fact check Rush limbaugh leaving country i fheath care passes

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3243584
ufff, what a tiring argument.
The US spends 17.6% of GDP for 80% coverage of 80% of our population.
France spends 11%, Germany spends 10.6% of GDP, for 100% coverage of 100% of their populations.
Their health care is, if measured by infant mortality and longevity rates (and what other metrics can be applied??), substantially better than ours.
And lest you think that Socialist Medicine is a detriment to the field, check the mostly German labels on the diagnostic machines and pharmaceuticals used here: Siemens, Bosch, Bausch and Lomb, Zeiss, Bayer, Leica, etc., ...
Who invented the X-ray? Who invented the CT-Scan? Oh yeah - Socialists...
Infant mortality rates are a useless stat because of the different standards in what is considered a live birth in the US vs the European states. Here any sign of life is considered a live birth. There they have standards for weight, duration of life sign etc. that skews the numbers.
X ray was invented before England went socialists and the CT was developed right here in the good ol USA.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3243584
And lest you think that Socialist Medicine is a detriment to the field, check the mostly German labels on the diagnostic machines and pharmaceuticals used here: Siemens, Bosch, Bausch and Lomb, Zeiss, Bayer, Leica, etc., ...

Yet those companies you listed do not crack the top ten for medical equipment manufacturing.
http://www.mpo-mag.com/articles/2006...mpanies-report
Granted this is old, but it was the most Reliable source I could find.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by EL GUAPO
http:///forum/post/3243264
Yeah like you"Darth (Its only a cold sore) Tang" never go to the free clinic...
Its a well known fact you and RU have preferential treatment there.
Hey, They diagnosed your "rash" and "warts" when no one else could. We would be fools not to frequent the same clinic you do.
Darth (How goes the treatment for the herpessymplex369chlamydicalHIVGhonoreaitis anyway) Tang
 
el guapo

el guapo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3243723
Hey, They diagnosed your "rash" and "warts" when no one else could. We would be fools not to frequent the same clinic you do.
Darth (How goes the treatment for the herpessymplex369chlamydicalHIVGhonoreaitis anyway) Tang

Well you know its luck they did catch the diagnoses when they did. After all I only had to use a little cream. Now had I Acquired the immune deficiency syndrome issues that you have it could have been a different story.
EL (Darth uses his herpes cream as lube) Guapo
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3243661
Infant mortality rates are a useless stat because of the different standards in what is considered a live birth in the US vs the European states. Here any sign of life is considered a live birth. There they have standards for weight, duration of life sign etc. that skews the numbers.
I based my statement on UN stats. They don't weight the metrics differently by country. By their rating system we are #33 in the world.
X ray was invented before England went socialists and the CT was developed right here in the good ol USA.
The X-ray was not invented in England, it was invented by Wilhelm Röntgen (whose name radiation units bear: Roentgens), in Germany, for which he won the 1901 Nobel Prize in Medicine. The Bismarck (Socialist) health care plan, which Germany continues to use to this day, was already established (1883) and functioning in much the same way it does now.
The CT-scan was invented in England by (Sir) Godfrey Hounsfield, for which he was also awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1979 (by which time England was thoroughly Socialist...)
Nice try tho...
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3243718
Yet those companies you listed do not crack the top ten for medical equipment manufacturing.
That's because, with the exception of Siemens (#7 on your list), most of them are not medical equipment manufacturers. They hold key patents to the devices produced, which patents they license. Their contributions to medicine, both technologically and pharmaceutically are undeniable.
I.e. who produces the most aspirin in the world (for all I know, it's prolly a Chinese company - yum) is a completely different thing from who holds the patent for acetylsalicylic acid - namely: Bayer.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3243906
I based my statement on UN stats. They don't weight the metrics differently by country. By their rating system we are #33 in the world.
The X-ray was not invented in England, it was invented by Wilhelm Röntgen (whose name radiation units bear: Roentgens), in Germany, for which he won the 1901 Nobel Prize in Medicine. The Bismarck (Socialist) health care plan, which Germany continues to use to this day, was already established (1883) and functioning in much the same way it does now.
The CT-scan was invented in England by (Sir) Godfrey Hounsfield, for which he was also awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1979 (by which time England was thoroughly Socialist...)
Nice try tho...

HELLO? The UN doesn't get to decide what is considered a live birth. They are a slave to the numbers each country provides them based on that country's standard.
I was guessing n the location of the inverter of the X ray but I have this on the CT scan
http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/95.html
Robert S. Ledley
Born Jun 28 1926
Diagnostic X-Ray System
CAT Scan
Patent Number(s) 3,922,552
Inducted 1990
It was a CT X Ray this guy invented, not the CAT scan. My bad
BUT, the guy who invented the CAT Scan was a co founder with a South African

And you might want to take a look at the German health care system. It still uses private insurance companies rather than a government bureaucracy
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3243918
That's because, with the exception of Siemens (#7 on your list), most of them are not medical equipment manufacturers. They hold key patents to the devices produced, which patents they license. Their contributions to medicine, both technologically and pharmaceutically are undeniable.
I.e. who produces the most aspirin in the world (for all I know, it's prolly a Chinese company - yum) is a completely different thing from who holds the patent for acetylsalicylic acid - namely: Bayer.
Bayer holds the patent but who discovered it?
 
fishtaco

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3243914
I like the post Bonn Scott stuff better. Probably the best live shows I've ever seen.
You do know that Australia has socialized medicine that seems to work fine for the aussie's I have talked to. My question is, are the members of AC/DC socialist?

Fishtaco
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3243928
HELLO? The UN doesn't get to decide what is considered a live birth. They are a slave to the numbers each country provides them based on that country's standard.
Oh. OK. We're number 1 then??? I can find no statistic which demonstrates that the US is remotely #1 by any standard of infant mortality or longevity. I can find a few where we're #1 in Cancer rates though...
I was guessing n the location of the inverter of the X ray but I have this on the CT scan
http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/95.html
Robert S. Ledley
Born Jun 28 1926
Diagnostic X-Ray System
CAT Scan
Patent Number(s) 3,922,552
Inducted 1990
It was a CT X Ray this guy invented, not the CAT scan. My bad
BUT, the guy who invented the CAT Scan was a co founder with a South African
Still not American and South Africa (having modeled itself on the English system, and still being part of the Commonwealth), is Socialist too.
And you might want to take a look at the German health care system. It still uses private insurance companies rather than a government bureaucracy
You and I have had this argument at length in the past. The German system mandates 100% coverage of the population by private insurers who are required to be non-profit. Health insurance is mandatory, both on the part of the provider and the recipient. It is private, non-profit, single payer and STILL: while the government does not administer health care, it is government regulated. Policy cost cannot be dictated, nor can coverage be denied, based on pre-existing condition, age, marital status, sexual orientaion, location, mobility, etc.
It was the NON-PROFIT part that stuck in your craw. You couldn't get past how something could be both non-profit and functional. And yet, there are some 230 providers in Germany to choose from, all of whom compete with each other...
I'm well aware of how their system works. I am a proponent of it for the US, but no-one in Congress seems to think it's viable, even though it's been working there for 120 years. France (#1 rated system in the world) and Japan have modified versions of the Bismarck system, and both rate better in infant mortality and longevity as well as rating lower in healthcare related GDP expenditure % than we do, btw.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3243937
Oh. OK. We're number 1 then??? I can find no statistic which demonstrates that the US is remotely #1 by any standard of infant mortality or longevity. I can find a few where we're #1 in Cancer rates though...
Still not American and South Africa (having modeled itself on the English system, and still being part of the Commonwealth), is Socialist too.
You and I have had this argument at length in the past. The German system mandates 100% coverage of the population by private insurers who are required to be non-profit. Health insurance is mandatory, both on the part of the provider and the recipient. It is private, non-profit, single payer and STILL: while the government does not administer health care, it is government regulated. Policy cost cannot be dictated, nor can coverage be denied, based on pre-existing condition, age, marital status, sexual orientaion, location, mobility, etc.
It was the NON-PROFIT part that stuck in your craw. You couldn't get past how something could be both non-profit and functional. And yet, there are some 230 providers in Germany to choose from, all of whom compete with each other...
I'm well aware of how their system works. I am a proponent of it for the US, but no-one in Congress seems to think it's viable, even though it's been working there for 120 years. France (#1 rated system in the world) and Japan have modified versions of the Bismarck system, and both rate better in infant mortality and longevity as well as rating lower in healthcare related GDP expenditure % than we do, btw.
You might want to go back and look at some posts, You got me confused with someone else.
Back when the Ossiah first started his march towards socialized health care there was talk of basing the bill on the German system but that was quickly dropped for whatever reason. There are some things I like about the German system although I am not crazy about the fact my wife's premiums would go from 516.00 a year to 8250.00 under the German model. What a great deal there.

The insurance for most is private not for profit but not all of it. But lets assume it is all not for profit. You only cut 3.3% of the fat out of the health care system. Where does the rest of the cost savings come from? Could it possibly be how the German legal system handles malpractice suits and not the evil insurance company profits?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3243936
You do know that Australia has socialized medicine that seems to work fine for the aussie's I have talked to. My question is, are the members of AC/DC socialist?

Fishtaco
The health care system didn't work out too well for Mr Scott now did it? (Of course he was Scottish but I assume they have the same screwed up system England does . Need I remind you Jimi Hendrix, Mama Cass and Jim Morrison all died very young in countries with socialized medicine. Had they been good Americans and stayed home would could still be watchin their wrinkled old butts screetchin and hollering on stage
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3243937
It was the NON-PROFIT part that stuck in your craw. You couldn't get past how something could be both non-profit and functional. And yet, there are some 230 providers in Germany to choose from, all of whom compete with each other...
Compete for what?

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3244069
The health care system didn't work out too well for Mr Scott now did it? (Of course he was Scottish but I assume they have the same screwed up system England does . Need I remind you Jimi Hendrix, Mama Cass and Jim Morrison all died very young in countries with socialized medicine. Had they been good Americans and stayed home would could still be watchin their wrinkled old butts screetchin and hollering on stage

Just look at ol Willie...
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3244117
Compete for what?


LOL! Great point. All not for profit means is the people in charge can pour all the profits into their own salaries.

Other than the fact it would be unconstitutional there are some aspects of the German system that makes sense.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3243660
I don't think you can point to those number and say this means better healthcare... You'd have to consider cause of death for each individual. They say being fat kills, is that the fault of healthcare or the fault of the person's eating habit. We have high murder rates, high death tolls on our highways, we have lots of people who don't take care of their bodies or follow the doctor's instruction, all that factors into those rates. and drunk drivers, gang bangers, fat slobs and stupid people who don't take their medicine, don't have anything to do with capability of our healthcare system...
I also don't like the percentage of GDP argument. I could go out and buy a 5000 dollar car and my brother could go out and buy a 60,000 dollar truck. And it would take a much larger percentage of my income per month. Does that mean I have a better means of transportation? For this argument to work, you'd have to assume equal care. Basically paying different prices for the same service. And it just isn't comparable...
while we are at it, the Nazis invented the swept wing design, where in the forefront of rocket design, nuclear technology, jet aircraft, submarines... Does that mean that the Nazi government was superior to our own?
Instead of nitpicking useless trivialities of your flimsy arguments, why don't you address the actual problems with your argument...
 
mie

mie

Active Member
Congress has made sure that they are exempt from the health care bill. Pretty sure that violates the constitution! somthing about equality or some dribble that aparently means nothing to them. FYI rush rocks.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3243584
ufff, what a tiring argument.
The US spends 17.6% of GDP for 80% coverage of 80% of our population.
France spends 11%, Germany spends 10.6% of GDP, for 100% coverage of 100% of their populations.
Germany also collects 40% tax revenue as percentage of GDP.
The U.s. 28.2.
Using just GDP to make your argument doesn't work, you need to break it down further. I have done the research into this, but others here have not. You need to give a more in depth argument for your position to sway some of those around here.
The German model is actually very good...but some need more info than just GDP...break it down for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top