I’ll be in meetings most of the day, so here are some links to keep you busy. The first two are the must-reads of the day: Robert George writes an exceptionally thoughtful essay on Barack Obama’s abortion extremism. Whatever your……

Why?

FlatFoot on October 14, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Because they are mentally ill.

Its all because it costs more than the population can afford. So, if you want your health care limited as you grow older, just when here in the US we are given more care, then go along with the liberals. Further investigation when in Switzerland a few weeks ago also revealed that old folks, those that are retired have their options limited. Saw many older people walking on crutches. As one who has had their knees replaced one notices those who walk with bowed or wobbly knees. It seemed that the majority that who were on crutches either needed knees or possibly hips.

So, lets sign up for it? Then as you age you can sit around, because it difficult for you to get replacments, and talk about the good old days.

Have fun.

Epic failure my ass.

factoid on October 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM

While your ass may be an epic failure, that is only for you and/or your “significant other” to know for sure. I don’t care and I don’t need to know.

Daffy Lib’s are very quick to bleet, “Infant mortality rates!”, and start comparing percentages of a paltry few of the hundreds of countries in this world (245 and counting) when discussing healthcare. Then after bleeting their ridiculous percentages and claiming socialized medicine makes the difference, where are your percentages of people that DIE while waiting for medical care in socialized healthcare countries? How about the ones who don’t die waiting, but suffer horribly while waiting?

There are any number of reasons infant mortality and longevity rates vary. From the sheer size and vast population of the country, to lifestyles, to anything and everything you can almost imagine. Nationalized Healthcare vs. Private (in the U.S.) has absolutely nothing to do with it. Each and EVERY and ANY female in the U.S., who is pregnant with child, can and WILL receive social services and private healthcare if THEY seek it themselves, or if the court orders it under a conservatorship. It’s not for lack of healthcare, Einstein, it’s for lack of caring and because of personal CHOICES (among other possible personal factors) by the MOTHER’S that prevent the mother’s from getting any and all care and food and other services, FREE, for the asking, when they are pregnant.

Then there are other differences and reasons already stated by others.

Despite your Wizard of Oz fantasy world in which you reside, why would a socialized medicine country’s socialized medicine offices send their own people to OUTSIDE healthcare providers if socialized medicine is such a bitchin’ deal? Because it’s NOT!

12,600 dead babies, dude!
factoid on October 14, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Not to mention the vast numbers of aborted babies, dude!

12,600 dead babies, dude! Don’t you think that should warrant some action beyond blaming the whole thing on Obama?

factoid on October 14, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Know how many days worth of Abortions that is, skippy?

Four. More like three and a half. We could literally save more babies in a week by abolishing abortion than we theoretically could through socialized medicine.

Barack Obama supports infanticide and socialized health care. So he’ll save 12,600 babies at the cost of 1.3 million. Progress.

Who brought up abortion? And that’s a whole lot more dead babies.

How will Obama bring up those stats, by funding abortions for poor women or by forcing mothers into pre-natal treatment? They’re already free for the poor, will we bribe moms to attend and to stop drinking/drugging?

Obama is a failed lawyer who knows nothing about healthcare. His entire campaign knows nothing about how to provide healthcare. Obama has repeatedly lied about McCain’s plan which is good, in fact it will save the middle class billions if enacted.

NHS provides private medical care for its staff

The Telegraph
reports yet another great moment in government-run health care today.
The National Health Service, Britain’s government-run health care
system, finds itself so……

Saying that “infant mortality in the US is more than twice as high than in Sweden” sounds alarming, but when you examine the details, you learn that “twice as high” means SIX dead babies per 1,000 live births compared to THREE dead babies per 1,000 live births.
Kensington on October 14, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Whoa, dude!

Roughly 4.2 million babies are born in the US every year. If six out of every 1,000 die, that’s 25,200 dead babies a year. You cut that rate in half, like the Swedes have, and you save 12,600 babies that now die, before they turn one, every year.

12,600 dead babies, dude! Don’t you think that should warrant some action beyond blaming the whole thing on Obama?

More precisely, a military-run health care facility.

And the military is a pure public good, one thing that the government should actually be running.

The President goes there for check-ups, physicals, screenings and possibly in a dire emergency.

He would receive treatment from non-military physicians, believe me, if he had any sort of condition with complications. And that’s what we’re talking about.

Anyone can run a cheap health care system for checkups and physicals. You can train people for two years to do those.

It’s the very sick that are expensive and that nationalized health care systems don’t treat or treat inadequately.

Wasting a whole thread on this though?

Yet infant mortality in the US is more than twice as high than in Sweden,…

Maybe that’s because Obama voted against giving live born babies healthcare.

SIX TO THREE!

That’s what we’re going to screw up the entire health care system for? That’s why we’re going to start UK- and Canadian-style rationing and compulsory euthanasia (eventually)?

No, thank you.

factoid on October 14, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Did you actually expend any energy thinking about your contributions to this thread?

Bethesda Naval Hospital, a government-run health care facility.

I’m just sayin’…

MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Thank you. The media love to tout WHO stats every year when they come out, yet no statistical protocols is every given. SHeesh!

that was supposed to be “fan”, not “fun”. No, I didn’t learn to spell in government school.

neuquenguy on October 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM

I thought you were attempting to coin a new collective – like a wunch of bankers.

No country on earth spends more money on health care than the US of A. Yet infant mortality

One of Obama’s astroturfers appears…..

…..what a maroon LOL.

Let’s roll.

Epic failure my ass.

No country on earth spends more money on health care than the US of A. Yet infant mortality in the US is more than twice as high than in Sweden, almost twice as high as in France, 50% higher than in Germany and 15% higher than in the UK or Canada. Similarly, the US is 46th in life expectancy, way behind, Sweden, Germany, France, Canada and the UK.

Look it up
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
and
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

factoid on October 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM

But remember kiddies, socialized medicine is better than the medical rat race in the US because it costs less money.

Please ignore that it only does so because it is rationed that way just to be used as a talking point. The human cost? Who cares. Marxists get to say socialized medicine is cheaper than private health care.

BKennedy on October 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Seems you missed this.

No country on earth spends more money on health care than the US of A. Yet infant mortality in the US is more than twice as high than in Sweden, almost twice as high as in France, 50% higher than in Germany and 15% higher than in the UK or Canada. Similarly, the US is 46th in life expectancy, way behind, Sweden, Germany, France, Canada and the UK.

Wrong on both counts.

1) You can’t directly compare costs because in other countries medical costs are hidden in other budgets.

2) You can’t directly compare outcomes because:
a) Definitions differ
b) Not all outcomes are directly the results of the quality of care.

Infant mortality is a prime example of this.

Just what is infant mortality. That depends on how “live birth” is defined.
In the US, any baby that is born with a heart beat is considered “born alive”, regardless of how early in the pregnancy the birth occurrs.

In Germany for example, any baby born prior to 7 months gestation is labeled a spontaneous abortion, so it’s death does not count towards infant mortality.
In Germany again, any baby that dies in the first 24 hours after birth is labeled a still birth, once again it’s death does not count towards infant mortatity.

The US has a much, much higer rate of teenage pregnancies. Children born to young mothers have a much, much higer rate of infant mortality.

The list of reason’s why you can’t compare such statistics goes on and on, yet the ignorant keep touting them as if they actually meant somethhing.

MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2008 at 11:44 AM

I tend to reduce the debate to this concept:

As soon as you attempt to revoke my right to say “no”, the lead will start flying.

I forget the number of people I have encountered, here in the US, that advocate such a socialist healthcare system. I just stare at them, then when they’ve finished rambling, I simply ask them “you’ve never actually lived under one of these systems, have you?”

LimeyGeek on October 14, 2008 at 11:05 AM

My wife is Mexican. She has the same reaction.