Conquer Club

Dancing Mustard wrote:Are you fucking looking at me?

I'm staring at your ass.

A huge mistake, I know.

My ass had your mum last night. In bed.


Also, America is way cool and that manifesto is shit.
Now stop insulting me. You fags.

Wow Mustard has really lost it!

Congratulations to SilvanRicky for surviving his third open-heart 'humour bypass' operation.

Dammit -- I had this thread confused with the "humanity's biggest mistake thread" -- so of course that joke was totally out of place

tzor wrote:The United States in terms of hospitals is like the beginning or War and Peace, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Clearly we have a few hospitals out there that are fantastic. They cure the impossible on a daily basis. Then there are hospitals that are generally good but if you have some types of cancer, going there as opposed to the fantastic ones is the difference between life and death. And there are those that are simply horrid.

True story. A friend of mine goes into a local hospital for a routine colon operation. Where there complications develop and he goes into ICU. Going out of ICU he is left overnight where due to a rare medical condition (a reverse hernia I was told) he throws up in his sleep and chokes to death on his own vommit. This is not the only horror story I've heard from the place.

First of all, sorry to hear about your friend. Your assessment is a pretty fair one. I myself would not want to be under the managed care of the government. However, the private sector needs to be more responsive to ways of making care available to the poor. Should they not, we will soon see a takeover of some sort and eventually a rationing of care according to a budget, and who's to say they didn't deserve it. For-profit may not be perfect but the alternative isn't any better. Nobody is disallowed access to health care as it is right now anyway.

silvanricky wrote:Wow Mustard has really lost it!

Indeed

bradleybadly wrote:So ridiculous that people from other countries come over here to have their operations done or get prescriptions which government-run systems sometimes deny their citizens because it's not "cost-effective".

Yes.

The point that you're missing is that just because america is one of the leaders in medical science doesn't mean it's healthcare is best for society as a whole. There is a reason that the USA is rated below a lot of european countries in health-rank, it's because a large amount of people over there just can't get fucking insurance.

Sure, the US is the place to go if you require very specialized care, but if you're just having everyday illnesses then you're better of living in another country.

Snorri1234 wrote:The fun thing is that at least it means acces to fucking healthcare!!! Sure, the systems have problems but at least people don't die all the fucking time or go bankrupt.

I'm not sure why you think people are just dying over here left and right but that's false. Access to health care means nothing if the quality is crap. Long waiting lists and denial of certain prescriptions are just some of the problems happening to people who live under these systems. Access means nothing unless it meets the actual medical needs.

Ah, I see.
You think quality is crap over here....

See, that's just bullshit. While it's certainly not excellent, it is far from crap. Our doctors are good professionals, I should know, with me studying for one and coming from a family with lots of them.

I also have some experience with going to the doctor, and I can tell you right now that long waiting lists and denial of prescriptions are bollocks. Sure they are there, and something needs to be done about that, but the thing is that for most people that is not an issue. If I develop a mole I think is suspicious, I can just go to the doctor and be helped immediately, if I break a bone I can just go to the doctor and be helped, if I cut off two fingers I can just go to the hospital and don't have to choose which one to put on.

Long waiting lists are a problem because everyone has healthcare, not because our healthcare is poor. If everyone in your country was entitled to non-immediate surgery you'd have waiting lists too.

Oh and those denial of certain prescriptions incidents are just as common in the US. Insurance-companies everywhere have lists of drugs they don't want to pay for.

Snorri1234 wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:Nobody has a right to live wherever they want just because they desire it.

Never stopped you guys though.

What are you talking about? Please explain.

That one of these days you'll have to face the fact almost everyone in your country is a descendent from a bunch of people who thought they had a right to live wherever they desire.

Snorri1234 wrote:Except that you don't have a good argument against giving it. Again.

Sure I have but it angers you to consider it. Consent and desire are not reasons to overturn the law. Simply wanting something to be legal isn't a good basis.

Except that is not a good argument. It's not an argument against overturning the law. I know desire is not a reason to overturn the law.

This is why we ask: "They desire it, why not change it?" instead of "They desire it, so it must be changed!"

You're falsely assuming desire is the reason to change the law, whereas desire is actually the reason why we should think about it. It's ridiculous to change laws when people don't want it ofcourse.

Countless times? That's a bit of a stretch. But it did happen. That's no excuse to repeat the mistake again though.

Well I'm not just talking about the US here. Large-scale immigrations have happened in the world for ever.

The outlawing of booze didn't make people rich. The people who decided to break the law made themselves rich illegally and in some cases got caught. I'm really not sure where you're going with the whole war against terror comparison. It just sounds like you've concluded that we can't win and anyone who suggests otherwise should just be quiet.

As I was talking about criminals, I thought it was pretty obvious it was illegal. The fact is that people getting caught for stuff rarely deters them, mostly because people think they'll never get caught. Human nature that one.

And the war on terror comparison makes the claim that a.) ofcourse we can't win, at least not by force. and b.) the "war" is only futhering the cause of the terrorist. It's not a war against terror, it's a war against countries where terrorists might've come from.
If you play it cool, people might actually not take a violent dislike to you. The way the USA attacked Iraq only gave more credit to the stereotype of you being bastards. A muslim might think the US isn't that bad or don't really care either way, but if you fucking attack his country I think he might reconsider that opinion.

I went back and checked that magazine and it was from 2004. So figures have changed since then. I didn't lie about anything, Snorri. I would have to have had previous knowledge of what you posted in order for me to be purposefully lying. I didn't state my case clearly enough and went by total GDP figures. Mr. JoeFrog was right to point it out and I learned something. But that's a far cry from lying. To be honest, his way of discussing it was more effective than screaming "STOP IGNORING THE FUCKING FACTS!" How old are you?

Okay fine, you didn't lie. You just didn't bother to consider discussion would be better with up-to-date info.

tzor wrote:The United States in terms of hospitals is like the beginning or War and Peace, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Clearly we have a few hospitals out there that are fantastic. They cure the impossible on a daily basis. Then there are hospitals that are generally good but if you have some types of cancer, going there as opposed to the fantastic ones is the difference between life and death. And there are those that are simply horrid.

Exactly.

The difference between the US and Europe is that we've leveled the field way more. The best medical science and care is in the US, but it's only for the elite few.

tzor wrote:The United States in terms of hospitals is like the beginning or War and Peace, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Clearly we have a few hospitals out there that are fantastic. They cure the impossible on a daily basis. Then there are hospitals that are generally good but if you have some types of cancer, going there as opposed to the fantastic ones is the difference between life and death. And there are those that are simply horrid.

True story. A friend of mine goes into a local hospital for a routine colon operation. Where there complications develop and he goes into ICU. Going out of ICU he is left overnight where due to a rare medical condition (a reverse hernia I was told) he throws up in his sleep and chokes to death on his own vommit. This is not the only horror story I've heard from the place.

hey... i'm not pointing this out to denigrate your post, by any means. and i am very sorry to hear about what happened to your friend. i hope his family is okay.

however, the nerd in me must point out that i think you're mistaken about the best of times, worst of times thing. i'm pretty sure that's from Dickens, not Tolstoy.

Tale of Two Cities, if memory serves. but it could have been one of the others. i read so much Dickens as a kid, a lot of it tended to blend together.

or were you using that phrase to describe the plot at the beginning of War and Peace? because i'm pretty sure they were all rich and living in the lap of luxury. and it dragged on and on about balls and crap, until finally it got to the battle scenes, and then the novel got good.

were there any poor major characters in War and Peace? i don't remember at the moment.

reminisco wrote:

tzor wrote:The United States in terms of hospitals is like the beginning or War and Peace, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Clearly we have a few hospitals out there that are fantastic. They cure the impossible on a daily basis. Then there are hospitals that are generally good but if you have some types of cancer, going there as opposed to the fantastic ones is the difference between life and death. And there are those that are simply horrid.

True story. A friend of mine goes into a local hospital for a routine colon operation. Where there complications develop and he goes into ICU. Going out of ICU he is left overnight where due to a rare medical condition (a reverse hernia I was told) he throws up in his sleep and chokes to death on his own vommit. This is not the only horror story I've heard from the place.

hey... i'm not pointing this out to denigrate your post, by any means. and i am very sorry to hear about what happened to your friend. i hope his family is okay.

however, the nerd in me must point out that i think you're mistaken about the best of times, worst of times thing. i'm pretty sure that's from Dickens, not Tolstoy.

Tale of Two Cities, if memory serves. but it could have been one of the others. i read so much Dickens as a kid, a lot of it tended to blend together.

or were you using that phrase to describe the plot at the beginning of War and Peace? because i'm pretty sure they were all rich and living in the lap of luxury. and it dragged on and on about balls and crap, until finally it got to the battle scenes, and then the novel got good.

were there any poor major characters in War and Peace? i don't remember at the moment.

Oddly enough, someone in the Book Club just mentioned that quote in connection with A Tale of Two Cities. So I think you're right, remi.

... Not sure what medical care has to do with the topic, but I'll jump in.

... I lived over a decade in a country with socialized medicine (Japan). Like anyplace else a lot depends on what hospital you visit. I went to one of the best for 2 years while I was there - Kyoto University Hospital. The service was outstanding. By service I mean I was always treated with the highest respect (quite unlike most of the US) and had my questions answered. The actual level of Japanese medicine is rather low, however. I spent 6 years in Japan with an undiagnosed condition (a very painful one) and found out what I had only after my return to the US (and only after I got a job with good coverage, I have to add).

...

Snorri1234 wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:So ridiculous that people from other countries come over here to have their operations done or get prescriptions which government-run systems sometimes deny their citizens because it's not "cost-effective".

Yes.

The point that you're missing is that just because america is one of the leaders in medical science doesn't mean it's healthcare is best for society as a whole. There is a reason that the USA is rated below a lot of european countries in health-rank, it's because a large amount of people over there just can't get fucking insurance.

Sure, the US is the place to go if you require very specialized care, but if you're just having everyday illnesses then you're better of living in another country.

Point from the land of the REAL WORLD.

Blue Cross, Blue Sheild -- the company that has roughly 80% of the medical insurance policies in this country. Further, the people USING the insurance generally do not get to decide what policy they get, its up to the empoyers. More and more are either getting policies that are almost worse than NO insurance (seriously) or are giving no insurance.

Blue Cross is NOTORIOUS for refusing care to folks who need it. They have been brought into court on it numerous times, but since it is company executives and not employees who pretty much decide what policies are available (for the working folks anyway), it does not impact Blue Cross policy sales much at all.

Further, a lot of folks don't realize that while the same company makes the profits on all these policies, WHAT they offer differs a GREAT DEAL.

When I was single, I had High Mark Blue Cross's highest level of HMO coverage. Everything was covered for just a small copayment. I had to stay "in network", but every doctor accepted it.

When I got married, the company kept shifting to worse and worse policies. Finally, just before my son was born we got insurance that was literally worse than having nothing at all. Had we no insurance, we would have been eligible for a state program that covered not just medical, but eyes, dental, etc. We ended up having to take my son to a specialist .. everything worked out, but still..
our bill? over $800 .. due within 30 days. I offered to pay 1/2 one month and 1/2 the next ... they sent me to collections. Illegally, yes, but our credit rating was STILL damaged. Next my then 2 month old had to be hospitalized and my other son had to get some tests. The bill was roughly $1700. Because the first charges were from Dec, we had to pay a whole new deductable. AND, I found out the so-called "copayments" .. payable to EACH entity (one to the hospital, one to each doctor, one for x-rays, etc.) did not count toward that deductable at all. Our bills for the year, NOT counting what we paid for insurance were over $4000.
And we will be paying higher credit card interest for the next 5 years or so.

Nobunaga wrote:... Not sure what medical care has to do with the topic, but I'll jump in.

... I lived over a decade in a country with socialized medicine (Japan). Like anyplace else a lot depends on what hospital you visit. I went to one of the best for 2 years while I was there - Kyoto University Hospital. The service was outstanding. By service I mean I was always treated with the highest respect (quite unlike most of the US) and had my questions answered. The actual level of Japanese medicine is rather low, however. I spent 6 years in Japan with an undiagnosed condition (a very painful one) and found out what I had only after my return to the US (and only after I got a job with good coverage, I have to add).

...

Japan is rated number 1 in the WORLD when it comes to preventative care, the US 25. One thing very different about your system is that you pay your doctor more when you are well than when you are sick.

No system is perfect, but right now, the US gets the worst of socialized medicine (denials of claims, limited coverage), combined with the highest costs. Partly because people without insurance go to emergency rooms and hospitals .. both the most expensive place to get care and, often, when they need much more care than if they had gone to a regular doctor sooner. That benefits no one.

reminisco wrote:Tale of Two Cities, if memory serves.

Your memory serves you correctly. My memory is, alas, 46 years old and is occasionally known to misfire.

tzor wrote:

reminisco wrote:Tale of Two Cities, if memory serves.

Your memory serves you correctly. My memory is, alas, 46 years old and is occasionally known to misfire.

so that means you're like between 50-52, right? cause most people don't have any memories before 4-6 years of age.



okay, stopping now.

Dancing Mustard wrote:My ass had your mum last night. In bed.


Also, America is way cool and that manifesto is shit.
Now stop insulting me. You fags.

An embarrasing moment: I went into a bar in South Orange NJ in the middle of winter. It was COLD outside. I took the last remaining barstool, and somebody said "oh, that seat's taken. He's just gone outdoors for a smoke." (Note: NJ is one of the states where public indoor smoking is banned).
"Blimey," said I, "He must really love his fags..."

You could have heard a pin drop.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:My ass had your mum last night. In bed.


Also, America is way cool and that manifesto is shit.
Now stop insulting me. You fags.

An embarrasing moment: I went into a bar in South Orange NJ in the middle of winter. It was COLD outside. I took the last remaining barstool, and somebody said "oh, that seat's taken. He's just gone outdoors for a smoke." (Note: NJ is one of the states where public indoor smoking is banned).
"Blimey," said I, "He must really love his fags..."

You could have heard a pin drop.

Ouch!

May I assume that you got away from that mess relatively unharmed?

reminisco wrote:so that means you're like between 50-52, right? cause most people don't have any memories before 4-6 years of age.

They don't have any working memories because by that age the memory starts to break. Sure I have memories from eariler than 4; I just can't remember them. Heck, Hgh School is such a blur (or perhaps I justr wanted t forget).

I think we need to get back on topic now. Unfortunately I can't remember what the topic is.

... Check this out.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

Ha ha! Your username has 'nob' in it.

Lol!

Jenos Ridan wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:My ass had your mum last night. In bed.


Also, America is way cool and that manifesto is shit.
Now stop insulting me. You fags.

An embarrasing moment: I went into a bar in South Orange NJ in the middle of winter. It was COLD outside. I took the last remaining barstool, and somebody said "oh, that seat's taken. He's just gone outdoors for a smoke." (Note: NJ is one of the states where public indoor smoking is banned).
"Blimey," said I, "He must really love his fags..."

You could have heard a pin drop.

Ouch!

Yes, I quickly explained that I was just British, not a phantom Gay Nicotine Outer, and that of course, when I said "fag" I meant "cigarette", and isn't it cold outside, and a Sam Adams for me, please.

May I assume that you got away from that mess relatively unharmed?[/quote]

Snorri1234 wrote:The point that you're missing is that just because america is one of the leaders in medical science doesn't mean it's healthcare is best for society as a whole.

Actually it does. The fact that the U.S. leads the rest of the world in responsiveness to patients' needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, survival rates, and confidentiality is best for society as a whole.

Snorri1234 wrote:There is a reason that the USA is rated below a lot of european countries in health-rank, it's because a large amount of people over there just can't get fucking insurance.

I did a little reading on this - the main reason that the U.S. is rated so low is because of the bias by the WHO in how they score countries. For instance, they also penalize the U.S. for not having a progressive-enough tax system. Their socialist bias is easy to identify if that's their criteria. A country is also penalized for not having a government-run health care system in the first place. They start with the assumption that if too many people are paying for their health care, it's a bad thing. So they're highly biased. We're ranked 54th in the area of "fairness". yeah, fairness - the code word for wealth distribution. If you correct scoring for homicide & accidents the U.S. has the highest life expectancy.

We have a health insurance cost problem, not a health care problem when you compare us to the world.

Snorri1234 wrote:Ah, I see. You think quality is crap over here....

See, that's just bullshit. While it's certainly not excellent, it is far from crap. Our doctors are good professionals, I should know, with me studying for one and coming from a family with lots of them.

Compared to the U.S. system, I wouldn't say it's crap but it's definitely not as good. I like how you twisted how I was defending your criticism of the U.S. healthcare system to saying I was accusing your system of being crap.

Snorri1234 wrote:I also have some experience with going to the doctor, and I can tell you right now that long waiting lists and denial of prescriptions are bollocks. Sure they are there, and something needs to be done about that, but the thing is that for most people that is not an issue. If I develop a mole I think is suspicious, I can just go to the doctor and be helped immediately, if I break a bone I can just go to the doctor and be helped, if I cut off two fingers I can just go to the hospital and don't have to choose which one to put on.

Uh, you just contradicted yourself

Snorri1234 wrote:Long waiting lists are a problem because everyone has healthcare, not because our healthcare is poor. If everyone in your country was entitled to non-immediate surgery you'd have waiting lists too.

BINGO! Maybe a light just went on upstairs for you.

This is almost too funny. You admit that there are long waiting lists and then say that that means your healthcare isn't poor. Look Snorri, if you have to get on a waiting list and aren't able to see the doctor YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS POOR! That's common sense.

We have a great healthcare system! Just don't expect to see the doctor anytime soon!

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh and those denial of certain prescriptions incidents are just as common in the US. Insurance-companies everywhere have lists of drugs they don't want to pay for.

There's a big difference between being denied a prescription medication because you go out of network or because the FDA hasn't concluded the effectiveness of treatment as it pertains to a certain illness as opposed to denying it because it's "not in the budget."

Your claim that U.S. insurance companies deny prescriptions as commonly as government-run systems is false. Just 2 examples I found with ease: 44% of Americans receive cholesterol-lowering prescriptions compared to 26% for Germany, 23% for Britons, and 17% for Italians. People in need of anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia - 60% of Americans receive it compared to 20% of Spaniards and only 10% for Germans. That trend is reflected throughout studies on prescription medication accessability.

Source: Diffusion of Medicines in Europe, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, Oliver Schoffski

Snorri1234 wrote:one of these days you'll have to face the fact almost everyone in your country is a descendent from a bunch of people who thought they had a right to live wherever they desire.

Geez! and I get accused of being simplistic. This is a ridiculous statement to make about Americans. But at least it will provide me with my next poll that I start showing how liberals have been indoctrinated with falsehoods about the U.S.

Snorri1234 wrote:Except that is not a good argument. It's not an argument against overturning the law. I know desire is not a reason to overturn the law.

This is why we ask: "They desire it, why not change it?" instead of "They desire it, so it must be changed!"

It was a great argument which was never refuted. Not once were we provided with any evidence of a gay gene. The current laws in states define marriage as between one man and one woman. You want to change that to be people of the same gender. So yes, you're trying to change the law. Don't give me this bullshit about just asking the question and pondering it.

I'm sorry but Dancing Mustard fits of rage are not evidence that they're born that way.

Snorri1234 wrote:You're falsely assuming desire is the reason to change the law, whereas desire is actually the reason why we should think about it. It's ridiculous to change laws when people don't want it ofcourse.

Good, then you admit it ridiculous to try and change the definition of marriage. States have constantly passed DOMA laws approved by their voters by large majorities. By your own definition, it's ridiculous to try to change laws when people don't want it to be.

Snorri1234 wrote:And the war on terror comparison makes the claim that a.) ofcourse we can't win, at least not by force. and b.) the "war" is only futhering the cause of the terrorist. It's not a war against terror, it's a war against countries where terrorists might've come from.

If you play it cool, people might actually not take a violent dislike to you. The way the USA attacked Iraq only gave more credit to the stereotype of you being bastards. A muslim might think the US isn't that bad or don't really care either way, but if you fucking attack his country I think he might reconsider that opinion.

A huge ROFL on this one

I'm sure that if someone was beating your ass that you wouldn't do everything in your power to defend yourself.

"I'M GETTING MY ASS KICKED! BUT I'VE GOT THE PERFECT DEFENSE - NOT TO DEFEND MYSELF." "Eventually my assailant will be forced to recognize that by me allowing him to beat the shit out of me that I'm the one who is playing it cool."

Cops who give out speeding tickets actually cause speeders to have more motivation to drive over the speed limit. If the cops would just leave them alone then eventually they would slow down. LOL

That's priceless!

Ive read about the first five posts here, and just want to say that if you're someone that thinks they can figure out an infallible economic system that would compromise fairly betwen the government and its people post your credentials up front because reading a whole buch of well-informed opinions is not particularily much better that pulling something from an ass when the scale is this big. Thank you.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The point that you're missing is that just because america is one of the leaders in medical science doesn't mean it's healthcare is best for society as a whole.

Actually it does. The fact that the U.S. leads the rest of the world in responsiveness to patients' needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, survival rates, and confidentiality is best for society as a whole.

And a place where people turn bankrupt because they need treatment but can't afford it is not good.

Have any facts to back up that claim about timely care and survival rates? Because if I remember correctly, the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other developed countries.

Snorri1234 wrote:There is a reason that the USA is rated below a lot of european countries in health-rank, it's because a large amount of people over there just can't get fucking insurance.

I did a little reading on this - the main reason that the U.S. is rated so low is because of the bias by the WHO in how they score countries. For instance, they also penalize the U.S. for not having a progressive-enough tax system. Their socialist bias is easy to identify if that's their criteria. A country is also penalized for not having a government-run health care system in the first place. They start with the assumption that if too many people are paying for their health care, it's a bad thing. So they're highly biased. We're ranked 54th in the area of "fairness". yeah, fairness - the code word for wealth distribution. If you correct scoring for homicide & accidents the U.S. has the highest life expectancy.

Actually, they start with the assumption that when not everyone has healthcare or some people pay way more than others, it's a bad thing. Everyone in my country pays for their healthcare too (except really poor people), but they don't pay nearly as much.

Also, adjusting the ranking by striking out homicide & accidents is also flawed. As those are not just dependent on who suffers injuries from such things, but also how good the healthcare system is in preventing death at borderline cases. That depends on response-times and how far the nearest hospital is.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/

Basically, life expectancy is a shit-way to judge the health-care system in a country anyway. There are so many things influencing it which are not affected by the system at all, like obesity rates and how healthy people's work-environment is, so really that should not feature in the discussion. Ofcourse better healthcare can help people get a healthier lifestyle though, but most of it is still for the people.

(Higher life expectancy would increase costs btw, as old people get sick more, and that is if you don't adjust it. )

We have a health insurance cost problem, not a health care problem when you compare us to the world.

Yes, and that health insurance cost problem directly influences the health care in some places. Countless people in the US don't go to the hospital or untill it's almost too late because they can't afford it. That's bad no matter how you twist it.

Snorri1234 wrote:Ah, I see. You think quality is crap over here....

See, that's just bullshit. While it's certainly not excellent, it is far from crap. Our doctors are good professionals, I should know, with me studying for one and coming from a family with lots of them.

Compared to the U.S. system, I wouldn't say it's crap but it's definitely not as good. I like how you twisted how I was defending your criticism of the U.S. healthcare system to saying I was accusing your system of being crap.

Well you did say something like it. Regardless, there are certainly things in which my system is better but not at everything.

Snorri1234 wrote:I also have some experience with going to the doctor, and I can tell you right now that long waiting lists and denial of prescriptions are bollocks. Sure they are there, and something needs to be done about that, but the thing is that for most people that is not an issue. If I develop a mole I think is suspicious, I can just go to the doctor and be helped immediately, if I break a bone I can just go to the doctor and be helped, if I cut off two fingers I can just go to the hospital and don't have to choose which one to put on.

Uh, you just contradicted yourself

They are bollocks because most people really don't experience them. They are a problem for some people, but at least they're not a denial of care.

Snorri1234 wrote:Long waiting lists are a problem because everyone has healthcare, not because our healthcare is poor. If everyone in your country was entitled to non-immediate surgery you'd have waiting lists too.

BINGO! Maybe a light just went on upstairs for you.

This is almost too funny. You admit that there are long waiting lists and then say that that means your healthcare isn't poor. Look Snorri, if you have to get on a waiting list and aren't able to see the doctor YOUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS POOR! That's common sense.

We have a great healthcare system! Just don't expect to see the doctor anytime soon!

As opposed to "We have a great healthcare system! Just don't expect to see a doctor if you're poor!"?

You are basically saying that the great thing about the US-system is that not everybody gets healthcare? That just makes you sound like a dick.

Also, you are able to see a doctor, it's just that you'll have to wait for a donor-organ because there are not enough donor-organs, instead of not even qualifying for that donor-organ. Waiting lists are a problem because the system is too small to deal with the high demand for some things. Your solution is just not giving people the care, which is a dick move.
But basic care is still good. You are helped immediately with problems. It's only when you need a new heart and there are not enough hearts to go around that you'll have to wait. However, if you'll die without that heart you are put first on the list and still get the heart.
You are the one who claimed that quality is more important than anything else, so I don't see the problem here...

There's a big difference between being denied a prescription medication because you go out of network or because the FDA hasn't concluded the effectiveness of treatment as it pertains to a certain illness as opposed to denying it because it's "not in the budget."

Actually, denial of prescriptions is done when insurance-companies see cheaper alternatives (often the case with drugs that have lost their patent) or when a drug's effectiveness hasn't been judged. Besides, you can still get the drugs if you are willing to pay for them. There is also the case of people not getting medicine due to not seeing the right doctors or not actually wanting it. It's a lack of enough doctors and enough hospital-resources to deal with the way bigger demand in Europe. Don't forget that 16% of the US doesn't have health insurance, and of the people that do there is still a group not eligible for certain treatments because it's not in their insurance-policy.

Your claim that U.S. insurance companies deny prescriptions as commonly as government-run systems is false. Just 2 examples I found with ease: 44% of Americans receive cholesterol-lowering prescriptions compared to 26% for Germany, 23% for Britons, and 17% for Italians. People in need of anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia - 60% of Americans receive it compared to 20% of Spaniards and only 10% for Germans. That trend is reflected throughout studies on prescription medication accessability.

...

But does that study include people in the US who need it but don't have insurance?
And you also forgot to mention that it's "eligible" patients, which to me means people who should get it but for some reason don't, as opposed to people who wouldn't get it anyway. I.e. if it's not included in your insurance-deal, you aren't eligible anway.

(Also, doctors in europe are less quick to prescribe drugs anyway, not just for financial reasons.)

Snorri1234 wrote:one of these days you'll have to face the fact almost everyone in your country is a descendent from a bunch of people who thought they had a right to live wherever they desire.

Geez! and I get accused of being simplistic. This is a ridiculous statement to make about Americans. But at least it will provide me with my next poll that I start showing how liberals have been indoctrinated with falsehoods about the U.S.

Ofcourse it's simplistic! As the statement you made was itself simplistic. I was pointing out that your statement was simplistic and ridiculous as it meant the whole of america were like the illegal immigrants nowadays.
You need to come up with a different reason to deny immigrants the right to live in the US, there are plenty of them but this one was simply ridiculous.

Snorri1234 wrote:Except that is not a good argument. It's not an argument against overturning the law. I know desire is not a reason to overturn the law.

This is why we ask: "They desire it, why not change it?" instead of "They desire it, so it must be changed!"

It was a great argument which was never refuted. Not once were we provided with any evidence of a gay gene. The current laws in states define marriage as between one man and one woman. You want to change that to be people of the same gender. So yes, you're trying to change the law. Don't give me this bullshit about just asking the question and pondering it.

Ah, selective reading ftw?
I know I want to change the law, but I am actually also asking for a good reason not to do it. When there is no good reason to keep a law, why keep it?
(Gay gene arguments are stupid btw, it's still not a choice to fall in love with guys and be bullied in school and discriminated against in the rest of your life. To ask for evidence of a gene shows a terrible lack of understanding of both genetics and plain common sense.)

Snorri1234 wrote:You're falsely assuming desire is the reason to change the law, whereas desire is actually the reason why we should think about it. It's ridiculous to change laws when people don't want it ofcourse.

Good, then you admit it ridiculous to try and change the definition of marriage. States have constantly passed DOMA laws approved by their voters by large majorities. By your own definition, it's ridiculous to try to change laws when people don't want it to be.

Except that I was referring to the changing of laws when there is noone who wants to change it.
Also, since it's a democracy it is somewhat silly to change a law when not backed by a majority, but that does not mean you cannot believe laws should be changed and campaign for it. Especially when you believe it's discriminating against people.

A huge ROFL on this one

I'm sure that if someone was beating your ass that you wouldn't do everything in your power to defend yourself.

"I'M GETTING MY ASS KICKED! BUT I'VE GOT THE PERFECT DEFENSE - NOT TO DEFEND MYSELF." "Eventually my assailant will be forced to recognize that by me allowing him to beat the shit out of me that I'm the one who is playing it cool."

Cops who give out speeding tickets actually cause speeders to have more motivation to drive over the speed limit. If the cops would just leave them alone then eventually they would slow down. LOL

That's priceless!

What is priceless is the fact that you seem to have no reading comphrension whatsoever.

The "war on terror" is not a defense-campaign for the most part. It's also not a war on actual terrorists for the most part. It's an aggresive war on countries which might harbor terrorists (commonly defined as people who look like arabs) which doesn't do much to actually stop terrorism. What the USA is doing now is attacking, not defending.

If I was getting my ass kicked, I'd defend myself against that person. What I wouldn't do is go to his house and neighborhood and attack the people there too.

Snorri1234 wrote:And a place where people turn bankrupt because they need treatment but can't afford it is not good.

Massive exaggeration

Please provide the proof that all these Americans are going bankrupt. Nobody is denied medical care in the U.S. IT'S AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW!

Snorri1234 wrote:Have any facts to back up that claim about timely care and survival rates?

Sure. It's not that hard to use google and perhaps instead of listening to liberal talking points and constantly repeating them you could utilize it as well.

"Breast Cancer Diagnosed Late in Europe." Richard Woodman, Reuters Health, March 3, 2003.

"Global Action Against Cancer", World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland: 2003.

"Recent Cancer Survival in Europe", Arduino Verdecchia, A 2000-02 Period Analysis of EUROCARE-4 Data, The Lacent Oncology 8, no. 9, (published 2007) pgs. 784 - 796

"UK Cancer Rate Survival Rate Lowest in Europe", Daily Telegraph, August 24, 2007

"Rudy is Right on Data Duel about Cancer", Investors Business Daily, November 6, 2007

"The Business of Health", Robert Ohsfeldt & John Schneider, (Washington: AEI), 2007, pgs. 23 - 24

"Study Links Diet to Prostrate Cancer", Seattle Times, October 11, 2007

Snorri1234 wrote: if I remember correctly, the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other developed countries.

That's because many European countries don't even report figures for high-risk, below-weight infants. Many of the low-weight infants in Europe aren't even able to be carried to term because you guys don't have medical technologies to help them survive that long - after all, you have a govt-run health care system! Here in the U.S., the babies at least have a chance to be born, but many die soon after birth. European countries also use abortion as a way to eliminate problem pregnancies which is also not included in their reporting to WHO. Example: Cuba!, which Michael Moore loves to use as an example in his propaganda film.

Snorri1234 wrote:Actually, they start with the assumption that when not everyone has healthcare or some people pay way more than others, it's a bad thing. Everyone in my country pays for their healthcare too (except really poor people), but they don't pay nearly as much.

I got no problem with what you're saying here. You're actually admitting that they've factored in this bias when they score countries. That's why the WHO isn't the best source of information in ranking countries health care systems - they've already determined that paying for your own health care is bad.

Snorri1234 wrote:Basically, life expectancy is a shit-way to judge the health-care system in a country anyway. There are so many things influencing it which are not affected by the system at all, like obesity rates and how healthy people's work-environment is, so really that should not feature in the discussion. Ofcourse better healthcare can help people get a healthier lifestyle though, but most of it is still for the people.

(Higher life expectancy would increase costs btw, as old people get sick more, and that is if you don't adjust it. )

Agreed, but that's one of the factors that the WHO uses to make the United States look bad on its' report.

Snorri1234 wrote:Yes, and that health insurance cost problem directly influences the health care in some places. Countless people in the US don't go to the hospital or untill it's almost too late because they can't afford it. That's bad no matter how you twist it.

I'll repeat this since it doesn't seem to be sinking in - it's against the law to deny someone medical care in the U.S. It's not the fault of the hospital if people don't come in to receive help. The best way to bring down costs is to have people pay for their own health care. I've been reading on this because of our argument here and found that Europeans are trying to move more towards consumer cost spending. Oh yeah, and so is Japan.

Snorri1234 wrote:They are bollocks because most people really don't experience them. They are a problem for some people, but at least they're not a denial of care.

It doesn't do anyone a bit of good if they are covered but have to wait so long that their health problem isn't treated. I also read up on this as well, the reason it's not as much of a problem in your country (The Netherlands), is because you are the most market-oriented system besides Switzerland. You guys especially introduced even more competition starting in 2006. You can't really say you're a govt-run health care country.

Snorri1234 wrote:As opposed to "We have a great healthcare system! Just don't expect to see a doctor if you're poor!"?

It's against the law to deny someone treatment in the U.S. Nobody is preventing poor people from seeing a doctor. Many doctors will work out a payment schedule that is interest free until the bill is paid off.

We have a high insurance problem - not a health care denial problem.

Snorri1234 wrote:You are basically saying that the great thing about the US-system is that not everybody gets healthcare? That just makes you sound like a dick.

Nope, you're saying that I'm claiming that. I love it when you talk dirty, Snorri!

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, you are able to see a doctor, it's just that you'll have to wait for a donor-organ because there are not enough donor-organs, instead of not even qualifying for that donor-organ. Waiting lists are a problem because the system is too small to deal with the high demand for some things. Your solution is just not giving people the care, which is a dick move.

Correctomundo!! The waiting lists are a problem because THE SYSTEM is too small to deal with the high demand for some things. Whereas, when there's a for-profit system in place the demand is met in a more sufficient way.

4th time, Snorri, nobody is denied giving people health care in the United States. It's a health insurance problem.

Snorri1234 wrote:But does that study include people in the US who need it but don't have insurance?

Yep

At least this time your attempt to change the terms of the debate back-fired on you. It won't stop you from doing it in the future but at least everyone else can see your tactic.

Snorri1234 wrote:you also forgot to mention that it's "eligible" patients, which to me means people who should get it but for some reason don't, as opposed to people who wouldn't get it anyway. I.e. if it's not included in your insurance-deal, you aren't eligible anway.

Of course it would. You're a liberal.

Snorri1234 wrote:Ah, selective reading ftw? I know I want to change the law, but I am actually also asking for a good reason not to do it. When there is no good reason to keep a law, why keep it?

In your mind, no matter what reason is given it will never be a "good" reason. "Good" reasons are only given by liberals. Everyone else's opinions are beneath you guys.

Snorri1234 wrote:(Gay gene arguments are stupid btw, it's still not a choice to fall in love with guys and be bullied in school and discriminated against in the rest of your life. To ask for evidence of a gene shows a terrible lack of understanding of both genetics and plain common sense.)

Oh, it's not a choice! After lecturing us that "they're born that way" I provided you with a link from a homosexual organization in which they themselves say it's a choice and you just totally blow by it.

Asking for evidence of a gene shows a great understanding of this issue. You guys are just angry when someone asks you for proof and you can't provide it. You want to live in this fantasy world that you've created. When you can provide us with the scientific evidence then you'll have a case. But you'll never have it unless it's made up by a bunch of biased liberals which interpret the data the way they want.

Snorri1234 wrote:If I was getting my ass kicked, I'd defend myself against that person.

I'm sorry but we're going to need to see a citation proving this

I'd refute the other stuff but every time I do you either come up with a different set of definitions, claim that you're being taken out of context, or just gloss over studies that don't fit your beliefs.

Coo-Coo-Ka-Choo!