http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n21465217-lifespan-usa/
"WASHINGTON, Apr. 22, 2008 (Reuters) — Life expectancy may have reached an all-time high for the United States, but it is declining in many poor counties, especially among women, researchers reported on Monday."
"One of the questions we are asking is whether our ranking in the world is getting increasingly worse because we are not doing a good job of taking care of the worst-off"
I think the answer is YES!!
Originally posted by yo its meYes it would be a good idea, but does that not go against the "free market" economics off the US ?
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n21465217-lifespan-usa/
"WASHINGTON, Apr. 22, 2008 (Reuters) — Life expectancy may have reached an all-time high for the United States, but it is declining in many poor counties, especially among women, researchers reported on Monday."
"One of the questions we are asking is whether our ranking in the world is getting in ...[text shortened]... we are not doing a good job of taking care of the worst-off"
I think the answer is YES!!
How would funding be achieved for this when the welfare system at present is just getting by ?
Originally posted by RSMA1234That 'free market'- servival of the fitist?
Yes it would be a good idea, but does that not go against the "free market" economics off the US ?
How would funding be achieved for this when the welfare system at present is just getting by ?
Funding it? Idealy all that money Bush spends on his forign affairs would be redircted.
the welfare system at present is just getting by by this are you saying familys on welfare couldn't afford to contribute because their money just meets ends or that the govenment it stretching it's self to pay the welfare system?
Isn't the US ment to be rich?
Originally posted by yo its meIf you're so gung ho on rejiggering the U.S. budget, why don't play around with redirecting all the money spent on entitlements such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare? Those three programs are poised to dwarf anything in the current budget, including the money spent on the War on Terror. Also, your elitist attitude about knowing what's best for America presupposes that there are no benefits derived from the war against Islamo-Fascism. How much a price do you put on the fact that no attack on the American homeland has occurred since President Bush put America on the offensive? You should probably pull the plank from your own eye before worrying about the splinter in ours:
That 'free market'- servival of the fitist?
Funding it? Idealy all that money Bush spends on his forign affairs would be redircted.
[b]the welfare system at present is just getting by by this are you saying familys on welfare couldn't afford to contribute because their money just meets ends or that the govenment it stretching it's self to pay the welfare system?
Isn't the US ment to be rich?[/b]
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/04/22/would-universal-coverage-prolong-life-expectancies/?mod=WSJBlog
...why is it that socialist humanist "progressives" ( who i bet are vastly
endeared to the darwin view of evolution ) object to "survivial of the fittest" in technology and economics ?...if they like the evolution of monkeys into humans ( discarding the less improved or less able or the weaker ) in order to have homo sapien sapien as we have now then why not this same principle of discard and abandonment of the weaker and less fit thus allowing the first industrial nations to win and dominate and eventually drown out the 2nd and 3rd world peoples...?...cannot have it both ways on the method....
Originally posted by yo its meThere has to be a national agreement from most of the citizens of a country before you can institute an NHS. Not enough people in the US want an NHS so to try and bring one in now just won't work.
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n21465217-lifespan-usa/
"WASHINGTON, Apr. 22, 2008 (Reuters) — Life expectancy may have reached an all-time high for the United States, but it is declining in many poor counties, especially among women, researchers reported on Monday."
"One of the questions we are asking is whether our ranking in the world is getting in ...[text shortened]... we are not doing a good job of taking care of the worst-off"
I think the answer is YES!!
People have to WANT one. I can't see Americans, as a whole, ever agreeing to help other people when it comes to health care. As a whole, they would rather pay a health insurance company for only themselves.
I'm sure there will/have been posters in this thread to confirm this.
Originally posted by yo its meSecond para from the linked article:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n21465217-lifespan-usa/
"WASHINGTON, Apr. 22, 2008 (Reuters) — Life expectancy may have reached an all-time high for the United States, but it is declining in many poor counties, especially among women, researchers reported on Monday."
"One of the questions we are asking is whether our ranking in the world is getting in ...[text shortened]... we are not doing a good job of taking care of the worst-off"
I think the answer is YES!!
"Smoking, obesity and high blood pressure are taking the lives of women in Appalachia, Mississippi River states and parts of Texas, a team at Harvard School of Public Health reported."
These are self inflicted, and are a very good argument for not instituting a die-while-you-wait, make someone-else-pay-for-my-bad-choices compulsory ja jawohl herr comandante collective health system.
Originally posted by uzlessYour argument is off the mark: American charities and doctors provide anywhere from $45 to $50 billion each year in charity health care for uninsured individuals. Also, when you combine the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, along with health care for federal employees and military personnel, well over 50% of the cost of health care is paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
...I can't see Americans, as a whole, ever agreeing to help other people when it comes to health care. As a whole, they would rather pay a health insurance company for only themselves....
Originally posted by WajomaAnd let's not forget our friend homicide. When a co-worker mentioned this study to me Monday, my first thought was that the numbers were skewed from bad behaviors.
Second para from the linked article:
[b]"Smoking, obesity and high blood pressure are taking the lives of women in Appalachia, Mississippi River states and parts of Texas, a team at Harvard School of Public Health reported."
These are self inflicted, and are a very good argument for not instituting a die-while-you-wait, make someone-else-pay-for-my-bad-choices compulsory ja jawohl herr comandante collective health system.[/b]
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterInteresting link you gave it mentions '18,000 or so deaths resulting from lack of insurance' as if they are deaths that can be expected.
If you're so gung ho on rejiggering the U.S. budget, why don't play around with redirecting all the money spent on entitlements such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare? Those three programs are poised to dwarf anything in the current budget, including the money spent on the War on Terror. Also, your elitist attitude about knowing what's be ...[text shortened]... ogs.wsj.com/health/2008/04/22/would-universal-coverage-prolong-life-expectancies/?mod=WSJBlog
Originally posted by reinfeldWhat??
...why is it that socialist humanist "progressives" ( who i bet are vastly
endeared to the darwin view of evolution ) object to "survivial of the fittest" in technology and economics ?...if they like the evolution of monkeys into humans ( discarding the less improved or less able or the weaker ) in order to have homo sapien sapien as we have now then why n ...[text shortened]... lly drown out the 2nd and 3rd world peoples...?...cannot have it both ways on the method....
..and where is the second world?
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterUh, let's take your 50% number as accurate for the moment.
Your argument is off the mark: American charities and doctors provide anywhere from $45 to $50 billion each year in charity health care for uninsured individuals. Also, when you combine the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, along with health care for federal employees and military personnel, well over 50% of the cost of health care is paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
An NHS would put that number up to approx 95-100%. Are you suggesting that since Americans pay for 50% of health care costs of others then this means they'd be willing to pay 100%?
Let's ask a few of yer other friends on here if they'd pay for a fat cheeseburger eating redneck to have a heart bypass.
(I could go back to the healthcare threads from a few months ago and pull out direct quotes from them, but let's see what happens)