Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# The cost of NOT having UHC

 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:25:56 PMPosted: 8 years agoA 2002 report from the Insitute of Medicine, a congressional advisory group on health care, conducted an extensive study and determined approximately 18,000 people die each year purely for lacking adequate regular health care.18,000 people.That's absolutely meaningless to the conservatives, so I'll do a little math for you to work out the dollar value of those lives. The Bush administration, which of course values lives more than worthless liberals, downgraded the value of a human life to \$6.9 million in its final year in terms of determining whether or not life-saving projects are worth the expense -- if \$6.9 million times the number of lives lost is less than the estimated cost of a project, the lifesaving project would be deemed to not be worth it.Projecting this on the 18,000 figure estimate gives us 18,000 deaths/year x \$6.9 million/person = \$124.2 billion/yearWhat was that about cost again?
 Posts: 3,500 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:33:28 PMPosted: 8 years agoSo this means that automatically means that UHC is the solution?It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
 Posts: 7,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:33:49 PMPosted: 8 years ago1) This thread should be in the "Politics" Section.2) What's your point?3) Let's do some more math.-You say 18,000 people die because lack of UHC or something like that.-The population of the U.S. is about 305 million.-18,000 is 0.005901639344262295% of 305 million.So, is the problem the 18,000 or is it the gov't. Checking the statistics, I'd say it's the 18,000's fault. So, is UHC worth it because of 0.005901639344262295% of the population? I think not.
 Posts: 5,387 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:43:58 PMPosted: 8 years agoAnother thing:"A Canadian health care patient, on average, must wait 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment." (16:06)Read the testimonial from 16:47 to 17:50. People die while waiting for their socialized health care. Well, the common people, that is. But not the government...
 Posts: 5,387 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:49:18 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:25:56 PM, PervRat wrote:The Bush administration, which of course values lives more than worthless liberals, downgraded the value of a human life to \$6.9 million in its final year in terms of determining whether or not life-saving projects are worth the expense.You're using data from Bush?
 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:51:36 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:43:58 PM, mongeese wrote:Another thing:"A Canadian health care patient, on average, must wait 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment." (16:06)Read the testimonial from 16:47 to 17:50. People die while waiting for their socialized health care. Well, the common people, that is. But not the government...Completely false. Americans wait eternally.
 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:53:44 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:49:18 PM, mongeese wrote:At 8/15/2009 7:25:56 PM, PervRat wrote:The Bush administration, which of course values lives more than worthless liberals, downgraded the value of a human life to \$6.9 million in its final year in terms of determining whether or not life-saving projects are worth the expense.You're using data from Bush?Its the most recent data I could find (2008). I don't know where to find the figures under Obama. I think its a bit more ironic to use Bush's own devalued numbers anyway. The 18,000 number is 7 years old, unfortunately it was a one-of-a-kind report, not a regular report. That 18,000 has undoubtedly greatly expanded, as the number of uninsured significantly increased under Bush along with slashing of community health programs which were a thin lifeline for a few uninsured people.
 Posts: 5,387 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:54:05 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:51:36 PM, PervRat wrote:At 8/15/2009 7:43:58 PM, mongeese wrote:Another thing:"A Canadian health care patient, on average, must wait 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment." (16:06)Read the testimonial from 16:47 to 17:50. People die while waiting for their socialized health care. Well, the common people, that is. But not the government...Completely false. Americans wait eternally.No, they don't even wait. But not waiting is better than waiting until death on the taxpayer's dime.And what makes you think that government will save these 18,000 lives every year?
 Posts: 7,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:56:52 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:33:49 PM, Nags wrote:3) Let's do some more math.-You say 18,000 people die because lack of UHC or something like that.-The population of the U.S. is about 305 million.-18,000 is 0.005901639344262295% of 305 million.So, is the problem the 18,000 or is it the gov't. Checking the statistics, I'd say it's the 18,000's fault. So, is UHC worth it because of 0.005901639344262295% of the population? I think not.I'd like a reply Perv.
 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 7:59:46 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:54:05 PM, mongeese wrote:No, they don't even wait. But not waiting is better than waiting until death on the taxpayer's dime.Its very rare for it to take more than a week to get a doctor for a non-emergency in Canada. Anyone can go to any ER at any time, there is no "in or out of your insurance network" crap.And I challenge you to establish credibility for the claim it is better to give up and let 18,000 die than spend a dime to save at least a few.
 Posts: 7,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 8:03:38 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:59:46 PM, PervRat wrote:And I challenge you to establish credibility for the claim it is better to give up and let 18,000 die than spend a dime to save at least a few.Way to weasel out of a rebuttal...Ok. Natural selection and survival of the fittest establishes the credibility. Why save the weak with the strong's money? It only weakens the stronger further. And delays the inevitable that the 18,000 will die.Keep in mind- 0.0059%.
 Posts: 5,387 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 8:05:05 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:59:46 PM, PervRat wrote:At 8/15/2009 7:54:05 PM, mongeese wrote:No, they don't even wait. But not waiting is better than waiting until death on the taxpayer's dime.Its very rare for it to take more than a week to get a doctor for a non-emergency in Canada. Anyone can go to any ER at any time, there is no "in or out of your insurance network" crap.Maybe you should watch the video about Canadian health care. Which was put together by a Canadian. And the waiting lists in Canada are extreme when you get to things like the ER and surgery.And I challenge you to establish credibility for the claim it is better to give up and let 18,000 die than spend a dime to save at least a few.A dime? UHC is not a dime. My mentioning of a dime was just an expression. And UHC would not just be an automatic life-saver. It would put us in the same situation as Canada is in right now. In other words, expensive waiting for the simplest procedures.Before we continue, what's your opinion on the AMA and the FDA?
 Posts: 8,206 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 8:05:46 PMPosted: 8 years agoPervRat, what entitles the individual to positive rights?in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 8:15:20 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:56:52 PM, Nags wrote:So, is the problem the 18,000 or is it the gov't. Checking the statistics, I'd say it's the 18,000's fault. So, is UHC worth it because of 0.005901639344262295% of the population? I think not.I'd like a reply Perv.No, you don't, but you insist so here you go:3,000 died on 9-11. We have spent \$915 billion so far on the "war on terror" in response (that's \$305 million per each of the 3,000 who died) and have lost 5,250 American soldiers. If we valued the lives of the 18,000 who die from not having health care the same as the 3,000 who died on 9/11, we could spend \$16.47 QUADrillion on health care per year.2,500 died in Katrina. We have spent \$200 billion on cleanup, which works out to \$80 million/person. At that rate, we could spend \$1.44 trillion per year on health care if we viewed every person as being equal to those killed in New Orleans.The total killed on 9-11 and from Katrina is less than one-third of the ongoing annual death toll from lack of health care. By your logic, if we shouldn't spend one time to save 18,000 lives, we should not have spent one dime to help anyone from Katrina nor persue the 9-11 perpetrators.
 Posts: 7,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 8:25:14 PMPosted: 8 years agoPervRat- You are great at straw men arguments. Simply, stunning.RE: War on Terror-I don't support the War on Terror.RE: Katrina-The spending wasn't just for the people who died. It's so people can actually move back in to destroyed cities (ie. New Orleans).My point stands. Terrible try though.
 Posts: 5,387 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 8:30:04 PMPosted: 8 years agoPervRat, your examples fail to fall short of failure.In both of those events, people had died, and money was spent to either prevent more people from dying or fix things that were broken. It wouldn't have taken much money to save the 3,000 from dying on 9/11, if we knew it was coming. Katrina, well, people stayed, then died, so we spent money so that the survivors would continue to live, not the dead. They can't continue to live. The three events you are comparing are not nearly as similar as they appear to be.
 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 8:38:40 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 8:25:14 PM, Nags wrote:PervRat- You are great at straw men arguments. Simply, stunning.Its not a straw man argument, its relevant and factual. 3,500 deaths aren't worth lifting a finger to you, nor 2,500, nor 18,000 every year. Human lives are worth nothing to you.As to your feedomainradio, the figures are made up. The average wait time is 4 1/2 weeks from agreement to treat to actual treatment from a 2007 report, and additional funding has been provided to reduce this by next year (2010). http://www.cihi.ca...
 Posts: 7,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 8:41:48 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 8:38:40 PM, PervRat wrote:At 8/15/2009 8:25:14 PM, Nags wrote:PervRat- You are great at straw men arguments. Simply, stunning.Its not a straw man argument, its relevant and factual. 3,500 deaths aren't worth lifting a finger to you, nor 2,500, nor 18,000 every year. Human lives are worth nothing to you.What are the 3,500 and 2,500 numbers for?
 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 9:57:23 PMPosted: 8 years agoWhat are the 3,500 and 2,500 numbers for?Sorry, I meant 3,000 - the approximate number lost on 9/11, and 2,500 - the number lost in Katrina.
 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 9:58:13 PMPosted: 8 years agoAnd what makes you think that government will save these 18,000 lives every year?It won't until we have full-on UHC, but any program that covers more people who currently have no or inadquate coverage will save some of those lives.
 Posts: 2,251 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 10:34:40 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 7:43:58 PM, mongeese wrote:Another thing:"A Canadian health care patient, on average, must wait 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment." (16:06)Read the testimonial from 16:47 to 17:50. People die while waiting for their socialized health care. Well, the common people, that is. But not the government...What is this? Someone's posting Molyneux videos and it's not me?: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...) Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist. "The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government." So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
 Posts: 963 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 8/15/2009 10:44:28 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 8/15/2009 10:34:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:What is this? Someone's posting Molyneux videos and it's not me?No, I investigated the reporter and found out he's a lazy fat rich Canadian who reposted a made-up report on wait times in Canada. I check sources.