+- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com)
+-- Forum: Twitter forums (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Twitter abbreviations (/forum-4.html)
+--- Thread: Why do Conservatives feel the need to lie about British and Canadian healthcare? (/thread-32055.html)
- Yakov Smirnov - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
They need all the help they can get.
- Sophie - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
I'm not. I used British health care. Stop spamming this question every day. And the UK health care has obvious problems and having the current prime minister vouch for it isn't exactly nonbiased. lol
- seawolf - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
IF you think the system is so grand when you are sick go next door for help or fly to England,,,
- US Army Veteran - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
They are pathological liars.
- Sam Sneed - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
Because FOX News and Rush Limbaugh told them so...........................
- Tom - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
A neighbor of mine had to go to India for bypass surgery a couple of years ago. He couldn't get insurance to save his life. He's doing fine now- he's alive. US life expectancy is at # 19 last I heard. That's a disgrace when we have more than enough for false wars. Their lies are killing people.
- Michael P in NJ - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
For the same reason they feel the need to lie about everything else.
It's called Four Tops Syndrome: Sugar pie, honey bunch, I can't help myself!
- Blaster - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
apparently you are not the majority of unsatisfied users.
- grandmac38 - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
Stephen Hawking's is not the not all that smart. In fact he comes off as a stuffed shirt liberal who don't have a clue when it comes to health care.
I'm sure that the British NHC saved his life. After all he has the money to get up to the front of the line.
pdooma, are you a real Canadian? LOL
- Shawn McGraw - 11-09-2012 05:57 PM
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/public/wt_public_mn.html Take a look at Canada's wait times. Care to revise your hysterical "question"? It's your freedom to be completely gullible, but don't expect us to lend any credence to your questions or answers from this moment on.
Why do people like you feel the need to empty the contents of your bladder upon our Constitution? I wonder which poor Brit had to wait in line due to Professor Hawking's precedence?
I work with Canadians and Brits, but they now reside here in the States. Would you like to hear what they have to say, or would you like to refer only to Professor Hawking's account and therefore claim - using the fallacy of composition as your guide - that the entire system is fantastic? Would you ignore the countless articles and personal accounts from people in each of these countries? Sure, you latch on to a single article that heralds the glorious success of socialism, so therefore what is good for one must be good for all.
To state that wait-times are no longer in countries that have socialized medicine in comparison to the U.S.A. is borderline hysterics and marks you as impressionable fool. Health care is a scarce resource, as is food, clothing, people, electricity, et al. When something is artificially provided or is reduced below market value, the demand almost immediately exceeds supply. Wait times, rationing, reduction and/or quality of care is the only means to maintain the equilibrium. This isn't hyperbole or talking points. This is basic, undeniable economic law.
It's very easy to ask those that are mired in the system itself how they feel about it, when they know nothing else. The internationals I know, that now live here, dare not dream of going back to that system or implementing a similar system here. You might as well have asked an Italian if he likes his wine, or a Tibetan Monk if he enjoys his living conditions.
Your question misses the point entirely. Where in the Constitution does it provide government the authority to enact socialized medicine? Previous Unconstitutional precedent is irrelevant.
Do we truly need to discuss the fatal flaws of the economics of socialism? Do we need to discuss the bankrupt state of these systems? Do we need to bring about centuries of empirical data which highlights the unsustainability of social programs? Or, will you simply realize that it is wholly Unconstitutional and render this argument academic?
What we want is reform in the REMOVAL of government from the equation - the repealing of layer upon layer of legislation and regulation that prohibits market competition, insulates people from personal responsibility, and drives up prices. The rising prices have very little to do with the providers and insurance agents, and everything to do with the government's interference. Yet, you'll hear none of this.
Perhaps four people that responded here actually have a clue about this entire debate. Do you, Mikal1978 understand how prices are set? Do you know what legislation is already in place that greatly and artificially increases prices (such as HMOs or FDA constraints)? Do you, Mikal1978 understand why prices have increased greatly? Do you know what the profit margins are of insurance companies? Do you know why there are lobbyists looking to retain the current system? Do you even know what Conservatism is? Do you know of the government's enumerated powers? Hell, do you even know what insurance actually is? Do you not know the fatal flaw in government spending, central planning, and socialism in general? Do you even understand natural law? No, but you would willingly deny 90% of the population their fundamental rights to address the less than 5% of the population without INSURANCE (not health care)! You can't bring yourself to self-educate, but you're sure as hell the first in line to vote.
Do you not understand that the very architects of the greatly exaggerated malaise are the very people in which you're willingly going to hand over your freedom? What DO you know aside from exhibiting the ability to log into Yahoo and write questions and respond with pseudo-intellectual tripe?
If you're not attacking conservatives, you're giving us poor statistics. If you're not attacking our health care system, you're attacking corporate CEOs. If you're not regaling us with your lack of basic cognitive skills and understanding of markets, you're blaming it on "greed". I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone that gleefully allows themselves to be used, abused, misled, and hoodwinked. You listen to talking points, read your ridiculously trite and wholly fallacious blogs and walk away feeling "informed". You then come to Yahoo! Answers and ask "questions" - your cohort baby chicks gobble up the regurgitation from you, the mother's mouth.
@ Tom: The reason our life expectancy rates rank lower is because we count each and every infant as a true birth, and all deaths as deaths. We are one of a very small number other countries that tally infant mortality in this way. This -greatly- skews the numbers to a point where even citing the data is unconscionable. Most countries do not count infant deaths as actual deaths if it occurs within a certain time frame, or they base it by the length of the infant. Look at cancer survival rates, or end-of-life treatment options and availability. Look at technological and pharmaceutical advances. Look at population density, population samples, industrialization, occupations, diet, etc. All of the aforementioned factors are witlessly and/or conveniently disregarded by you and your ilk.
Simply looking at inaccurate "statistics" based upon life expectancy and deducing that it correlates with health care quality is borderline stupidity. It doesn't even pass the smell test.
THINK DAMMIT!. Use your head! I'm sick of seeing the same half-wits on this forum spewing the same bad statistics and economic illiteracy. What the flock good are you to the Yahoo! Answers community if your information is fallacious at the best of times? Toddle off and work for the DNC as you'll be on the fast track to management material.
All of you must understand what you're advocating. You'll happily deny one man of his fundamental rights to artificially grant someone else a "right" via a government bureaucracy. You'll willfully ignore and evade centuries of economic law and history and state "it will work THIS time". You'll excitedly lay down our freedoms because you cannot bring yourself to see both sides of the ledger. You'll ecstatically proclaim that you're putting a stop to "greed" and the for-profit mechanism, yet you do not understand the most basic of basic economics and natural law and realize that for-profit (intrinsic incentive) is precisely what you -need-. You are the contemporary neanderthal that has just "discovered" fire, and you're rushing to burn the country to a crisp in your revelation.
I realize that I'm not going to change your heart or mind; I doubt anything can at this point.