Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The cost of NOT having UHC

PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:25:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A 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/year

What was that about cost again?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:33:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So 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.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:33:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
1) 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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:43:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:49:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:51:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:53:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:54:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 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?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:56:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 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.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 7:59:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

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.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 8:03:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 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%.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 8:05:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 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?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 8:15:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 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.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 8:25:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
PervRat- 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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 8:30:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
PervRat, 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.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 8:38:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

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...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 8:41:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 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?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 9:57:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What 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.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 9:58:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And 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.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 10:34:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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...

What is this? Someone's posting Molyneux videos and it's not me?
<I already showed this video to PervRat btw, he ignored that post completely...>
: 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?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 10:44:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 10:34:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

What is this? Someone's posting Molyneux videos and it's not me?
<I already showed this video to PervRat btw, he ignored that post completely...>

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.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 10:52:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 10:44:28 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/15/2009 10:34:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

What is this? Someone's posting Molyneux videos and it's not me?
<I already showed this video to PervRat btw, he ignored that post completely...>

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.

Okay, so you checked your sources.

Stefan Molyneux is a guy who lived only with his brother and had to work part time jobs since he was fifteen, then went to several different colleges and got an A on his master's thesis, started his own software company and then sold it, and then took a 75% pay cut to do a philosophy show full time - income based on voluntary donations, and you can get his stuff for free if you don't want to pay.

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.

You call that life a life of laziness?

I thought you were pretty bad before, but now, you don't have any respect from 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?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 10:55:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

You call that life a life of laziness?

I thought you were pretty bad before, but now, you don't have any respect from me.

I'm glad, actually. If devout cultists respect me, I'm doing something wrong.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 9:54:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 10:34:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
What is this? Someone's posting Molyneux videos and it's not me?

I showed it to mongeese. Of course, he loved it.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 11:02:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
mongeese said:
"A Canadian health care patient, on average, must wait 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment."

You're kidding me, right? I have never, ever heard of such an overblown, over simplified and completely untrue statement in my life.

Canadians who need treatment right away, get treatment right away. It is all based on how severe the affliction is, and how serious it can get. If you have a cold, of course you're going to be waiting longer than someone with full-blown pneumonia. But nearly 18 weeks?

Maybe at the maximum, you'll wait a week, but even that is such a rare occurrance, because you would only wait that long if there was a huge backlog, and guess what! The American system has the same exact issue, but unlike the American system, all Canadians are allowed to have access to healthcare. What do you think is better? Having the backlog but making sure everyone still stays healthy, or having the backlog and letting people die simply because they can't pay?

That 17.7 weeks number is, and I do not reserve any words here, complete and utter bullsh*t. Whoever came up with such a statistic is lying bold-faced to you and others; maybe they're misrepresenting some aspect, or maybe they just chose a random number, but it is BS to the extreme.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 11:12:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 11:02:03 AM, Volkov wrote:
That 17.7 weeks number is, and I do not reserve any words here, complete and utter bullsh*t.

Yeah, its confirmed that it was made up. Waiting times for some procedures was getting as long as 4 weeks, but they're already on their way to greatly reducing that by next year (2010). Emergency care of course is always immediate in Canada.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 12:17:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'd take a much higher chance of death than that to avoid slavery.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 12:18:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 12:17:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'd take a much higher chance of death than that to avoid slavery.

That is your decision, and by all means, choose death. Don't choose it for others though.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 12:37:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 12:18:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/16/2009 12:17:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'd take a much higher chance of death than that to avoid slavery.

That is your decision, and by all means, choose death. Don't choose it for others though.

You're choosing for others by forcing UHC on them.
R_R isn't killing others when he doesn't voluntarily give them HC.
: 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?