Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Necrosis on December 03, 2011, 10:16:48 AM
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/
pretty good policy in my opinion, this specifically.
-
Uh-oh
-
Well let the Supreme Court decide...I'm guessing no. If yes, the socialism is officially here.
-
Less Overhead Spending = More Fraud
This is gonna get interesting.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/
pretty good policy in my opinion, this specifically.
i agree that's not bad but it doesn't make up for the giant steaming pile of shit that the healthcare reform actually is.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/
pretty good policy in my opinion, this specifically.
LMFAO!!!!
Are you kidding?
-
I dont really know how to feel about this.
The idea sounds good in concept, I just dont want to see the government drive insurance companies out of the business, but at the same time, I really want to make sure the money I spend on health insurance goes to my coverage, not into their expenditure.
Im not really informed enough to know how this is going to affect shit, but going by previous history, I have the gut feeling this is not the great, glorious thing that writer made it out to be.......
-
Choking on Obamacare
By George F. Will, Published: December 2
LOS ANGELES
In 1941, Carl Karcher was a 24-year-old truck driver for a bakery. Impressed by the large numbers of buns he was delivering, he scrounged up $326 to buy a hot dog cart across from a Goodyear plant. And the war came.
So did millions of defense industry workers and their cars. And, soon, Southern California’s contribution to American cuisine — fast food. Including, eventually, hundreds of Carl’s Jr. restaurants. Karcher died in 2008, but his legacy, CKE Restaurants, survives. It would thrive, says CEO Andy Puzder, but for government’s comprehensive campaign against job creation.
CKE, with more than 3,200 restaurants (Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s), has created 70,000 jobs, 21,000 directly and 49,000 with franchisees. The growth of those numbers will be inhibited by — among many government measures — Obamacare.
When CKE’s health-care advisers, citing Obamacare’s complexities, opacities and uncertainties, said that it would add between $7.3 million and $35.1 million to the company’s $12 million health-care costs in 2010, Puzder said: I need a number I can plan with. They guessed $18 million — twice what CKE spent last year building new restaurants. Obamacare must mean fewer restaurants.
And therefore fewer jobs. Each restaurant creates, on average, 25 jobs — and as much as 3.5 times that number of jobs in the community. (CKE spends about $1 billion a year on food and paper products, $175 million on advertising, $33 million on maintenance, etc.)
Puzder laughs about the liberal theory that businesses are not investing because they want to “punish Obama.” Rising health-care costs are, he says, just one uncertainty inhibiting expansion. Others are government policies raising fuel costs, which infect everything from air conditioning to the cost (including deliveries) of supplies, and the threat that the National Labor Relations Board will use regulations to impose something like “card check” in place of secret-ballot unionization elections.
CKE has about 720 California restaurants, in which 84 percent of the managers are minorities and 67 percent are women. CKE has, however, all but stopped building restaurants in this state because approvals and permits for establishing them can take up to two years, compared to as little as six weeks in Texas, and the cost to build one is $100,000 more than in Texas, where CKE is planning to open 300 new restaurants this decade.
CKE restaurants have 95 percent employee turnover in a year — not bad in this industry — and the health-care benefits under CKE’s current “mini-med” plans are capped in a way that makes them illegal under Obamacare. So CKE will have to convert many full-time employees to part-timers to limit the growth of its burdens under Obamacare.
In an economic climate of increasing uncertainties, Puzder says, one certainty is that many businesses now marginally profitable will disappear when Obamacare causes that margin to disappear. A second certainty is that “employers everywhere will be looking to reduce labor content in their business models as Obamacare makes employees unambiguously more expensive.”
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, by 2008 the cost of federal regulations had reached $1.75 trillion. That was 14 percent of national income unavailable for job-creating investments. And that was more than 11,000 regulations ago.
Seventy years ago, the local health department complained that Karcher’s hot dog cart had no restroom facilities. He got help from a nearby gas station. A state agency made him pay $15 for workers’ compensation insurance. Another agency said that he owed more than the $326 cost of the cart in back sales taxes. For $100, a lawyer successfully argued that Karcher did not because his customers ate their hot dogs off the premises.
Time was, American businesses could surmount such regulatory officiousness. But government’s metabolic urge to boss people around has grown exponentially and today CKE’s California restaurants are governed by 57 categories of regulations. One compels employees and even managers to take breaks during the busiest hours, lest one of California’s 200,000 lawyers comes trolling for business at the expense of business.
Barack Obama has written that during his very brief sojourn in the private sector he felt like “a spy behind enemy lines.” Puzder knows what it feels like when gargantuan government is composed of multitudes of regulators who regard business as the enemy. And 22.9 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed or too discouraged to look for employment know what it feels like to be collateral damage in the regulatory state’s war on business.
georgewill@washpost.com
Next!
-
lol....even on a saturday the pieces will still fall into place on this forum
-
Yes...that same model works well in other socialist countries..hahahahahahah a!
-
Yes...that same model works well in other socialist countries..hahahahahahah a!
Yes Soviet Union in the past and present day Cuba are glorious shining examples. The leaders got the same healthcare as the average citizen, everything was awesome.
-
OBAMACARENA
-
Yes...that same model works well in other socialist countries..hahahahahahah a!
you do realize that your health care is shit right? that it will collapse if something isn't done. The us spends the most on healthcare and gets shit out of it. If insurers are required to use 80% of your money on your health and allowed to use the other for profit then both parties win, however, the insurance companies are using somewhere in the range of 60% of the money for profits etc.. what sense does that make?
its a good idea, lets see how it works out.
-
you do realize that your health care is shit right? that it will collapse if something isn't done. The us spends the most on healthcare and gets shit out of it. If insurers are required to use 80% of your money on your health and allowed to use the other for profit then both parties win, however, the insurance companies are using somewhere in the range of 60% of the money for profits etc.. what sense does that make?
its a good idea, lets see how it works out.
And what does obamacare do to fix that? N O T H I N G
-
And what does obamacare do to fix that? N O T H I N G
this is one policy that should have a hugely beneficial effect on the people requiring healthcare. The system is so fucked its probably going to take a major overhaul and focus on people education and prevention as you have to many fat fucks in america.
-
this is one policy that should have a hugely beneficial effect on the people requiring healthcare. The system is so fucked its probably going to take a major overhaul and focus on people education and prevention as you have to many fat fucks in america.
sorry douchebag - we spent 1 1/2 on that pofs called obamacare and it only makes matters worse - go take it up with pelosi and obama.
-
Choking on Obamacare
By George F. Will, Published: December 2
LOS ANGELES
In 1941, Carl Karcher was a 24-year-old truck driver for a bakery. Impressed by the large numbers of buns he was delivering, he scrounged up $326 to buy a hot dog cart across from a Goodyear plant. And the war came.
So did millions of defense industry workers and their cars. And, soon, Southern California’s contribution to American cuisine — fast food. Including, eventually, hundreds of Carl’s Jr. restaurants. Karcher died in 2008, but his legacy, CKE Restaurants, survives. It would thrive, says CEO Andy Puzder, but for government’s comprehensive campaign against job creation.
CKE, with more than 3,200 restaurants (Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s), has created 70,000 jobs, 21,000 directly and 49,000 with franchisees. The growth of those numbers will be inhibited by — among many government measures — Obamacare.
When CKE’s health-care advisers, citing Obamacare’s complexities, opacities and uncertainties, said that it would add between $7.3 million and $35.1 million to the company’s $12 million Medicare Supplement Plans (http://www.nationalmedicaresupplements.com/) health-care costs in 2010, Puzder said: I need a number I can plan with. They guessed $18 million — twice what CKE spent last year building new restaurants. Obamacare must mean fewer restaurants.
And therefore fewer jobs. Each restaurant creates, on average, 25 jobs — and as much as 3.5 times that number of jobs in the community. (CKE spends about $1 billion a year on food and paper products, $175 million on advertising, $33 million on maintenance, etc.)
Puzder laughs about the liberal theory that businesses are not investing because they want to “punish Obama.” Rising health-care costs are, he says, just one uncertainty inhibiting expansion. Medicare Supplemental Insurance (http://www.medicaresupplemental.net./) Others are government policies raising fuel costs, which infect everything from air conditioning to the cost (including deliveries) of supplies, and the threat that the National Labor Relations Board will use regulations to impose something like “card check” in place of secret-ballot unionization elections.
CKE has about 720 California restaurants, in which 84 percent of the managers are minorities and 67 percent are women. CKE has, however, all but stopped building restaurants in this American Seniors Insurance (http://www.americanseniors.com/) state because approvals and permits for establishing them can take up to two years, compared to as little as six weeks in Texas, and the cost to build one is $100,000 more than in Texas, where CKE is planning to open 300 new restaurants this decade.
CKE restaurants have 95 percent employee turnover in a year — not bad in this industry — and the health-care benefits under CKE’s current “mini-med” plans are capped in a way that makes them illegal under Obamacare. So CKE will have to convert many full-time employees to part-timers to limit the growth of its burdens under Obamacare.
In an economic climate of increasing uncertainties, Puzder says, one certainty is that many businesses now marginally profitable will disappear when Obamacare causes that margin to disappear. A second certainty is that “employers everywhere will be looking to reduce labor content in their business Medicare Supplement (http://www.medicaresupplementnews.com/) models as Obamacare makes employees unambiguously more expensive.”
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, by 2008 the cost of federal regulations had reached $1.75 trillion. That was 14 percent of national income unavailable for job-creating investments. And that was more than 11,000 regulations ago.
Seventy years ago, the local health department complained that Karcher’s hot dog cart had no restroom facilities. He got help from a nearby gas station. A state agency made him pay $15 for workers’ compensation insurance. Another agency said that he owed more than the $326 cost of the cart in back sales taxes. For $100, a lawyer successfully argued that Karcher did not because his customers ate their hot dogs off the premises.
Time was, American businesses could surmount such regulatory officiousness. But government’s metabolic urge to boss people around has grown exponentially and today CKE’s California restaurants Medicare Supplements Insurance (http://www.americanseniors.com/) are governed by 57 categories of regulations. One compels employees and even managers to take breaks during the busiest hours, lest one of California’s 200,000 lawyers comes trolling for business at the expense of business.
Barack Obama has written that during his very brief sojourn in the private sector he felt like “a spy behind enemy lines.” Puzder knows what it feels like when gargantuan government is composed of multitudes Medicare Supplements (http://www.nationalmedicaresupplements.com/) of regulators who regard business as the enemy. And 22.9 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed or too discouraged to look for employment know what it feels like to be collateral damage in the regulatory state’s war on business.
George is correct.
The S.C will find Obamacare Unconstitutional
-
And what does obamacare do to fix that? N O T H I N G
correct. in fact it makes it worse and increases medical costs for the average person. obamacare is just a massive subsidy to big pharma, the ones who filled obamas coffers with millions of dollars during his election campaign.
fuck obama, fuck obamacare, fuck insurance companies and fuck major pharmaceuticals that all use their political power to create a monopoly on healthcare in america in order to extort obscene profits from the wallets of the working class.
-
Yes...that same model works well in other socialist countries..hahahahahahah a!
what we have is no jewel and you have no answers, none.
be glad you don't have to rely on the va. anything, anything from obamacare
will only be a plus for me. i served my country and get no dental, no vision,
3 month waits to primary care. nearest va hospital is 100 miles away and
to top it all off, if you call the va clinic here for the mental health department,
YOU GET AN ANSWERING MACHINE.
just remember, when your insurance is used up and so is
all of your glorious money, your death panel awaits same as for us all
regardless of race color or creed
-
speaking of healthcare and the economy,
the quickest way to tank the entire global economy IS
cure cancer.
which is why they won't ever as long as we have live in monetary system
based on debt. or aids or even the common cold. look how much worthless
shit would have to be removed from store shelves and those sales lost.
hmmm?
-
what we have is no jewel and you have no answers, none.
be glad you don't have to rely on the va. anything, anything from obamacare
will only be a plus for me. i served my country and get no dental, no vision,
3 month waits to primary care. nearest va hospital is 100 miles away and
to top it all off, if you call the va clinic here for the mental health department,
YOU GET AN ANSWERING MACHINE.
just remember, when your insurance is used up and so is
all of your glorious money, your death panel awaits same as for us all
regardless of race color or creed
The VA is the perfect example of why we don't need Obamacare. Everyone in the country would be facing VA-like situations. My ex-father in law was being under the care of the VA. What happen? He had diabetes and instead of trying to control it to save his limbs, the had 3 amputations and died.
Hawaii is socialized and broke because of a similar health care systems as well as Massachusetts. It doesn't work, never has never will. Every time a Dem gets in they try rehash the same ole shit.
-
Yes...that same model works well in other socialist countries..hahahahahahah a!
So how do you propose the US changes its healthcare system to make it better? Because right now it's an atrocity. Anyone defending it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
A large majority of socialized countries take waaaay better care of their citizens than the US. The infant mortality rate should give you a clue among other things. Why are you so against this kind of healthcare? It has been proven to work over and over again.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/mort-o18.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/mort-o18.shtml)
"A report issued Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) documents how the infant mortality rate in the United States is growing in relation to other countries. The study, "Recent Trends in Infant Mortality in the United States," found that at least 28 other countries now have lower death rates for infants in the first year of life.
The US's relative position has declined steadily. In 1960, it had the 12th lowest infant mortality rate, but by 1990 had dropped to 23rd place, and by 2004—the latest year of the CDC's comparative world figures on living standards—the US ranked 29th. The most recent study, published in July and titled "The Measure of America," estimated that the US is now in 34th place."
How can you possibly defend this kind of system?
-
The VA is the perfect example of why we don't need Obamacare. Everyone in the country would be facing VA-like situations. My ex-father in law was being under the care of the VA. What happen? He had diabetes and instead of trying to control it to save his limbs, the had 3 amputations and died.
Hawaii is socialized and broke because of a similar health care systems as well as Massachusetts. It doesn't work, never has never will. Every time a Dem gets in they try rehash the same ole shit.
Well obviously everytime socialized healthcare has been implemented it didn't work because of evil corporations bro.
-
Well obviously everytime socialized healthcare has been implemented it didn't work because of evil corporations bro.
lol......your're kidding right?
-
coach i don't see how you can tell the two parties apart.
i suggest looking past the blame because no matter the party
the game is the same and is has not and will not change under
any form of monetary system based on debt. it is impossible.
not meaning anything negative to the deceased but LIFE and
the va requires a person to stand their ground and put their foot down
to get whatever it is "you" feel "you" need. you cannot be a sheep
and expect much except they will let you die.
for what you do for a living you understand sheep and those that will
stand up for themselves and fight. this life is not about voting or depending
on a government to ever do what is in the best interest of you nor I.
and we my friend are on complete opposite ends of the financial and health spectrum.
I have life threatening health issues and i am sure not about to bullshit about
anything related to health care or the government. nor am i swayed by political bro
science.
i have documented on my blog my escapades with the va. it's sickening.
the only thing that sickens me more is the kids that are in the service getting fucked up
thinking their service has anything to do with serving god or country.
that is what all gov people tell them and it is a lie.
most of the young bastards were like me when i went in.
i just wanted a job. :'( :-\
in 1975 unemployment in ca was 8.5%. i just wanted a job.
i woulda passed on the optional liver disease. honest i woulda had i known
-
speaking of healthcare and the economy,
the quickest way to tank the entire global economy IS
cure cancer.
which is why they won't ever as long as we have live in monetary system
based on debt. or aids or even the common cold. look how much worthless
shit would have to be removed from store shelves and those sales lost.
hmmm?
i can tell you are a quaky mother fucker. there is cures for cancer, cancer isnt one disease it is a aggregate with different treatment methods, some are curable and some cannot be cured, there goes your theory.
they just tested a vaccine in rats for HIV that was 100% effective, they are moving to human trials. Curing illness saves the government tremendous amounts of money and a cure for a disease with none is the holy grail of research, if everyone who had cancer had to take a pill from company x then company x would have the most money in the world, not the other way around.
-
you do realize that your health care is shit right? that it will collapse if something isn't done. The us spends the most on healthcare and gets shit out of it. If insurers are required to use 80% of your money on your health and allowed to use the other for profit then both parties win, however, the insurance companies are using somewhere in the range of 60% of the money for profits etc.. what sense does that make?
its a good idea, lets see how it works out.
First, we have the best healthcare system in the world, but we need to seriously address some problems with it such as access and inflation. That shithole country you live in, which has never contributed jackshit to the world, is nothing more than a bunch of wannabes sucking at our tit.
Second, before you and the douchebag at Forbes jerk each other off, you better check the sheer number of exemptions that Obama's HHS has dished out on this - might just open your eyes as to how much is going to change right now. If anything, this won't even be measurable for a couple years plus.
-
First, we have the best healthcare system in the world, but we need to seriously address some problems with it such as access and inflation. That shithole country you live in, which has never contributed jackshit to the world, is nothing more than a bunch of wannabes sucking at our tit.
Second, before you and the douchebag at Forbes jerk each other off, you better check the sheer number of exemptions that Obama's HHS has dished out on this - might just open your eyes as to how much is going to change right now. If anything, this won't even be measurable for a couple years plus.
50+ million uninsured and an embarrassingly high infant mortality rate does not sound like the best healthcare in the world to me.
-
First, we have the best healthcare system in the world
this isn't even true using ANY metric, any at all. healthcare, i'm not talking insurance, is higher quality and actually costs less (again the cost of the healthcare treatment not the insurance cost) in europe. the experimental treatments, while irrelevant to any of us since our insurance plans are generally substandard and won't cover it, are equivalent or better in europe as well. why do you think people travel there to get procedures done?
if you include plastic surgery within the healthcare field then maybe usa is #1, lol
-
In terms of actual health care performance the USA is #1 according to the WHO... the reason it gets ranked lower are because of other measures including health care "equity."
-
First, we have the best healthcare system in the world, but we need to seriously address some problems with it such as access and inflation. That shithole country you live in, which has never contributed jackshit to the world, is nothing more than a bunch of wannabes sucking at our tit.
Second, before you and the douchebag at Forbes jerk each other off, you better check the sheer number of exemptions that Obama's HHS has dished out on this - might just open your eyes as to how much is going to change right now. If anything, this won't even be measurable for a couple years plus.
u have the best healthcare? i would agree u have the most advanced healthcare, but for chronic long term illnesses your healthcare system sucks ass.
-
u have the best healthcare? i would agree u have the most advanced healthcare, but for chronic long term illnesses your healthcare system sucks ass.
For chronic long term illnesses? You're full of shit dude. I've had relatives die in Europe because they couldn't get access to the basic medical care that's easily available in the States.
-
on the face of it this seems like a good policy. my only question is what rules and restrictions are the government health care providers held to? why is there no mention of it? must they provide 80% of the contributions in the form of actual medical care? or is this a restriction on only the for profits? if so, this is a perfect example of class warfare. on the other hand if they hold ALL health care providers, for profit or government funded, to these rules and restrictions I see it as a step in the right direction.
-
Going back to the OP, as I mentioned earlier in this thread on pg. 1, what this provision will increase health insurance fraud. That's the main purpose of the "administrative costs" which Obama attacks: they are costs health insurance companies take in order to detect fraud.
People often say something along the lines of "look at Medicare, they don't have any administrative costs!" Sure, that's true, but estimated fraud in Medicare exceeds $50bn/year. Now imagine what would happen if we took that model and applied it to the entire population. The costs of fraud on health insurance would skyrocket, possibly driving health insurance companies out of business.
-
For chronic long term illnesses? You're full of shit dude. I've had relatives die in Europe because they couldn't get access to the basic medical care that's easily available in the States.
no
-
no
Now that is a well thought out and reasoned response!
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/
pretty good policy in my opinion, this specifically.
You are a fucking moron. Dispute this jerkoff.
-
u have the best healthcare? i would agree u have the most advanced healthcare, but for chronic long term illnesses your healthcare system sucks ass.
Yes we do. Of course we have issues and need to make significant improvements, but we are hands-down the best in the world.
-
50+ million uninsured and an embarrassingly high infant mortality rate does not sound like the best healthcare in the world to me.
Yes, I mentioned we need to improve access (just work on that reading comprehension a little more)
As to infant mortality, we can always improve, but I doubt you're even familiar with the stats. We've gone over this a lot on this board but a quick tip is that even the OECD cautions about making comparative analsyes with the numbers. Self-reporting, varying methodologies, and the like make these comparisons meaningless. Should we be improving within our own stats? Of course.
-
Now that is a well thought out and reasoned response!
lol i was smoking and i typed out this long response and about halfway through i thought i honestly couldnt give a fuck, i had a complete absence of fuck and deleted it and just came back with that devastator.
-
lol i was smoking and i typed out this long response and about halfway through i thought i honestly couldnt give a fuck, i had a complete absence of fuck and deleted it and just came back with that devastator.
I know how you feel, that exact situation has happened to me more than once. Unfortunately, your long response was 100% bullshit, so it was totally a wasted effort on your part.
-
i can tell you are a quaky mother fucker. there is cures for cancer, cancer isnt one disease it is a aggregate with different treatment methods, some are curable and some cannot be cured, there goes your theory.
they just tested a vaccine in rats for HIV that was 100% effective, they are moving to human trials. Curing illness saves the government tremendous amounts of money and a cure for a disease with none is the holy grail of research, if everyone who had cancer had to take a pill from company x then company x would have the most money in the world, not the other way around.
\
true cancer isn't one disease as there are different named cancers that react on certain areas of our bodies. we know this. cure cancer all of them are out of the job. their hospitals and labs will set empty, anyone involved in surgery involving cancer patients, poof they are out work too. a scientist view that if there is testable falsifiable evidence then one cannot say cancer can not be cured. it's just not known/cured yet. it's much more beneficial for companies to promote products we want knowing full well they will cause health problems
for which they will make money finding the cure. booze ciggarrettes processed food all cause health problems that will keep the big cheeses in business curing our health problems but with no intention of really ever eradicating all of the problems possible. and nearly all can be cured/limited or at least be treatable and with drugs that a human can take with only mild discomfort. the shit i'm gonna be taking our cancer drugs for my non cancer problem.
thrills me and the successs rate for genotyp1 is 40% if ya dont kill yourself in the interim.
won't work in a market system based on more products more production and as a plus more polution that they will have the fix to sell to take care of that to
my main point is diseases create jobs. curing them kills jobs
-
you do realize that your health care is shit right?
No it isn't.
-
I know how you feel, that exact situation has happened to me more than once. Unfortunately, your long response was 100% bullshit, so it was totally a wasted effort on your part.
lol at you guys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
why dont you learn a little bit huh?
show me how you guys are in such a great situation, you have people being bankrupted from the medical system, you country spends more per capita then any other nation yet ranks mediocre to shit in measures of health and population fitness. Just fucking read something insted of spouting non-sense like this anus below you talking about cancer when it is clear he doesn't even know what an oncologist does.
-
\
true cancer isn't one disease as there are different named cancers that react on certain areas of our bodies. we know this. cure cancer all of them are out of the job. their hospitals and labs will set empty, anyone involved in surgery involving cancer patients, poof they are out work too. a scientist view that if there is testable falsifiable evidence then one cannot say cancer can not be cured. it's just not known/cured yet. it's much more beneficial for companies to promote products we want knowing full well they will cause health problems
for which they will make money finding the cure. booze ciggarrettes processed food all cause health problems that will keep the big cheeses in business curing our health problems but with no intention of really ever eradicating all of the problems possible. and nearly all can be cured/limited or at least be treatable and with drugs that a human can take with only mild discomfort. the shit i'm gonna be taking our cancer drugs for my non cancer problem.
thrills me and the successs rate for genotyp1 is 40% if ya dont kill yourself in the interim.
won't work in a market system based on more products more production and as a plus more polution that they will have the fix to sell to take care of that to
my main point is diseases create jobs. curing them kills jobs
yes because 1 in 3 people will get cancer but fortunate for the researchers none of them are related to these people right? i mean we cured polio, almost completely reduced infectious illness to a negligible problem (at least bacterial, fungal and protazoal),improved remission rates for almost all chronic conditions etc...
cancer is not one disease and its not simply a issue of where the cancer is located, for example an estrogen positive breast cancer(her2) would respond to tamoxifen where as prostate cancer would be worsened by this because reducing estrogen increases testosterone because males produce estrogen from testosterone via aromatase located mainly in the adipocytes.
there are cancers that secrete hormones like bronchogenic carcinoma and secrete improper amounts of ADH or arginine vasopressin which requires a totally different treatment.
you cant just cure cancer and all will be gone, in fact they have pretty much cured numerous cancers, but it depends on staging and the amount of metastasis and things like angiogenesis etc...
your view on cancer is simple and uneducated cancer is an evolving illness that has numerous forms hence it is exceptionally difficult to cure and perhaps some can not even be cured as the body is simply genetically programmed to develop and perpetuate cancer.
perhaps the topic is so complex that they are having a hard time finding a solution, they actually lose more money then they make by not curing cancer, just look at the statistics and what cancer does to the healthcare system along with removing that person from the population and workforce plus the cost of assistance they would need.
-
Funny that you should tell me to read about this topic... Did you know that the United States has the highest quality health care in the world according to the WHO? http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html (http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html) (Hint: Look at the only statistic measuring health care quality.)
-
Funny that you should tell me to read about this topic... Did you know that the United States has the highest quality health care in the world according to the WHO? http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html (http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html) (Hint: Look at the only statistic measuring health care quality.)
how did you decipher it has the highest quality of healthcare in the world from this chart? the US scored 1 in two categories, what where they again?
did you even look at your link?
-
how did you decipher it has the highest quality of healthcare in the world from this chart? the US scored 1 in two categories, what where they again?
did you even look at your link?
Tell me, what does each category mean?
-
I'll save you the research and tell you:
"Health Level (DALE)" is the disability adjusted life expectancy. It's not a very good measure of health care system performance, since it does not take into account genetics, diet, exercise, and other variables which effect life expectancy.
"Responsiveness Level" measures the actual health care system quality: things like speed of service and quality of amenities.
"Distribution" in both "Health" and "Responsiveness" measures inequality in disability-adjusted life expectancy (DALE) and in responsiveness. It is not a measure of health care quality.
"Financial Fairness" measures inequality in how much households spend on health care as a percent of their income.
"Health Expenditure Per Capita" - well it's obvious what that measures.
As it turns out, the US scores first in both "Responsiveness Level" and "Health Expenditure Per Capita" - which means that we have the best health care system in the world, but also the most expensive one. In other words, we get what we pay for. However, we suffer due to lack of "equality," which basically means that a country where everyone gets equally shitty health care can score the same or higher than we do.
Interesting, hmm?
-
I'll save you the research and tell you:
"Health Level (DALE)" is the disability adjusted life expectancy. It's not a very good measure of health care system performance, since it does not take into account genetics, diet, exercise, and other variables which effect life expectancy.
"Responsiveness Level" measures the actual health care system quality: things like speed of service and quality of amenities.
"Distribution" in both "Health" and "Responsiveness" measures inequality in disability-adjusted life expectancy (DALE) and in responsiveness. It is not a measure of health care quality.
"Financial Fairness" measures inequality in how much households spend on health care as a percent of their income.
"Health Expenditure Per Capita" - well it's obvious what that measures.
As it turns out, the US scores first in both "Responsiveness Level" and "Health Expenditure Per Capita" - which means that we have the best health care system in the world, but also the most expensive one. In other words, we get what we pay for. However, we suffer due to lack of "equality," which basically means that a country where everyone gets equally shitty health care can score the same or higher than we do.
Interesting, hmm?
quote your source if you wouldn't mind
oh god, first you left out a couple categories, you also seemed to have left out overall goal attainment which ranks the us 15.
also, this isn't the be all end all, just look at the wiki article it has numerous issues that aren't presented here. Like the level of spending and number of people unable to afford health care, infant mortality etc...
we are talking about the health care system were we not. Not the actual treatments, like ive said a million times the US has the best health care in the world but the system is shit.
-
a newer better measure
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
usa ranks 37
-
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_dis_dea-health-heart-disease-deaths
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate
just not good
-
With Obamacare, USA will be dead last in health care.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
2011 medication shortages set new record at 267
Associated Press ^ | January 3, 6:27 PM EST | By LINDA A. JOHNSON
Posted on January 3, 2012 8:30:25 PM EST by bd476
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- The number of new prescription drug shortages in 2011 shot up to 267, well above the prior record and about four times the number of medication shortages in the middle of the last decade.
Figures just released by the University of Utah Drug Information Service, which tracks national drug shortages, show there were 56 more newly reported drug shortages in the U.S. last year than in 2010, when there were 211. By contrast, there were only 58 drug shortages reported in 2004.
As the drug shortages worsen, so does their impact on patient care, particularly in hospitals. The inability to get crucial medicines has disrupted chemotherapy, surgery and care for patients with infections and pain. At least 15 deaths since 2010 have been blamed on the shortages, which have set a record high in each of the last five years.
"At the beginning of the year, we were on a pace of about a shortage every day," Erin R. Fox, manager of the service, told The Associated Press. "Luckily, that pace has definitely diminished."
< Snip >
Besides disrupting patient care, the shortages have delayed clinical trials comparing experimental drugs to older ones and have led to unprecedented price gouging, with hospitals sometimes having to pay outrageous markups for scarce drugs.
End of short excerpt. The rest of the article continues here: 2011 medication shortages set new record at 267
-
Lawyers, courts see weaknesses in defense of Obama’s healthcare law
By Sam Baker - 01/05/12 12:59 PM ET
The Obama administration is headed into a Supreme Court case over healthcare reform without a clear answer to significant questions about Congress’s power.
The Justice Department will file its first brief on the merits of the case Friday — the beginning of a long process that will almost surely culminate in a ruling this summer. The first briefs will focus on the core question of whether it is constitutional to make almost every American buy health insurance.
The Obama administration has a winning record on that point in federal appeals courts. But even in the cases it has won, the administration has failed to answer a key question: If Congress has the power to enforce the insurance mandate, where does that power stop?
It’s known in legal jargon as a “limiting principle.” When courts evaluate a new application of Congress’s constitutional authority, they have historically wanted to see clear limits to those powers.
“The DOJ has to do a better job of answering, ‘What goes beyond your theory of federal power?' " said Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute who opposes the insurance mandate. “They’ve been asked this in every court and they’ve never satisfied the court, even in the cases they’ve won.”
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — the specific case now before the Supreme Court — struck down the insurance mandate partially on the grounds that upholding it would open the door to a flood of regulation.
“Ultimately, the government’s struggle to articulate … limiting principles only reiterates the conclusion we reach today: There are none,” the court said in its ruling.
The mandate is, in a literal sense, unprecedented: Congress has never before required citizens to buy something from a private company solely on the basis of being citizens. The question is whether Congress is exerting a new power not authorized by the Constitution, or using its authority under the Commerce Clause in a new way, consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
Several lower courts have said the mandate falls within the bounds of the Commerce Clause, but even they have been wary about the Justice Department’s inability to clearly define a limit on Congress’s power.
The U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the mandate, said it was “troubling, but not fatal” that the Justice Department had not identified a limit to Congress’s power.
“We acknowledge some discomfort with the government’s failure to advance any clear doctrinal principles limiting congressional mandates that any American purchase any product or service in interstate commerce,” the court’s opinion said.
Tim Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor who supports the healthcare law and the mandate, also said the lack of a clear limiting principle is the government’s biggest weakness heading into the Supreme Court.
The problem is “not insurmountable,” Jost said, but gained new importance when a lower-court judge asked whether Congress could also make citizens buy broccoli, since a healthier population would do more to cut health costs than universal insurance coverage.
In lower courts, the Justice Department has worked around the issue of a limiting principle by arguing that healthcare is a unique market. Because hospitals are legally required to treat people who can’t pay, the system is inevitably stuck with unpaid bills. Those costs are then passed on to insured people and the government.
A decision upholding the insurance mandate wouldn’t open the door to other mandates because no other products involve the same kind of cost-shifting, the Justice Department says. The D.C. Circuit court accepted that rationale, but the 11th Circuit said the logic would simply put the courts in charge of determining whether future mandates are close enough to the insurance requirement.
Shapiro said the position is a policy argument, not a legal one.
“Everything is unique in some way,” he said. “A rutabaga is not a car.”
Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/202573-lawyers-courts-see-weaknesses-in-defense-of-obamas-healthcare-law
-
HHS finalizes over 1,200 waivers under healthcare reform law
The Hill ^ | Sam Baker
Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department said Friday.
Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP.
Republicans say the need for waivers proves that the healthcare law is unworkable. HHS argues that the waivers show the law provides flexibility.
All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps. The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
-
Labor unions primary recipients of Obamacare waivers
9:18 PM 01/06/2012
ADVERTISEMENT
Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened application rules last summer.
Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.
By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.
The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.
The labor unions receiving waivers include those that are monitored under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, and those that are not. The waivers granted since June 17 are valid until 2013, but recipients must make sure their employees understand the “limits of their coverage,” according to HHS documents.
HHS granted waivers on a year-by-year basis under its initial application process, but waivers granted after June 17 are valid for a maximum of two-and-a-half years. (RELATED: Full coverage of the health care law)
By and large, unions backed the health care overhaul, a law from which nearly a half million of their workers are now exempt.
Follow Paul on Twitter
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Labor unions primary recipients of Obamacare waivers
dailycaller.com ^ | 01/06/2012 | By Paul Conner
Posted on January 7, 2012 8:08:06 AM EST by rawhide
Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened application rules last summer.
Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.
By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.
The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
are you metally stable? what do you do for a living because it appears all you do is post propaganda at a staggering pace.
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple.
The government should not be able to mandate that people HAVE to purchase something in a free market. People should have the right to choose, and they should NOT be punished for choosing to go a different route (see premium insurance tax)
The idea of HC for everyone is nice in theory, but Obamacare isnt it. Its beyond flawed - and more importantly, its against the founding ideals of our republic and it should GTFO.
-
are you metally stable? what do you do for a living because it appears all you do is post propaganda at a staggering pace.
Propaganda? Like what? ThugbamaCare is a disgrace.
-
Propaganda? Like what? ThugbamaCare is a disgrace.
you post article after article from republican sites and never really add your piece, when proven wrong you just post more articles.
socialized medicine is perhaps a better system as i think issues like hypertension etc could be treated easily which in turn reduces cardiovascular events and saves everyone money. You need a system based on prevention and universal coverage.
if people want to pay for a doctor and emergency room visits then fine, but based on the data and other systems thats probably not the best remedy.