Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because prominent members of the Obama administration continue to tout British health care as an example for America to emulate, it’s necessary to highlight the endless array of issues connected to Britain’s National Health Service.
In the most recent example, a major British health care official admitted in an upcoming documentary that premature babies born at 23 weeks gestation or earlier should be left to die because of cost concerns.
According to Britain’s Daily Mail, the National Health Service spends more than $16 million on treating premature babies, many of whom die or survive with birth defects. NHS guidelines indicate that babies born under 22 weeks should not be resuscitated, but those born between 22 and 25 weeks receive intensive care.
British Health Care Official Advocates Letting Premature Babies Die (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/6608-british-hc-official-advocates-letting-premature-babies-die - broken link)
Who, exactly, in the Obama administration continue to tout British health care as an example for America to emulate? The system often cited is Canada, which is universal insurance with private care.
It is customary to quote text you take from news articles. Your source is questionable. It relies upon an opinion piece in the Weekly standard and a dead link as source. This article from the BBC is a more reasoned source.
Who, exactly, in the Obama administration continue to tout British health care as an example for America to emulate? The system often cited is Canada, which is universal insurance with private care.
It is customary to quote text you take from news articles. Your source is questionable. It relies upon an opinion piece in the Weekly standard and a dead link as source. This article from the BBC is a more reasoned source.
I may be wrong but isn't it illegal for canadians to purchase private insurance if they don't want the public plan??? I know the docs run their own private business and bill back to the state or province or however they do it when its broken down.
You lovers of government healthcare get our legislators to sign up for it and then I'll go along with it. Until then when they see that they don't have to participate and can get in their own little club it tells me something is wrong with it. Good enough for me then good enough for them. Not good enough for them them tells me...............
I may be wrong but isn't it illegal for canadians to purchase private insurance if they don't want the public plan??? I know the docs run their own private business and bill back to the state or province or however they do it when its broken down.
You lovers of government healthcare get our legislators to sign up for it and then I'll go along with it. Until then when they see that they don't have to participate and can get in their own little club it tells me something is wrong with it. Good enough for me then good enough for them. Not good enough for them them tells me...............
Then you agree with President Obama:
Quote:
Congressional lawmakers, embroiled in a debate over how to provide coverage to 46 million uninsured people in the country, paid less at the doctor's office under their own insurance than the national average in 2008 but also shelled out up to 13% more for premiums, the studies show.
Some proponents of overhauling health care, including President Obama, have suggested everyone should be entitled to the coverage members of Congress receive. At a news conference Tuesday, Obama said he wants people to be able to choose their insurance "the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do."
linky (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-23-congress-benefits_N.htm - broken link)
Also, and for the zillionth time, the Affordable Care Act does not run health care, it regulates insurance.
Everybody gets it. They also get the fact that it has to be paid for. about 70% of the uninsured can afford ins but they dont want it as they see it as a bad investment. For almost all 18-35 yr olds , it is.
yeah, barebones insurance that dosent cover anything but a doctors visit is very affordable, but whats the point? A broken arm costs 15.000$, do you think that crappy 50$ a month insurance is going to cover all 15,000$? NO!
I can assure you that if the US ever got some type of single payer system, Americans would never want to go back to our current system.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
I posted a survey. You made a claim about the numbers. GO PROVE YOUR CLAIM. As a result of the survey came to their conclusion about the wait times in Boston. If you can prove it's not so then do it. Ranting and raving only shows you are just throwing crap against the wall hoping it sticks like usual.
You posted tripe and are calling it steak. Your survey came to NO FACTUAL CONCLUSION, it surmised things not proven by anything factual. When YOU can prove that's not so, DO IT!
I've watched you in other threads allege someone said something they most certainly did not as well as start threads with deliberately misleading titles.
As long as you continue to do so I will call BS when it is so obviously BS. If you call referring to pure BS as pure BS ranting and raving that's your problem, not mine.
You posted tripe and are calling it steak. Your survey came to NO FACTUAL CONCLUSION, it surmised things not proven by anything factual. When YOU can prove that's not so, DO IT!
I've watched you in other threads allege someone said something they most certainly did not as well as start threads with deliberately misleading titles.
As long as you continue to do so I will call BS when it is so obviously BS. If you call referring to pure BS as pure BS ranting and raving that's your problem, not mine.
Like I said it's a friggen survey. The data they collected was used to come to THEIR conclusions. If you don't like the survey take it up with THEM. I just provide the info for you to rant about.
As for the misleading title in a different thread (which has no bearing here but you whine away anyhow) you were squealing about I suggest you go back over to that post that somebody dug up and read the thing again. It was not misleading at all unless you just are in the mood to howl like you always seem to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
