I used to think the Illuminati were people, humans. I've found they are whatever programmed this reality. If 9/11 was an inside job, the people on the inside were not themselves when they plotted it. The cosmos, is the twisted movie theater for wanton sadists. Their father will rip them to shreds with a far greater, this time warranted, sadism, and liberate us so we can actually experience the paradise that is the law of attraction.
Spirituality is a made up word, it doesn't mean anything.
Do you think that yours is the only will in your head?
You're a fool who's contempt with not being an immortal who's a billion servants that love you all day in an immaculate home, without ever having to work.
I know you at least go to school and work, you serve like a weak minded fool, you're telling me that YOU would serve if you could have everything above instead? No? Than you're possessed, the thing that stops you from getting what you want has overpowered your resolve to take it.
Originally posted by Astner
No he'd be better off in Canada too.Now if he was running a multi-million dollar company he'd probably be better of in the States, but that's because he'd save more money on taxes than he would on the operation.
not really. Statistically speaking, Americans have the best rates of survival for cancer in the world, provided they can afford the care. America has far more equally talented, if not moreso, specialists who can perform the required surgery and care, faster access to facilities for surgery or chemo or whatever. In fact, we often have to fly people to America for this very type of surgery, because there aren't Canadian doctors available to do it in emergency situations (why I chose the specific example I did). 90% of the people will be far healthier in a Canadian style system, though, it is sort of ignorant to ignore the places where America does well. Very short wait times, quick access to specialists, lots of choice of doctors, etc. Those strengths are far outweighed by the strengths of a publicly funded system, imho, but they are strengths nonetheless.
When you start getting into the super-rich (your example), it really doesn't matter any longer, because they can afford to pick and choose treatment anywhere in the world, as travel and medical tourism are no longer prohibitively expensive.
Originally posted by Raisen
not sure what you mean
I take it to mean that Mitt Romney lives in a bubble of extremely rich, patriarchal, white people, and therefore does not relate to the struggles of anyone that does not belong to his social class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and things would be worse, socially, for a lot of people, if he was in power.
But maybe I misread and project my own feelings.
Originally posted by Raisen
I've met a couple guys in the military who were born and raised in Canada. One primary reason they came to the U.S. was to get away from the health care system in Canada. One guy said he would probably be dead before getting treatment.
It dépends, I guess, of what the problem is.
For exemple, my godson is born with Gastroschisis. He had to stay 3 months at the hospital. My brother and my sister-in-law didn't pay a dime for the stay, nor for the operation.
And now, other than the fact that he's a Ginger and being such, he don't have a soul, he's all right and going strong.
Originally posted by Oliver North
if you are a woman, non-straight, or racial minority, there are very large differences between the American political parties, though they are very similar on issues of security, the environment, the war on drugs to a large degree.
I see. I didn't understand because I never saw it that way and personally know this is not the truth, rather it is what libs run on to get votes. I can agree on the non-straight part, but nothing else there. but thanks for clearing it up.
Originally posted by Astner
Sounds like a really fishy statistic, what's the source?
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
Originally posted by Oliver North
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
This one is from 2008 looking at data from the 90s so I'm not sure how applicable it is today. Sure make Europe look bad for cancer, though.
anyways, stats can be found here:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491
and a critique of the claim, which notes a couple of the same caveats I did (ability to pay for instance). Interesting things to note:
It’s certainly the case that we have higher survival rates than the United Kingdom and other countries with nationalized health care. Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average, according to a 2008 study in the British medical journal Lancet. For breast cancer, for instance, the U.S. survival rate was 83.9 percent, the U.K. rate was 69.7, and the average European rate was 73.1.But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations.
[...]
survival rates in Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba were all comparable to or higher than U.S. survival rates on all types of cancer that the Lancet study examined, except for prostate cancer. Those countries all have some form of government-provided health care coverage. Prostate cancer often doesn’t require treatment, so the aggressive screening common in the U.S. turns up both early cases and cases that would never need intervention.
[...]
early detection will always increase survival rates, even if it doesn’t improve outcomes (though oncologists do agree that cancer is less deadly if found early). If two people have exactly the same disease progression, the one who’s diagnosed earlier will be more likely to be alive in five years. Thus, countries with more advance screening will have higher survival rates even if they don’t have better post-diagnosis care. Cancer screening is less widespread in European countries, and people without insurance or who are on Medicaid also are less likely to have access to it. The ACS study showed that the uninsured and Medicaid beneficiaries had lower rates of both mammograms and colorectal cancer screening than the insured.
[...]
So the survival statistics, while they might be useful for some kinds of comparisons, don’t really present any obvious conclusions when used to compare different populations. They can be interpreted to argue for leaving the U.S. system alone, or for extending coverage to the millions who don’t have it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/
so, the claim that rates are better is true, and I went to pains to point out that I didn't think this meant the American system was better, only that it has strengths (early detection, for instance).