I hope I am wrong Topic

I will let Jclark handle his political point of view.

The Butterfield issue is simple.

Butterfield was noted for writing a sequence of articles discussing the "paradox" of crime rates falling while the prison population grew due to tougher sentencing guidelines, without ever considering the possibility that the tougher sentencing guidelines may have had a deterrent effect on crime.
1/13/2013 1:45 AM
I read that, but I dont understand how that correlates with what I am saying.  Id like the genius to explain.
1/13/2013 10:20 AM
It sounds as if you have actually talked to Mr. Butterfield, because that would explain your continued confusion regarding the relationship between life expectancy and healthcare spending.
1/14/2013 9:30 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323936804578227890968100984.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop


1/14/2013 9:31 AM
1/14/2013 10:16 AM
And that article explained what exactly?  that Obamacare (which has nothing whatsoever to do with universal healthcare) that I have never argued for is expensive?  Imagine that Obamacare is expensive.  All I have said is that universal healthcare is far superior to your private healthcare.

You have YET to explain anything at all Baker.  I said that our systems are cheaper because they are universal.  Your turn Baker...
1/14/2013 1:07 PM

White House tells Paul Ryan it won’t meet budget deadline

By Erik Wasson - 01/14/13 12:06 PM ET

The White House has informed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it will miss the legal deadline for sending a budget to Congress.

Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients told Ryan (R-Wis.) late Friday that the budget will not be delivered by Feb. 4, as required by law, a House aide said.

“Late Friday evening, Deputy Director Zients confirmed that for the fourth time in five years, the president’s budget will not be submitted in compliance with the law,” the aide said.

“Zients did not indicate how late the administration will delay its submission, simply noting ‘We will submit it to Congress as soon as possible,’ ” the aide said.

Ryan last Wednesday had asked the White House in a letter if it would miss the deadline.

Under the law, Obama must submit a budget by the first Monday in February, but he has met the deadline only once. The annual budget submission is supposed to start a congressional budgeting process, but that has also broken down. The Senate last passed a budget resolution in 2009.

Congress and the White House struck a budget deal on New Year’s Eve that avoided tax hikes on middle-class families and delayed a 2013 budget sequester until March.

That last-minute "fiscal cliff" deal has thrown a wrench into the annual budget process, sources say, because it did not finalize 2013 appropriations or replace nearly $1 trillion in automatic discretionary cuts imposed by the August 2011 debt-ceiling deal.

“They have no baseline,” one expert said. The expert said it may also be the case that the administration does not want the budget to be taken as an opening offer in the coming fight over raising the nation's $16.4 trillion debt ceiling.

The Congressional Budget Office also faces fiscal cliff-related challenges in writing its annual budget outlook. That outlook, which normally comes out in January, is coming out Feb. 4, CBO announced Monday.

Republicans are demanding Obama propose sharp spending cuts to offset any increase in the ceiling.

Obama in a press conference Monday though reiterated his stance, pressing lawmakers to raise the debt limit without tying it to cuts or entitlement reform.

Failure to raise the ceiling will cause a default on payments ranging from Social Security benefits to tax refunds to bond interest, depending on how long it takes Washington to raise the limit and what bills Treasury decides to pay.

The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates default could come as early as Feb. 15.

Ryan’s office says that Obama has missed the budget deadline by more than any president since the 1920s. Obama’s first budget was delayed until May, while his second budget was delivered on time. The last two budgets were late but came in February.

The White House announcement comes as former Obama budget director and current Chief of Staff Jack Lew is awaiting confirmation as Obama’s new Treasury secretary, replacing outgoing Secretary Timothy Geithner.

1/14/2013 2:02 PM
Obama still is unable to even handle the most basic parts of his job.  Geez, even GWB was smart enough to handle this.
1/14/2013 2:03 PM
Posted by greeny9 on 1/14/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
And that article explained what exactly?  that Obamacare (which has nothing whatsoever to do with universal healthcare) that I have never argued for is expensive?  Imagine that Obamacare is expensive.  All I have said is that universal healthcare is far superior to your private healthcare.

You have YET to explain anything at all Baker.  I said that our systems are cheaper because they are universal.  Your turn Baker...
By using the stat of life expectancy.  Which I have shown is a joke, because of all the factors that go into that stat, Mr. Butterfield.

Why don't you go look at stats like, how long you have to wait for care after being diagnosed with cancers, of all types.  Survival rates for cancer sufferers in each country.  Waits for care of all types in different countries.  Etc.

You know, you think your system is better, but the reality is that 90% of the people in this country have far superior care.  As to the 10% that don't, the solution is to fix that apsect of the system, not blow it up and go universal, where the aforementioned 90% end up getting worse care.

And simply, when each day the Brit press has horror story about the ******* disaster that is the NHS, and every day a Doc in Canada comes here to practice, don't ******* tell me your system is better.  Because it's not.  Again, if you think waiting months for simple procedures is a good system, well congrats.  Enjoy that.  Because all universal health care does is what I said before: make care mediocre for the great majority, by rationing and waits, and denial of procedures. 

1/14/2013 3:34 PM
Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/14/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by greeny9 on 1/14/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
And that article explained what exactly?  that Obamacare (which has nothing whatsoever to do with universal healthcare) that I have never argued for is expensive?  Imagine that Obamacare is expensive.  All I have said is that universal healthcare is far superior to your private healthcare.

You have YET to explain anything at all Baker.  I said that our systems are cheaper because they are universal.  Your turn Baker...
By using the stat of life expectancy.  Which I have shown is a joke, because of all the factors that go into that stat, Mr. Butterfield.

Why don't you go look at stats like, how long you have to wait for care after being diagnosed with cancers, of all types.  Survival rates for cancer sufferers in each country.  Waits for care of all types in different countries.  Etc.

You know, you think your system is better, but the reality is that 90% of the people in this country have far superior care.  As to the 10% that don't, the solution is to fix that apsect of the system, not blow it up and go universal, where the aforementioned 90% end up getting worse care.

And simply, when each day the Brit press has horror story about the ******* disaster that is the NHS, and every day a Doc in Canada comes here to practice, don't ******* tell me your system is better.  Because it's not.  Again, if you think waiting months for simple procedures is a good system, well congrats.  Enjoy that.  Because all universal health care does is what I said before: make care mediocre for the great majority, by rationing and waits, and denial of procedures. 

According to this:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cancer.org%2Facs%2Fgroups%2Fcontent%2F%40epidemiologysurveilance%2Fdocuments%2Fdocument%2Facspc-027766.pdf&ei=jG30UOT5EqrO0QGgsYDoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHg4tENghYhx8jJv3WoynrRVzBYEA&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ
which is a pdf describing cancer incidence rates and mortality globally the USA is right in the middle roughly for most cancers in terms of mortality, and near the top for incidences.  By the way the link is from cancer.org, so I think its probably pretty accurate, and apolitical.

and this is a link for wait times:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/index.html;jsessionid=as008die826bn.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html
Wait times for Canadians for elective surgery is terrible at 25 weeks, but the USA is on par or close to with numerous universal health care countries USA-7 Nehterlands -5 France - 7 New Zealand 8 Germany 5.  There are some other countries with terrible wait times too: Sweden 22 UK 21.
Wait times for seeing a specialist: Canada 59, Sweden 55, France 47, Netherlands 30, UK 28, USA 20, Switzerland 18, Germany 17.

So yes for wait times the USA is at the top (but not by itself) in fact several countries are tied or better then, but Canada does very badly here as do several other universal health care countries.  To be expected really considering how much less we spend on health care I think.

Now for a non partisan comparison of 191 countries health care systems I submit to you all the WHO.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fhealthinfo%2Fpaper30.pdf&ei=-3T0UMm5BqeB0AHluoEY&usg=AFQjCNFVFAcD3TjQCCjHyBhsQnhezUgAHw&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ
This is a PDF showing scores for 191 countries with France scoring the highest at .994 Italy next at .991 Spain 7th at .972  Japan 10th .957 Greece 14th .933 UK 18th .925 Canada 30th .881 Chile 33rd .870 USA 37th .838 Slovenia 38th .838 And the bottom few are Central African republic 189th .156 Myanmar 190th .138 and Sierra Leone 191st with a 0.0.

Now this is interesting the USA is tied with Slovenia, is behind such powerhouses like Chile, Canada, Greece (Bankrupt nation!) and Spain (also nearly bankrupt).  What does this say?  the USA doesnt get bang for its buck.  France really really really does, and once again Canada is better then the USA.

How about that Baker, I think with these links I have conclusively proven that dollar for dollar the USA is at best no better then the rest of us, and according to WHO is worse then the vast majority of 1st world countries.

Eat it Baker.

1/14/2013 4:25 PM
WHO isnt unbiased. They dont just rate how good you are at medicine but add in a lot of social enginering issues as well.
1/14/2013 7:08 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/14/2013 7:08:00 PM (view original):
WHO isnt unbiased. They dont just rate how good you are at medicine but add in a lot of social enginering issues as well.
So do we disregard what they say because you say that they rate things differently then how you would want it?  Kinda crazy talk.  If not WHO who can we trust for an unbiased review?     
1/14/2013 10:20 PM
You would flip if I used the Heritage Foundation and they are more centered in reality than the WHO.
1/14/2013 10:33 PM
really eh.  Why do you say the WHO is so biased?  Where do you get that info from?  Are they a left wing think tank or something?

Puhleeze the Heritage Foundation is about as fair and balanced as Faux News.  Actually I might actually say that the Heritage Foundation is even more far out right wing then Faux.  And that is REALLY saying something.

1/15/2013 12:30 AM

Why do I think WHO is biased?

First if you look at their rating system for who is better at health care they include things that that are social and not medical.

How about the WHO attacking the Catholic Church. Criticizing sugar in diets. Attacking the Bill Gates orginzation because they worried about who controls research spending.

 

1/15/2013 4:44 AM
◂ Prev 1...7|8|9|10|11 Next ▸
I hope I am wrong Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.