Obamacare

[Necrosis]

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.

[Skip8282]

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.

[lovemonkey]

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.

[aesthetics]

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

[howardroark]

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."

[Necrosis]

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.

[howardroark]

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.

[bears]

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.

[howardroark]

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.

[Necrosis]

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

[GigantorX]

no

Now that is a well thought out and reasoned response!

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Skip8282]

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.

[Skip8282]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[howardroark]

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.

[buffdnet]

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

[Dos Equis]

you do realize that your health care is shit right?

No it isn't. 

[Necrosis]

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.

[Necrosis]

\
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.

[howardroark]

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 (Hint: Look at the only statistic measuring health care quality.)

[Necrosis]

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 (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?

[howardroark]

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?

[howardroark]

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?

[Necrosis]

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.