[jacketpotato]

(Original post by JMonkey)
...

As for the accusation of using straw-men, I feel that I have responded directly to points you have raised. If you disagree or if I have misinterpreted anything, please point out where.

1) Regarding the WHO statistics
"Then ******* stop being such a lazy ass and look up the 2008 statistic for ***** sake"

The link you provided said "The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.". These statistics are utterly unreliable: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...nt/20/3/10.pdf

So, where are these mythical statistics?

2) Regarding your conceptions of the US healthcare system

You said "purely private". Utterly, utterly false given that government funded programs cover 30% of the population. The real issue with the US healthcare system is the way in which the market for insurance works and the way in which prices are bumped up by employers being forced to buy it. Its not a problem with it being private per se.

As for the value for money issue, remember that 1) the US spends 3 times per capita on R&D which is exported for profit to the rest of the world, 2) 5% of the population fund over 50% of the healthcare spending: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...bstract/20/2/9

3) Personal responsibility

You haven't addressed the points I made re: personal responsibility above.

4) Regarding the NHS

You must be living in a fantasy world if you are not aware of the waste in the NHS. And no, you can't blame this one on the Tories, though they are undoubtedly to blame for some things.

Quite how a £12.7bn computer system (half the defence budget), that was widely condemned as being doomed from the start and which the government was advised against, is efficient spending is beyond me.

And note the massive increase in mid-level NHS management. Quite why you think the Guardian is a right-wing source (and why you are prepared to ignore facts/arguments based on source) is beyond me.

[JMonkey]

(Original post by jacketpotato)
As for the accusation of using straw-men, I feel that I have responded directly to points you have raised. If you disagree or if I have misinterpreted anything, please point out where.

1) Regarding the WHO statistics
"Then ******* stop being such a lazy ass and look up the 2008 statistic for ***** sake"

The link you provided said "The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.". These statistics are utterly unreliable: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...nt/20/3/10.pdf

So, where are these mythical statistics?

2) Regarding your conceptions of the US healthcare system

You said "purely private". Utterly, utterly false given that government funded programs cover 30% of the population. The real issue with the US healthcare system is the way in which the market for insurance works and the way in which prices are bumped up by employers being forced to buy it. Its not a problem with it being private per se.

As for the value for money issue, remember that 1) the US spends 3 times per capita on R&D which is exported for profit to the rest of the world, 2) 5% of the population fund over 50% of the healthcare spending: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...bstract/20/2/9

3) Personal responsibility

You haven't addressed the points I made re: personal responsibility above.

4) Regarding the NHS

You must be living in a fantasy world if you are not aware of the waste in the NHS. And no, you can't blame this one on the Tories, though they are undoubtedly to blame for some things.

Quite how a £12.7bn computer system (half the defence budget), that was widely condemned as being doomed from the start and which the government was advised against, is efficient spending is beyond me.

And note the massive increase in mid-level NHS management. Quite why you think the Guardian is a right-wing source (and why you are prepared to ignore facts/arguments based on source) is beyond me.

I've answered this already but suffice to say there is still a ranking system.

Get this straight though I have never tried to compare the UK with the US, it's irrelevant, I have never said that there aren't problems with the UK system. So stop trying to milk areas that were never in contention for effect. Stick to the points. You're just wavering into any area where you think I've said something other than I have. I even said the US is not purely private earlier, and I meant it. What I meant by that was that it has no type of nationalisation at all. As for making mistakes who doesn't and what does it have to do with the issue? Honestly I give up. Are you going to attack something I actually said or just go off on a tangent into areas where there isn't the slightest concern or disagreement even. I'll answer these concerns once, but after that it gets boring when they weren't even part of my argument.

Another thing why on Earth should I care about drug companies when they have nothing to do with the issue?


Any other questions or do you care to go over my posts and actually read them? Because I'm tired of these straw men. I think I'll just unsubscribe I really cannot be bothered with answering questions I already have answered, and tackling subjects that have nothing to do with the point of the thread. You may merrily go on your way bringing up trite irrelevances. I care not any more.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by JMonkey)
I've answered this already but suffice to say there is still a ranking system.

Any other questions or do you care to go over my posts and actually read them? Because I'm tired of these straw men. I think I'll just unsubscribe I really cannot be bothered with answering questions I already have answered, and tackling subjects that have nothing to do with the point of the thread. You may merrily go on your way bringing up trite irrelevances. I care not any more.

Get this straight though I have never tried to compare the UK with the US, it's irrelevant, I have never said that there are problems with the UK system. So stop trying to milk areas that were never in contention for effect. Stick to the points. You're just wavering into any area where you think I've said something other than I have. I even said the US is not purely private earlier, and I meant it. What I meant by that was that it has no type of nationalisation at all. As for making mistakes who doesn't and what does it have to do with the issue? Honestly I give up. Are you going to attack something I actually said or just go off on a tangent into areas where there isn't the slightest concern or disagreement even. I'll answer these concerns once, but after that it gets boring when they weren't even part of my argument.

I frankly don't know what your point is, but what you have done is make a bunch of assertions that you've failed to justify. If you want to make your central point in clear fashion so people know what you are trying to say, then do so. But if you don't want to back up what you say, don't post on D&D or at least don't take issue when people point out errors or inconsistencies in your posts.

[JMonkey]

(Original post by jacketpotato)
I frankly don't know what your point is, but what you have done is make a bunch of assertions that you've failed to justify. If you want to make your central point in clear fashion so people know what you are trying to say, then do so. But if you don't want to back up what you say, don't post on D&D or at least don't take issue when people point out errors or inconsistencies in your posts.

Oh shut up you're just milking straw men for effect. If you want a discussion stick to the point. No one's impressed by you just repeatedly making strawmen as if they have any relevance. If you want my opinion ask for it.

When the US changes over to a nationalised system you are going to look like a complete idiot.

Of course you never challenged the fact that 60% of Drs want a nationalised system in the US. That would be sticking to the point.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by JMonkey)
Oh shut up you're just milking straw men for effect. If you want a discussion stick to the point. No one's impressed by you just repeatedly making strawmen as if they have any relevance. If you want my opinion ask for it.

When the US changes over to a nationalised system you are going to look like a complete idiot.

Of course you never challenged the fact that 60% of Drs want a nationalised system in the US. That would be sticking to the point.

You've flamed, ranted and whinged quite enough. If you are so worried about your "opinion", then explain it.

As for a nationalised US health service, thats doctors.

You would have a much, much, much, much harder time convincing congress. Its hard to explain how anti- a national healthcare system the US is.

Its pure fantasy to say that the US will be changing to a nationalised system, at least for the foreseeable future. America is a very conservative country, and one with people who are strongly against state provided services like the NHS, and are against state spending full-stop. Just look at how hard it was to get a bail-out plan through. There is absolutely no way that a nationalised healthcare system would pass through congress.

Your own link: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pre...re-system.html
clearly demonstrates that most adult Americans thought that the US system provides a better quality of care and lower waiting times than Canada, France and Great Britain. In table 4, it demonstrates (admittedly from a small sample) that only 37% of adults would be more likely to support a president who wanted to make the US healthcare system more like that of other countries. And note that this refers to a vague committment to make the US healthcare more like other countries - which is probably interpreted to mean making sure that more people have access to health insurance, if the Obama election campaign is anything to go on. There is absolutely no way you could count on even minority support for a state-provided healthcare system on those figures.

[amjw]

(Original post by JMonkey)
I can prove that 1 in 6 don't. What do you want the government to do force them?

Not at all, but you're the one who implied that those 1 in 6 did not have healthcare because they could not afford it. That implication cannot be respected as accurate unless you can actually prove that those 1 in 6 absolutely cannot afford precautionary spending.

What is wrong with the NHS exactly? I mean 18th is perfectly respectable, fine it's not perfect but then as I said 20 years of underfunding. Do you know that the NHS runs at a .1% budget deficit on average, that's despite being the largest employer. That's almost unheralded. I suspect like most people who whine about the national health you've never been intimately involved with it and just take what you read in The Daily Mail as red.

As I have said, only being the 18th 'best' healthcare system in the world whilst being the 3rd largest employer of any publically or privately owned corporation is an absolutely apalling statistic and is a prime example highlighting the ridiculous inefficiencies associated with a nationalised healthcare system. No amount of statistics that you throw at me can change that. With all the money thrown at it, it is not surprising to see that the NHS is more or less on target in terms of budget (although I would like to see where exactly you got your .1% deficit statistic from...).

And please do not bitch to me about not knowing NHS first hand. My neighbour's mother had to wait for a kidney transplant for 2 years and died because she did not get one. I am well aware that this is a supply side issue, but at least a private healthcare system would not have forced her to pay 10 times the cost of the transplant in her lifetime for a transplant that did not occur.

Oh shut up, the WHO is a valid source, you can go live in a cave like the other guy. If the stats don't work for you then tough, go and childishly moan about it until they change just to suit your imaginary idea of what is a good health system. Ie one that has woeful cover, costs way too much and is failing its people.

Regardless of the source, you cannot put down my criticisms of use of life expectancy and infant mortality on the standard of healthcare because of other factors involved. You have yet to even attempt to do so. Instead you choose to throw a tantrum in a laughable attempt to discredit my critisicism without actually addressing it. 'Pull the other one its got bells one'.

Of course you would under your system anything that doesn't favour the US system would be discounted by default. Pull the other one its got bells on. The reason the US looses out is the sheer level of bureaucratic corruption and mismanagement of money, that makes it the most expensive healthcare system in the world (its infant mortality and ages are fine, in fact they are not much woirse than the UKs). In the US taxpayer picks up a bill larger than in a nationalised country, but just doesn't know about it, and is satisfied that as long as they are denying 1/6th of the population health cover as long as they aren't paying for it who cares (even though they are). US healthcare should be nationalised/private on a state by state basis, if it works in one state then spread it.

But they are certainly taxed less in general which more than makes up for it.

It is not 5/6 of the country that is denying 1/6 of the population health cover, it is 1/6 of the population that are denying themselves it. Yet again, you have still yet to prove that those 1/6 do not have sufficient money to put into precautionary saving to at least partially cover their healthcare costs should they require healthcare.

Aw bless perhaps then Zimbabwe doesn't deserve its place on the table either? Get real.

Of course it should be on the list, it is just no coincidence that there exists (in general) an inverse relationship between the ranking on the list and the levels of crime, drug abuse and corruption in those countries which all affect life expectancy and infant mortality; the measures used to rank the healthcare systems.

Here's an interesting article on what America thinks of its health system:



Link

Poll performed by Harvard school of Public health.

Check out the tables on that page as well. Interesting n'est pas?

I am sorry to say that I have an issue with your stats yet again. 1026 respondents (you really didn't think I was going to read the survey itself, did you?...you are too easy) out of 300 million+ is NOT representative, regardless of sampling methods, especially when different people have completely different experiences in healthcare. But at least you are finally on the right track in terms of data collection methods; questions in relation to the actual healthcare itself as opposed to life expectancy are going to yield far more accurate results.

Pfft and what do these guys know. nearly 6/10 of all US Drs support nationalised health care. Care to hazard a guess at why?

Perhaps because of the greater chance of increased wages associated with nationalised healthcare? Much easier to achieve with a monopoly power in the healthcare market where demand is ludicrously high and supply relatively low. A private healthcare system would force doctors to reduce their wages to be more competitive for customers.

The bottom line is that you are a tool. You let the government and international organisations feed you statistics and do not step back and think about their significance or reliability. As long as it's from the almighty authority and supports your argument for healthcare nationalisation (which has also probably been fed to you by the same people) they are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with you is 'childish' or reads the Daily Mail.

You have failed to prove that 1/6 of the American population cannot put aside part of their income for precautionary purposes.

You have failed to justify precisely why the UK only has the 18th 'best' healthcare system in the world despite being the third largest employer of any privately or publically owned corporation in the entire world.

You have failed to address my criticisms of using life expectancy and infant mortality as measures of the standard of healthcare in a country.

You have failed.

I think I will end my input here, I am sure Drunkhamster and jacketpotato have owned you far harder than I have.

gg.

[amjw]

(Original post by JMonkey)
Please sign your ******* reps people. Whoever negged me you can go **** yourself, if you don't want to make a contribution to the thread, because you can't or are to afraid to, please sign your rep so at least I know you have the balls to back up your argument otherwise I'm just going to get a sub and neg every person who hasn't signed every rep, one after the other. Hopefully by then it should actually be worth a few hundred points. Karma. People why are you all so gay? No that's an insult to gay people, who generally have more courage. ******* worthless *******s. I don't mind outside of D&D I expect people to be worthless idiots, but in here, you should either stand by your opinions or **** off out of D&D for good you ballsless wonders. Thanks for your time, and feel free to neg me with a message and sign it for saying this. It's not like it means anything but at least I will take you seriously.

You have the nerve to call me childish, and then you post this. Way to kick yourself in the balls.

[JMonkey]

Ok let's stick to the points, you're just embarrassing yourself with arguments that make no real point.

First of all I said 1 in 6 people don't have heatlhcare then you say people will provide for their futures, despite 1 in 6 people who can, not doing so and rising. Reality bites. Yes hero now you change it so that I was in fact saying that they could not afford it, when I specifically said those who can't ie on welfare are subsidised (then I get an argument about purely privatised that completely ignores everything I have said to make another banal point about nothing). Another straw man to add to the pile. You guys are really impressive.

Quite apart from anything what makes anyone believe I think the English system is something that doesn't need work, and is doing as well as it should be? Anyone? Where have I said this? We're not arguing: is the English system ****, we're saying is the US system a good system. Get it? No genuinely because I really am having a hard time understanding the logic here? I get what makes good argument, none of you seem to have even grasped the concepts here let alone the real world issues.

Then I say the US systems poor performance has nothing to do with smokers, obese people, etc England has the same problems. Then I get someone comparing a system that is doing worse than the US, as if that makes a point, quite apart from the fact they seem to be trying to say two underperforming systems make a valid point. Why not compare it to Austrias system, heralded as the best in the world? Then you might have a point.

Now I've got R&D costs? Which unless they are financed by the health care sector don't make up the 50% GDP that bureaucracy costs the US system. Even if it had any application UK government funds research in physics to the tune of billions too for medical applications, so the **** what?

Has anyone made a point that has anything to do with anything yet? Or can I just expect people setting up and victoriously winning straw man issues until I get bored.

And yes you are not very brave, well done. But anyone who can stand by there arguments has at least developed a pair of balls even if they haven't dropped yet. You don't have to worry I don't neg people who disagree with me, just people who don't sign or message it.

1000+ is statistically relevant. Given we're not talking about 300 million people are we, how dumb is that? We're talking about Democrats and Republicans and other above the voting age, who presumably actually vote too, ie members of the parties etc and not convicted felons, illegal immigrants, mentally unstable. And the only point I made was that it was an election issue ok. Please stop taking the ball and then setting up straw men. The reason they ask those questions is because Canada and France are doing better but the UK is not, it's to see if people are aware of how well they are really doing I presume, there I'll answer another one of your straw men.

And Drunk the last nail in the coffin of straw men is that I gave a time frame when the US will become nationalised, brilliant (I said it will, learn English please). No strike that you didn't do it once, but you compounded the error by saying it again as if somehow it made more sense than the first time you said it. Brilliant.

[JMonkey]

(Original post by amjw)

I think I will end my input here, I am sure Drunkhamster and jacketpotato have owned you far harder than I have.

gg.

Consider yourself owned then by me for failing to tackle issues that have anything to do with anything.

[JMonkey]

Great another unsigned rep, just remember as ye sow.

Oh and I reported you for the insult too, so I presume you'll get warned for that or somit, no idea how it works. I wouldn't of done if you had signed it, because then I'd have half an ounce of respect for you if not your argument. Which doesn't exist obviously. Rude and cowardly, great.

[UniOfLife]

OK everyone please calm down. Stop flaming and baiting. If you cannot debate civilly then don't post at all.