Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

U.S. ranks 25th in life expectancy while we pay the MOST for health care

ismaele00

ismaele00

New member
From DailyMail (UK):

What's killing America? U.S. ranks 28th in life expectancy (lower than Chile and Greece) while it pays the MOST for health care
A new survey on health care is revealing that you may not be getting what you pay for if you check into a U.S. hospital.

The U.S. healthcare system is more effective at delivering high costs than quality care than other developed nations, according to the study, conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD.

It found first-rate treatment for cancer but insufficient primary care for other ailments.

The study said Americans pay more than $7,900 per person for healthcare each year - far more than any other OECD country - but still die earlier than their peers in the industrialized world.

The cost of healthcare in the United States is 62 percent higher than that in Switzerland, which has a similar per capita income and also relies substantially on private health insurance.

Meanwhile, Americans receive comparatively little actual care, despite sky-high prices driven by expensive tests and procedures.

They also spend more tax money on healthcare than most other countries, the study showed.

An 'underdeveloped' U.S. primary care system is plagued by shortages of family doctors and high rates of avoidable hospital admissions for people with asthma, lung disease, diabetes, hypertension and other common illnesses.

The growth in U.S. life expectancy over the past half century is also below average, gaining only 8.3 years since 1960 compared with an 11.2-year OECD average.

​
The OECD said U.S. life expectancy of 78.2 years ranked 28th - just behind Chile's and well below the average of 79.5 years among member nations.

The United States was ranked fourth from the bottom for premature mortality, which focuses on deaths among younger people.

The measure, which reflects dangers posed by violence, accidents and environmental hazards, puts America behind all others except Hungary, Mexico and Russia.

Mark Pearson, head of the OECD health division, said researchers believe national mortality rates increasingly reflect the quality of healthcare, though more than half of the equation is still believed to lie with other indicators including lifestyle and diet.
The country with the highest life expectancy is Japan (83).

In Britain, life expectancy has increased at a slower rate than most of its European neighbours – thanks to its poor record on cancer survival and high levels of obesity.

The quality and cost of the $2.6trillion U.S. healthcare system are at the forefront of a rancorous national political debate over how to regulate and pay for treatment, particularly for the poor and elderly.

​
The 2010 U.S. healthcare reform law, which seeks to control costs over time by altering incentives for doctors and other providers, faces a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail have called for its repeal.

Americans have fewer doctors and hospital beds, make fewer doctor visits, go to the hospital less often and stay for shorter lengths of time than about three-quarters of the other OECD countries.

But the United States is at the front of the pack when it comes to costly medical procedures including knee replacements, MRI and CT scans and tonsillectomies.
And it is consistently at the top of the cost chart for a number of procedures including caesarean sections, which are almost twice as expensive in the United States as in Germany.

Pharmaceuticals also cost about 60 per cent more than in a range of European countries.

Mr Pearson said one reason prices are higher in the United States is that the healthcare system lacks what other countries have: an effective government mechanism that acts to keep prices down.

"That's simply not there in the U.S. system. So it's a structural defect," he said.

LIFE EXPECTANCY AGES

1. Japan: 86.4
2. Spain: 84.9
3. Switzerland: 84.6
4. France: 84.4
5. Australia: 83.9
6. Korea: 83.8
7. Israel: 83.5
8. Finland: 83.5
9. Sweden: 83.4
10. Iceland: 83.3
...
24. Chile: 79.5
25. UNITED STATES: 80.6
26. Czech Republic: 80.5
27. Estonia: 80.1
28. Poland: 80​
​
​
Click to expand...
 
TableFun said:
You wanna live past 80?
Click to expand...

I remember going to my great grandma's 100th birthday when I was 7 or so. She was pretty damn healthy, but she was a bitch and she went around saying she wouldn't wish living 100 years on anybody.
 
The unmeasurable factor in US health care is how spectacularly unhealthy a huge portion of our population is.

Even if you segregated people across countries into subgroups (i.e. educated, at ideal body weight, relatively healthy diets), we'd still probably take-in more saturated fats, refined sugars, etc. etc.

So I don't see an easy way to measure it.
 
AFeedz said:
I remember going to my great grandma's 100th birthday when I was 7 or so. She was pretty damn healthy, but she was a bitch and she went around saying she wouldn't wish living 100 years on anybody.
Click to expand...

precisely. She didnt wanna live that long, and nobody else wanted that bitch to live so long.

I'd say, problem solved!


AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
 
AFeedz said:
I remember going to my great grandma's 100th birthday when I was 7 or so. She was pretty damn healthy, but she was a bitch and she went around saying she wouldn't wish living 100 years on anybody.
Click to expand...

lol I can see it. Personally, I wouldn't want to live much past 85. You can't really enjoy food, sex, any of life's pleasures...I'd probably be a bitch too.
 
cindylou said:
lol I can see it. Personally, I wouldn't want to live much past 85. You can't really enjoy food, sex, any of life's pleasures...I'd probably be a bitch too.
Click to expand...

I think you have a slightly jaded misconception of the geriatric community.
 
Funny how the more nationalistic countries rank highest on the LE list.
 
If you don't smoke, drink only in moderation and are not fat then you can just ignore average LE.

Remember this is an average that includes all the fatties, smokers, drinkers and druggies who will die long before you on average.







b0und (I'm gonna live till 150 :D )
 
b0und said:
If you don't smoke, drink only in moderation and are not fat then you can just ignore average LE.

Remember this is an average that includes all the fatties, smokers, drinkers and druggies who will die long before you on average.







b0und (I'm gonna live till 150 :D )
Click to expand...

lol 150 i would never wanna live that long cut that in half for me
 
I think the point here is that our system isn't so great and should be changed. Per capita, we pay twice as much as some of those countries with better results. 18% of GDP is what we spend. We could model a system similar to some European countries and pay closer to 9%. And, more people would be covered and our overall results (such as life expectancy) would likely improve.
 
Headholio said:
I think the point here is that our system isn't so great and should be changed. Per capita, we pay twice as much as some of those countries with better results. 18% of GDP is what we spend. We could model a system similar to some European countries and pay closer to 9%. And, more people would be covered and our overall results (such as life expectancy) would likely improve.
Click to expand...

1) Our level of acuity and co-morbidity would easily bring a European-style health care system to its knees.

2) We do spend a lot of money on the wrong/inefficient/fraudulent things, but that's just an effect of our centrally-planned benefits structure.
 
EnderJE said:
This and the fact that the difference is 6 years between the top spot and the US. C'mon. 6 years isn't that much.
Click to expand...

Swing by a "Great American Buffet" outlet and then ponder why the average American even lives past 50.

buffet.jpg


It's got to be incredible genetics or incredible medicine.
 
Headholio said:
I think the point here is that our system isn't so great and should be changed. Per capita, we pay twice as much as some of those countries with better results. 18% of GDP is what we spend. We could model a system similar to some European countries and pay closer to 9%. And, more people would be covered and our overall results (such as life expectancy) would likely improve.
Click to expand...

AMEN

PS: who is Barry? Barack Obama?
 
ismaele00 said:
AMEN

PS: who is Barry? Barack Obama?
Click to expand...

Barry is Barack Obama

And European-style health care is one of the few things that could accelerate our breakneck-speed bankruptcy.

I will say this though: With as much warning and notice as the US is giving, China and the rest of the world have no right to act the least bit indignant when we go bankrupt and take them down with us.
 
Im honestly surprised we are at 80yrs old...I don't know many Americans that reach that age. It seems to be a little high. With our constant need to convienence and growing hunger for fast food and eating out, am not surprised by this. Healthcare is needed because of our unhealthy eating habits. We are also fueled as a country by Pharmaceuticals, so they like the fact that we are unhealthy. Think about how many different types of "prolonging medications" each elderly person you know takes. These meds only "surpress" their current sickness and definetely don't cure it. It's sad but true
 
MuscleG1 said:
Im honestly surprised we are at 80yrs old...I don't know many Americans that reach that age. It seems to be a little high. With our constant need to convienence and growing hunger for fast food and eating out, am not surprised by this. Healthcare is needed because of our unhealthy eating habits. We are also fueled as a country by Pharmaceuticals, so they like the fact that we are unhealthy. Think about how many different types of "prolonging medications" each elderly person you know takes. These meds only "surpress" their current sickness and definetely don't cure it. It's sad but true
Click to expand...

Please elaborate. I'd like to find out if you know wtf you're talking about.
 
24. Chile: 79.5
25. UNITED STATES: 80.6

huh?

Shit food and lifestyle = Biggest cause

We're too busy being far more productive than all the other countries and put off the essential taking care of yourself part of life.
 
mrplunkey said:
The unmeasurable factor in US health care is how spectacularly unhealthy a huge portion of our population is.

Even if you segregated people across countries into subgroups (i.e. educated, at ideal body weight, relatively healthy diets), we'd still probably take-in more saturated fats, refined sugars, etc. etc.

So I don't see an easy way to measure it.
Click to expand...

THIS ^^^^^ we've had too much disposable income for too long and too many of us used it to fucking eat and drink shit that isn't good for us...imho, almost ALL carbs are empty calories...not a fucking thing there that your body needs or can use efficiently...if you are actively involved in an endurance sport or you are just some genetically-gifted freak, carbs are probably ok for you...otherwise?? they should be viewed as treats, rather than a staple of your diet. the food pyramid is FUCKED...commie propoganda.
 
digimon7068 said:
THIS ^^^^^ we've had too much disposable income for too long and too many of us used it to fucking eat and drink shit that isn't good for us...imho, almost ALL carbs are empty calories...not a fucking thing there that your body needs or can use efficiently...if you are actively involved in an endurance sport or you are just some genetically-gifted freak, carbs are probably ok for you...otherwise?? they should be viewed as treats, rather than a staple of your diet. the food pyramid is FUCKED...commie propoganda.
Click to expand...

why do you hate the planet
 
mrplunkey said:
Barry is Barack Obama

And European-style health care is one of the few things that could accelerate our breakneck-speed bankruptcy.

I will say this though: With as much warning and notice as the US is giving, China and the rest of the world have no right to act the least bit indignant when we go bankrupt and take them down with us.
Click to expand...

Amen.

The fundamental problem is not the cost of health care, it's people having F*CKED UP priorities, and the greed in suing doctors and hospitals every time they make any mistake (or if you can make it look like they did). I hear union workers WHINING about having to pay $60 co-pays to see their HMO doctor, while they're making $800/month payments on a truck, and $500/month payments on a boat or RV. Jeezuz wheezes!!! Wouldn't it make more sense to dump the boat, and put $400 a month in a tax-exempt savings account and have $25,000 sitting there after a few years, to just walk into any doctor or hospital and write a check when the time comes? The big lie, which is cause by insurance itself, is the cost. It only costs about $200 for a complete physical, although the "insurance price" is something like $2500. My wife had to have a kidney stone procedure last year, and the bill-out cost was $56,000 including hospital, labs surgeon, followup doctor visits, meds, CT & MRI scans, etc etc etc. The actual cash price was $4800, which because our priorities are right, we paid on the spot, and it's a done deal. AND, it was about 6 days from the first diagnosis to surgery. Not months of waiting for HMOs to approve tests, and all. And this is even considering that the largest part of any doctor or hospital fee is simply to cover their costs of malpractice coverage.

What a sad, sad, greedy country we have made out of the Good Old USA.

True facts, all documented & provable.

Charles
 
kx250rider said:
Amen.

The fundamental problem is not the cost of health care, it's people having F*CKED UP priorities, and the greed in suing doctors and hospitals every time they make any mistake (or if you can make it look like they did). I hear union workers WHINING about having to pay $60 co-pays to see their HMO doctor, while they're making $800/month payments on a truck, and $500/month payments on a boat or RV. Jeezuz wheezes!!! Wouldn't it make more sense to dump the boat, and put $400 a month in a tax-exempt savings account and have $25,000 sitting there after a few years, to just walk into any doctor or hospital and write a check when the time comes? The big lie, which is cause by insurance itself, is the cost. It only costs about $200 for a complete physical, although the "insurance price" is something like $2500. My wife had to have a kidney stone procedure last year, and the bill-out cost was $56,000 including hospital, labs surgeon, followup doctor visits, meds, CT & MRI scans, etc etc etc. The actual cash price was $4800, which because our priorities are right, we paid on the spot, and it's a done deal. AND, it was about 6 days from the first diagnosis to surgery. Not months of waiting for HMOs to approve tests, and all. And this is even considering that the largest part of any doctor or hospital fee is simply to cover their costs of malpractice coverage.

What a sad, sad, greedy country we have made out of the Good Old USA.

True facts, all documented & provable.

Charles
Click to expand...

They bill insurance $56,000 and insurance pays them about $8,500 a year after the fact. Plus, think of all the people that come in and don't have insurance, still get the procedure and never pay the bill! They have to make up for that somehow! And yes, not to mention the greed factor. I'd be curious to know how many of the people who don't have ins and don't pay their bill end up trying to sue the doctors/hospital. LOL!

Who says we don't need tort reform?

All this is just prepping us for some sort of Euro/Barry Care type system. Problem is politicians/gov't will implement it poorly and fuck it all up like they do with everything else and like Plunkey said, it will actually speed up the USA's impending bankruptcy.

How is it that the people who seem to have the absolute least amount of applicable common sense get elected into office and end up running our country?
 
One thing for sure, if "Obamacare" is shot down, healthcare prices will skyrocket immediately, just like they did when "Hillarycare" was shot down in the '90s.
 
mrplunkey said:
Barry is Barack Obama

And European-style health care is one of the few things that could accelerate our breakneck-speed bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, "Obamacare" is absolutely nothing like "European-style health care".
 
mrplunkey said:
1) Our level of acuity and co-morbidity would easily bring a European-style health care system to its knees.

2) We do spend a lot of money on the wrong/inefficient/fraudulent things, but that's just an effect of our centrally-planned benefits structure.
Click to expand...

Acuity and co-morbidity? That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you should provide links to back up what you are trying to say?

2. Also doesn't make sense. If central planning is somehow the cause of waste, then how does a socialized system cost half as much and get better results?
 
Headholio said:
Acuity and co-morbidity? That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you should provide links to back up what you are trying to say?

2. Also doesn't make sense. If central planning is somehow the cause of waste, then how does a socialized system cost half as much and get better results?
Click to expand...

^^^
RS alter alert!
 
Headholio said:
Acuity and co-morbidity? That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you should provide links to back up what you are trying to say?

2. Also doesn't make sense. If central planning is somehow the cause of waste, then how does a socialized system cost half as much and get better results?
Click to expand...

If you aren't familiar with the concepts of acuity adjustment and comorbidity in measuring clinicoeconomic outcomes, then you really should sit on the sidelines of the health care debate.
 
ceo said:
They bill insurance $56,000 and insurance pays them about $8,500 a year after the fact. Plus, think of all the people that come in and don't have insurance, still get the procedure and never pay the bill! They have to make up for that somehow! And yes, not to mention the greed factor. I'd be curious to know how many of the people who don't have ins and don't pay their bill end up trying to sue the doctors/hospital. LOL!

Who says we don't need tort reform?

All this is just prepping us for some sort of Euro/Barry Care type system. Problem is politicians/gov't will implement it poorly and fuck it all up like they do with everything else and like Plunkey said, it will actually speed up the USA's impending bankruptcy.

How is it that the people who seem to have the absolute least amount of applicable common sense get elected into office and end up running our country?
Click to expand...

Amen.

It's not really hard to figure-out hospital margins. Most hospitals operate at little or no profit -- 1% to 2% margins are the norm.

So here is the math:

Assume overall Hospital Margin: 0%

Payer mix:

15% indigent/no-pay = -100% margin (customer pays virtually nothing)

40% medicare/medicaid = -10% margin (medicare covers some operating costs but doesn't cover fully-burdened overhead)

45% private payer

So to get back to 0%, what does the private payer margin need to be?

X = -1*(0.15*(-100) + 0.40*(-10)) / 0.45 = 42%

So when a private pay patient experiences $1 in cost, the hospital has to collect (not bill... collect) $1.87

So if the liberals ever do succeed in taking over health care, the price increase they'll need to keep hospitals afloat will be so large that it would immediately bankrupt the country.

The government is already getting a free ride off the backs of private payers, and it's still bankrupting us. I can't imagine how fast it would happen if we gave them more of it.
 
mrplunkey said:
Ridiculous absolute. Obvious troll attempt.
Click to expand...

You must be speaking about yourself.

Since Obamacare is mostly just forcing people to buy health insurance, I don't see how it compares with European single-payer plans in which all medical commerce is transacted through tax money.

Your lies make Baby Jesus cry.

Just like the lies that Obama's regulatory madness is killing American business, when Obama's administration has been slashing regulations in every field except health and banking/finance.

Obama Office Alters More Federal Rules Than Bush : NPR
 
Mr. dB said:
You must be speaking about yourself.

Since Obamacare is mostly just forcing people to buy health insurance, I don't see how it compares with European single-payer plans in which all medical commerce is transacted through tax money.

Your lies make Baby Jesus cry.

Just like the lies that Obama's regulatory madness is killing American business, when Obama's administration has been slashing regulations in every field except health and banking/finance.

Obama Office Alters More Federal Rules Than Bush : NPR
Click to expand...

Here's a great moment for a reality check:

True of False: Obama has broadened the reach and increased the power of the NLRB (an executive branch regulatory agency) during his tenure in office.

That's neither health or banking/finance.

Let's see if you can face reality.
 
Headholio said:
I think the point here is that our system isn't so great and should be changed. Per capita, we pay twice as much as some of those countries with better results. 18% of GDP is what we spend. We could model a system similar to some European countries and pay closer to 9%. And, more people would be covered and our overall results (such as life expectancy) would likely improve.
Click to expand...

Making cross cultural comparisons isn't a good metric...

For example, Asians have very positive health outcomes but as soon as they immigrate they have the same outcomes as the average American; It's a lifestyle issue and not a treatment issue.
 
Another point: We already have federal and state and local free medical care, and it doesn't work. If you walk into any emergency room; Beverly Hills or the poorest place in Alabama, you will be seen, with or without ID, and with or without insurance or a checkbook. The hospitals are going bankrupt on a daily basis because of this, and the exact same thing would happen the current free(loader) system is replaced with a shiny new copy called Obamacare. I will beat this drum 'til I die: Get rid of fake malpractice suits and the crooked lawyers who do them, and we'll all be able to see the doctor for $30, get meds for $10, and get surgery for $500. And if you are working but can't budget for that, and not paying 60% taxes, you have a personal discipline problem and don't deserve medical care.

Charles
 
kx250rider said:
I will beat this drum 'til I die: Get rid of fake malpractice suits and the crooked lawyers who do them, and we'll all be able to see the doctor for $30, get meds for $10, and get surgery for $500. And if you are working but can't budget for that, and not paying 60% taxes, you have a personal discipline problem and don't deserve medical care.
Click to expand...

And then when you catch flesh-eating virus while you're at the hospital, or some noob intern cuts off your baby son's penis in a botched circumcision, you'll just laugh it off instead of suing?
 
TableFun said:
Send ur kids to me. I make penises beautiful!
Click to expand...

Impossible. They're ugly enough as is, but adding a nasty scar and exposing the part that should be covered by a comfy sheath of skin is hardly an improvement.

All penises are ugly. Except for mine, of course, which is a work of art.
 
mrplunkey said:
Here's a great moment for a reality check:

True of False: Obama has broadened the reach and increased the power of the NLRB (an executive branch regulatory agency) during his tenure in office.

That's neither health or banking/finance.

Let's see if you can face reality.
Click to expand...

Nice to see Db's reality check working out so nicely.

I'll check back later.
 
javaguru said:
Making cross cultural comparisons isn't a good metric...

For example, Asians have very positive health outcomes but as soon as they immigrate they have the same outcomes as the average American; It's a lifestyle issue and not a treatment issue.
Click to expand...

No way! Comparing health care costs between populations with 3% obesity and those with 30% obesity is fun and easy!
 
Mr. dB said:
Provide the link if you expect me to do your homework.
Click to expand...

C'mon redsam, don't dodge the issue.

You claimed Barry has been "slashing regulation in every field" except health care and banking/finance.

I offered-up the NLRB as evidence that your statement was untrue.

So how connected to reality are you? Do you agree your original statement was mistaken?
 
cindylou said:
That was a joke...I was kidding, sorry. ;) A high protein diet isn't very erf friendly.
Click to expand...

but my overall calorie consumption is likely significantly lower than the average american...leaving more food available for the rest of the poor slobs out there...i eat to live, rather than the other way around ;)
 
digimon7068 said:
but my overall calorie consumption is likely significantly lower than the average american...leaving more food available for the rest of the poor slobs out there...i eat to live, rather than the other way around ;)
Click to expand...

Erf first. Starving poor slobs last on list. ;)
 
mrplunkey said:
C'mon redsam, don't dodge the issue.

You claimed Barry has been "slashing regulation in every field" except health care and banking/finance.

I offered-up the NLRB as evidence that your statement was untrue.

So how connected to reality are you? Do you agree your original statement was mistaken?
Click to expand...

I offered up a link to an article which supported my statement. Searches on "NLRB" don't immediately bring me to anything relevant to your argument. Again, I'm not going to put any effort into doing your homework for you.
 
Mr. dB said:
I offered up a link to an article which supported my statement. Searches on "NLRB" don't immediately bring me to anything relevant to your argument. Again, I'm not going to put any effort into doing your homework for you.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/business/economy/nlrb-eases-unionizing-at-nursing-homes.html

Even your beloved NYT describes it as: "a flurry of moves favorable to unions"

The NLRB is an executive branch regulatory agency formed in 1935.

All five members of its managing board are appointed by the President.

Now assuming that reading a few sentences doesn't count as "doing your homework", are you now ready to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your original statement? Or shall the denial continue?
 
mrplunkey said:
Even your beloved NYT describes it as: "a flurry of moves favorable to unions"

The NLRB is an executive branch regulatory agency formed in 1935.

All five members of its managing board are appointed by the President.

Now assuming that reading a few sentences doesn't count as "doing your homework", are you now ready to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your original statement? Or shall the denial continue?
Click to expand...

You should read your own article. The NLRB decisions listed are just reversals of Bush era radicalism. Of course we know Republicans want to kill unions, give all power to the rich and to corporations, and to keep the middle class down.
DB's original statement was that Obama was slashing regulation, and he was correct and provided a link to back it up.
NLRB has nothing to do with his comment; it was simply your diversion. The NLRB has applied existing law and reversed anti union republican union busting efforts.
Recognizing worker rights and collective bargaining rights is not increased regulation.
Although interpretations of law will vary according to the party interpreting those laws, the laws have not changed so regulation has not changed. And the NLRB "power" as you say, has not increased or decreased, it is bound by the same laws it always has been. Just because unions are getting a more fair shake under the dems does not mean NLRB power has increased.
Hope that helps.

And this has nothing to do with the crappy healthcare in the US and disproportionately high price we pay for it. ;)
 
Headholio said:
Of course we know Republicans want to...give all power to the rich and to corporations, and to keep the middle class down.
Click to expand...

And so do the Dems. All politicians care about is themselves and getting re-elected. If you think any of them truly give a shit about you or the poor or middle class (other than telling you what you want to hear to get your vote) you are being foolish.
 
Headholio said:
You should read your own article. The NLRB decisions listed are just reversals of Bush era radicalism. Of course we know Republicans want to kill unions, give all power to the rich and to corporations, and to keep the middle class down.
DB's original statement was that Obama was slashing regulation, and he was correct and provided a link to back it up.
NLRB has nothing to do with his comment; it was simply your diversion. The NLRB has applied existing law and reversed anti union republican union busting efforts.
Recognizing worker rights and collective bargaining rights is not increased regulation.
Although interpretations of law will vary according to the party interpreting those laws, the laws have not changed so regulation has not changed. And the NLRB "power" as you say, has not increased or decreased, it is bound by the same laws it always has been. Just because unions are getting a more fair shake under the dems does not mean NLRB power has increased.
Hope that helps.

And this has nothing to do with the crappy healthcare in the US and disproportionately high price we pay for it. ;)
Click to expand...

Redsam couldn't have said it better.

Mr. Db -- this is exactly what you sound like when you go into denial.
 
ceo said:
And so do the Dems. All politicians care about is themselves and getting re-elected. If you think any of them truly give a shit about you or the poor or middle class (other than telling you what you want to hear to get your vote) you are being foolish.
Click to expand...


Not quite.
There is one party who has argued that it is more important to keep tax rates for millionaires at historic lows, than it is to pay unemployment benefits, to provide kids opportunities for student loans, to fix infrastructure, to invest in jobs programs, etc.
I'm no fan of politicians either, but clearly there is no equivalence between parties when talking about who is working more for average Americans, and who is working for the elite.
 
mrplunkey said:
Redsam couldn't have said it better.

Mr. Db -- this is exactly what you sound like when you go into denial.
Click to expand...

LOL. I don't know redsam is but maybe you'd have better luck debating him.
Your attempt at diversion with the NLRB didn't work and your assertion was wrong. Ok, you obviously can't defend that one so lets move on :)
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So now that we got all this shit out of the way, what do we do to keep America the land of oppertunity
 
EarthRider said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So now that we got all this shit out of the way, what do we do to keep America the land of oppertunity
Click to expand...

We could probably start by trying to be competitive with the rest of the world.

Right now, we aren't.
 
Headholio said:
Not quite.
There is one party who has argued that it is more important to keep tax rates for millionaires at historic lows, than it is to pay unemployment benefits, to provide kids opportunities for student loans, to fix infrastructure, to invest in jobs programs, etc.
I'm no fan of politicians either, but clearly there is no equivalence between parties when talking about who is working more for average Americans, and who is working for the elite.
Click to expand...

1) lib #1 makes outlandish claim.

2) conservative points it out with facts and references.

3) lib #2 defends him by cut-and-paste of irrelevant talking points from DNC web site.

At least you guys are consistent.
 
because the world's thinkers are being highjacked with socialism so that the few rule
 
mrplunkey said:
1) lib #1 makes outlandish claim.

2) conservative points it out with facts and references.

3) lib #2 defends him by cut-and-paste of irrelevant talking points from DNC web site.

At least you guys are consistent.
Click to expand...

What a disingenuous load of crap.
 
Back to healthcare, this is the opening paragraph from the 2009 report to congress;
U.S. Health Care Spending:​

Comparison with Other OECD Countries

The United States spends more money on health care than any other country in
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD
consists of 30 democracies, most of which are considered the most economically
advanced countries in the world. According to OECD data, the United States spent
$6,102 per capita on health care in 2004 — more than double the OECD average and
19.9% more than Luxembourg, the second-highest spending country. In 2004, 15.3%
of the U.S. economy was devoted to health care, compared with 8.9% in the average​

OECD country and 11.6% in second-placed Switzerland.
Click to expand...


assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf​
 
Headholio said:
Not quite.
There is one party who has argued that it is more important to keep tax rates for millionaires at historic lows, than it is to pay unemployment benefits, to provide kids opportunities for student loans, to fix infrastructure, to invest in jobs programs, etc.
I'm no fan of politicians either, but clearly there is no equivalence between parties when talking about who is working more for average Americans, and who is working for the elite.
Click to expand...

You mean you believe all that bullshit they spew? I'm looking at what they DO, not what they say. Point is, no matter which party [appears to be] in control, nothing changes. We are on a course that has been set and we will continue on, no matter who is in office.

People need to open their eyes and stop being blind and stupid. No politician is going to take care of you and until you start taking care of yourself you will fail.
 
From the 4th paragraph of the report I linked above:

However, research comparing the quality of care has not found the United States
to be superior overall. Nor does the U.S. population have substantially better access
to health care resources, even putting aside the issue of the uninsured. Although the
United States does not have long wait times for non-emergency surgeries, unlike
some OECD countries, Americans found it more difficult to make same-day doctor’s
appointments when sick and had the most difficulty getting care on nights and​
weekends. They were also most likely to delay or forgo treatment because of cost.
 
mrplunkey said:
1) lib #1 makes outlandish claim.

2) conservative points it out with facts and references.

3) lib #2 defends him by cut-and-paste of irrelevant talking points from DNC web site.

At least you guys are consistent.
Click to expand...

Says the guy that posts "The Heritage foundation" as a reference for facts...olololololololololol
 
ceo said:
You mean you believe all that bullshit they spew? I'm looking at what they DO, not what they say. Point is, no matter which party [appears to be] in control, nothing changes. We are on a course that has been set and we will continue on, no matter who is in office.

People need to open their eyes and stop being blind and stupid. No politician is going to take care of you and until you start taking care of yourself you will fail.
Click to expand...

I look at what they do as well. To address the deficit, Republicans want to stop taking care of sick people and of old people, democrats want to get more revenue from people who can afford it. Republicans ignore the fact that revenues are at historic lows compared to GDP. When pushed for a revenue solution, they will tax anyone, and take benefits from anyone, except the rich. The failed "supercommittee" republicans plan for revenue included removing the mortgage interest deduction, effectively a huge increase in tax on millions of struggling Americans, without touching the rich.
If you do really look at what they do, you will see there is a big difference.
 
Headholio said:
I look at what they do as well. To address the deficit, Republicans want to stop taking care of sick people and of old people, democrats want to get more revenue from people who can afford it. Republicans ignore the fact that revenues are at historic lows compared to GDP. When pushed for a revenue solution, they will tax anyone, and take benefits from anyone, except the rich. The failed "supercommittee" republicans plan for revenue included removing the mortgage interest deduction, effectively a huge increase in tax on millions of struggling Americans, without touching the rich.
If you do really look at what they do, you will see there is a big difference.
Click to expand...

"want to"? Fuck what they SAY they want to do. There's no difference dude. they are all in bed together. They are all rich. You really believe any of them - dems included - want to pay more taxes? You believe Warren Buffet? LOL

I'm not talking about legislation that never gets passed. This is pointless. Believe the lies bro. Yes, the dems are all about you and me. They love us to the point they would sacrifice their own money and wealth for the little guy. Aren't they great?
 
The damage that Obama and his rhetoric have done to our underlying tax base is massive.

It's disturbing that people actually believe and regurgitate this garbage.
 
mrplunkey said:
The damage that Obama and his rhetoric have done to our underlying tax base is massive.

It's disturbing that people actually believe and regurgitate this garbage.
Click to expand...


If you keep avoiding specifics, you need no facts and have nothing to defend. Simple jabs with nothing behind it. I see the ploy, but it doesn't accomplish much, does it?

if you want to talk taxes let's throw some facts into it:

-Tax revenue as % of GDP is 14% this year vs historical 17-20% from the mid 50's through Clinton and Bush.

-400 people in this country have more wealth than 50% of the population combined.

-Average income for the bottom 90% is $31k.

-Average income for the top one hundredth of 1 percent is $27 million/yr.

-From 1979 to 2007, the bottom 80% lost share of American wealth, while the top 20% gained 30% of the wealth, and the top 1% increased their share 120%.

-Before Reagan, the top tax brackets from the 1930s forward was in the 70% to 90% range, now its 35% and some bozos call Obama a socialist for proposing 39%. that would make every republican President from Hoover forward a socialist as well, except Reagan.

-Reagan increased taxes too, he just preferred to do it to middle class people. Even Reagan realized he created too much debt by his tax cuts, something that todays radical right will never acknowledge.

There, now we have some facts to discuss!
 
Headholio said:
LOL. I don't know redsam is but maybe you'd have better luck debating him.
Your attempt at diversion with the NLRB didn't work and your assertion was wrong. Ok, you obviously can't defend that one so lets move on :)
Click to expand...
They play the "alter" game when ever someone doesnt agree with their point of view. Then they go on talking shit about some place called "Cutters" and divert from the subject of conversation when their arguments are proven unsound or when they are out matched on FACTS.

Just a heads up.
 
or if someone shows up and immediately thinks they're captain badass. Most of you pukes are pretty timid for a while.
 
Headholio said:
If you keep avoiding specifics, you need no facts and have nothing to defend. Simple jabs with nothing behind it. I see the ploy, but it doesn't accomplish much, does it?

if you want to talk taxes let's throw some facts into it:

-Tax revenue as % of GDP is 14% this year vs historical 17-20% from the mid 50's through Clinton and Bush.

-400 people in this country have more wealth than 50% of the population combined. what do you want the politicians to do about this bro? Take it away from the rich and redistribute it to the poor? lol.

-Average income for the bottom 90% is $31k. why is that? Do you suppose they have any control over that? Maybe through education, or working harder or smarter?

-Average income for the top one hundredth of 1 percent is $27 million/yr. And? We can't all be wealthy bro. Again, what do you want politicians to do about this? How would raising taxes on those people level the playing field in any other way than making them a little less rich? It's not going to make the poor any richer...unless the gov't starts paying people to be poor.

-From 1979 to 2007, the bottom 80% lost share of American wealth, while the top 20% gained 30% of the wealth, and the top 1% increased their share 120%. Again, your point? It sounds like you expect the dems to play Robin Hood for you. Is that correct?

-Before Reagan, the top tax brackets from the 1930s forward was in the 70% to 90% range, now its 35% and some bozos call Obama a socialist for proposing 39%. that would make every republican President from Hoover forward a socialist as well, except Reagan. I could live with a 4% increase to the top tax bracket. I sure would like to see a complete overhaul of frivolous government spending though (yeah right, like that will happen).

-Reagan increased taxes too, he just preferred to do it to middle class people. Even Reagan realized he created too much debt by his tax cuts, something that todays radical right will never acknowledge.

There, now we have some facts to discuss!
Click to expand...

Fact remains that politicians still don't give a shit about any of the poor or middle class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richardbrown
Napsgear: Are Plastics Causing Testosterone Levels to Decline?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Tazz
Tazz
Richardbrown
Napsgear: Steroids: Why They Should Be Legal
Replies
14
Views
4K
RoySimpson
RoySimpson
jasonhill800
Napsgear, Fast Facts About New Year’s Resolutioners
Replies
15
Views
3K
ballin2504
ballin2504
Macedog24
What’s a “Normal” Testosterone Level and How to Measure Your Test (How to get bloods)
Replies
1
Views
1K
stevesmi
stevesmi
Macedog24
🏋🏻*♀️NEW DRUG enhancing performance x 10🏋🏻*♀️
Replies
5
Views
2K
stathis169
stathis169
Top Bottom