If they choose not to provide that benifit it's not like they would have to compensate you in a different way to make up for it. You are treating it as though they have no choice in the matter of providing health insurance. These religious employers still want to provide their employees health insurance, but they would like to do so without contraception. If they do not get this law passed they will ultimately drop their employees insurance. Which will probably be what happens in mass in 2014.

John, So you think they include abortions in the infant mortality rating? Why would they include abortions and not still births or micarriages?Let's look at cuba. http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/ Yes and the US delivers more premature babies than any other country due to higher levels of technology and better care. Do you not think that is a major factor to be contributed to the stats. So it isn't that more babies are dying for lack of care in the US, it's more at risk babies are being brought to term and given a chance to survive. Looking at the numbers only strengthened my claim as far as I can see. Even the example I gave (Cuba) was only the fifth one down. You don't think that abortion rate coupled with the amount of care for "at risk" pregnancies can be a reason that the US's numbers look so bad? I think you chose them because they were the ones that make the US's medical care seem insufficient. And no, the criteria for "dead" is not the same everywhere. Different countries have different criteria for reporting. Some say that this has no bearing on the statistics, but I don't see how it can't. No I'm saying reports like that shouldn't be used when arguing for a universal healthcare system, especially when the report automatically gives negative remarks for not having one. Seems a little one sided doesn't it? I had left out a word in that sentence. I meant to say "Try getting a healthcare system that keeps someone from getting shot", because I felt it was also invalid to use a report as an arguement for a universal system that includes factors that healthcare cannot be judged on. Such as suicides, homicides, accidents, etc... Sure people can survive some of those things, but the study doesn't determine whether they were dead before they even got to the hospital. That's an unfounded, disinginous statement if I've ever heard one. To a degree? Frances inability to control their healthcare deficit, Along with Italy's monetary problems and insufficient facilities, or Norway's 3month waiting period to even be admitted into a hospital. But the list can go on, but it doesn't matter, they've been adressed to a degree. Arete, Doesn't it seem funny that this data was taken at a time when unemployment was soaring. Do you think that there might have been different factors involved and that medical bills might have just been the easiest excuse to claim bankruptcy? iNow, I couldn't get anywhere with the link you provided. It just said "No results found", could you provide another. But to comment from the quote you have provided, spending is a problem that has resulted from several different factors. I don't see the need for such a broad change to fix a problem that can be dealt with on a lower scale. And any studies that put Cuba's healthcare quality above the US's should be rejected out of hand. It's just rediculous. When using the data to argue for a universal system it seems that the way the data is collected and the contributing factors for the numbers should matter when you "so haphazardly" draw your conclusions. When someone pulls up infant mortality rates and uses them as an arguement to support a universal system, then I think the contributing factors for those numbers matters greatly. Especially when it can be said that those numbers are greater because we have a better system that allows us to bring at risk pregnancies to term. Care to inlighten me with some data? Maybe some numbers that aren't just off the cuff? I haven't seen a whole lot of this, so I find it a little hard to believe. You would think that out of the "hundreds of thousands" that this is happening to I would have at least heard about it. I'm surprised Michael Moore didn't mention it. Yes. Why don't you try and get a hospital bed in Norway these days. I wonder how long you would have to wait? Oh you got me there...What happens when the government runs out of money to pay the doctors or fund medical research? This is happening all over europe. They are running into huge deficits when it comes to healthcare. What do we do when this happens to our government, and please don't say print more money. Captain, That is incorrect. We have programs for those that can't afford it to make it available to them. There is a thing called Medicaid. If you make less than a certain amount per year, you and your children qualify for medical treatment. iNow, Not when your basing that sense on false information and misconcieved perceptions.

Moontanman, It's better than being pissed on. Do you think that you have the right to make someone go against their religious beliefs, when they are well established and accepted beliefs. No one begrudged the contraceptive religious belief until the religious folks stopped wanting to pay for it. It's not like it is a belief that someone came up with last tuesday. To make someone pay out of their pocket to specifically go against their beliefs is just as wrong. Because if you own the business, you're paying for it. Don't see why not. It's the same principle, you're still having to pay for people to go against your religion. Absolutely not. That would essentially be the same as requiring someone to pay for birth control who thinks it's against their religion. Why do people like to result to using BS analogies to try and prove their points. You know I would say no to that. Wife beating isn't any part of religious law here in the US, but birth control is a well established and widely accepted part of what some religions do not accept. It's not like I'm saying anyone can make up anything at anytime, and I think you're smart enough to understand the point I'm making here. Like I said when I started posting in this thread, I thought the conversation was a little one sided and figured I would argue from the opposing perspective. I really don't give a damn either way. Huh? Freedom of religion protects against persecution from government against religion. That's why you have the FREEDOM to chose your own religion. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you're fee OF religion Man, I'm surprised you don't live in a bunker. It's good to look out for bad people but to say that the majority of people in this world are bad is rediculous. Does your assessment include yourself? They've had control for mellenia. What's new? As long as men are in control we need to be protected from men. Religion is just an excuse that men will use. Was Hitler religiouslly motivated? The answer is no. A secular nut is still a nut no matter how you look at it. So? Jeskill, Not in the least. They're not telling her that she can't use contraceptives. They're just telling her that they aren't going to pay for them.