GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Rand Paul unveils his healthcare bill (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1241902)

Bladewire 01-25-2017 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 21486262)
it is even worst then that :



vote for us , but fuck you !

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

kane 01-25-2017 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj (Post 21486418)
I don't think the difference between survival rates between UK and US is because US health care customers are more informed and are able to better manage their health care or are more open about their family history, etc...

one of the reasons why early detection may be more common in the US is simple, US doctors have in a way skin in the game, there is $$ to be made...

let me illustrate with an example: imagine 50 year old man going to a doctor with a flu...

UK:
the doctor is overworked, gets flat salary from NHS or whatever they call it... so he talks with the guy for 5 minutes prescribes him some antibiotics, sends him on his way... thought of mentioning prostate exam crosses his mind, but figures "fuck that, I'll have to fill out a form, and it's 6pm already with 20 people still waiting to see me, so I'll mention it next time since chances of him having cancer are pretty slim anyway..."...

US:
the doctor has pretty free schedule, he is self employed, so he collects $100 or whatever for each visit... he talks with the guy for 5 minutes prescribes him some antibiotics, and on the way out... "by the way, I see you are 50 years old, at this age it's good idea to perform a prostate exam.. talk to my secretary and make an appointment and we'll do it next week"... patient gets "upsold", doctor makes more $$, but as a result he gets better healthcare = everyone is happy

so paradox of free healthcare that many seek, is that as more and more people have free healthcare, the situation turns more from one labeled as "US" to one labeled as "UK"... and no one really wins as a result, on average everyone ends up with worse healthcare (as illustrated by cancer survival rates earlier)

In this example, the type/quality of healthcare can play a major role. Every time I have gone to the doctor and been offered something like a flu shot or cancer screening etc. it has always been by the nurse who comes in first and takes vitals, asks questions, checks basics etc that offers it to me. Mostly, the doctor comes in, we talk for a few minutes and they leave and then the nurse comes back and finishes up.

I can see where if offering a screening or mentioning it to a patient meant more paper work it could create doctors who are less interested in offering them because of the headache of the process. If done correctly, however, we could have a system where people are offered screenings and early detection in prioroitized and still not have doctors who are swamped with patients. Of course, that would require a high-quality system and "government run" and "high-quality" typically don't go together.

Paul Markham 01-26-2017 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 21485152)
At first read it seems OK for me because I have a good income and a preexisting condition.

However, it allows for uncontrolled premium increases. Premium increases need to be inflation capped at the very least. Or, maybe an 100% tax credit if your premiums are more than 8% of your net income (pre tax) -- the difference deduced from your owed tax.

It also does not address insurance for the working 'poor' that cannot afford insurance -- which is so Republican wrong -- as usual.

Trump promised no one will be left out on healthcare -- so let's hear from him.

Premium increases need to be inflation capped at the very least. What about the costs of the aging population and advances in science that cost more?

The only way to reduce costs is to go to the head of the problem. The Private Healthcare industry.

Bladewire 01-26-2017 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 21486748)
Premium increases need to be inflation capped at the very least.

I agree 100%


Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 21486748)
What about the costs of the aging population and advances in science that cost more?

Sorry Paul but living as long as possible is not trending now, at least not in America.

We've legalized assisted suicide in many states now and it's an honorable way to go with ceremony and people planning everything in advance.

kane 01-26-2017 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire (Post 21486757)
I agree 100%




Sorry Paul but living as long as possible is not trending now, at least not in America.

We've legalized assisted suicide in many states now and it's an honorable way to go with ceremony and people planning everything in advance.

I disagree about people not wanting to live as long as possible. Yes, we have assisted suicide, but not very many people use it. In my state we have had that since 1997 and in that roughly 10 years there have only been about 1,000 people who have actually used it. 100 people per year is not very many.

On the contrary, my mom is 77 and lives in a retirement community. All the people there are at least 65 and most of them are taking tons of medication, seeing doctors all the time, and doing everything they can to hang on to life for as long as they can.

pimpmaster9000 01-26-2017 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj (Post 21486121)
he was talking about "survival rates"...

the thing is US healthcare is nowhere near the top on any serious list...I am sure you will find 99% survival rates on some charts like you will find obama is a reptilian...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...east-efficient

among developed countries you are LAST:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmu...6/TCFchart.png

Look Serbia is ranked higher :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/.../v3/800x-1.png


I can get some serbs to come over and run shit for you? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Barry-xlovecam 01-26-2017 04:42 AM

Nobody in their right mind can defend the cost and delivery of healthcare services in the USA.

Those charts are just cherry picking bullshit.

Take the uninsured people and the people without money to pay for healthcare services out of the sample group and the success rates and survival rate for people who can pay in the USA are the best.

Go to a hospital without insurance you get the minimum treatment required by laws.

The hospital I use will send you away bleeding in the ambulance, or in a life threating situation do the minimum necessary to stabilize you then ship you out to the county shoot and stab hospital, if you have no insurance to pay them. I had to change my insurer this year at a additional cost of $1,200/yr so this private hospital and its doctors were in the HMO network. I can afford to pay sorry if you can't ...

That is the way it works in the USA.

woj 01-26-2017 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 21487144)
the thing is US healthcare is nowhere near the top on any serious list...I am sure you will find 99% survival rates on some charts like you will find obama is a reptilian...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...east-efficient

among developed countries you are LAST:

Look Serbia is ranked higher :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I can get some serbs to come over and run shit for you? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

yea, multiple studies published in world renowned peer reviewed medical journals are not "serious", but some pseudo-propaganda published by bloomberg is? :1orglaugh :error

for example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...?dopt=Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Only recently have extensive population-based cancer survival data become available in Europe, providing an opportunity to compare survival in Europe and the United States.

METHODS:

The authors considered 12 cancers: lung, breast, stomach, colon, rectum, melanoma, cervix uteri, corpus uteri, ovary, prostate, Hodgkin disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The authors analyzed 738,076 European and 282,398 U.S. patients, whose disease was diagnosed in 1985-1989, obtained from 41 EUROCARE cancer registries in 17 countries and 9 U.S. SEER registries. Relative survival was estimated to correct for competing causes of mortality.

RESULTS:

Europeans had significantly lower survival rates than U.S. patients for most cancers. Differences in 5-year relative survival rates were higher for prostate (56% vs. 81%), skin melanoma (76% vs. 86%), colon (47% vs. 60%), rectum (43% vs. 57%), breast (73% vs. 82%), and corpus uteri (73% vs. 83%). Survival declined with increasing age at diagnosis for most cancers in both the U.S. and Europe but was more marked in Europe.


CONCLUSIONS:

Survival for most major cancers was worse in Europe than the U.S. especially for older patients. Differences in data collection, analysis, and quality apparently had only marginal influences on survival rate differences. Further research is required to clarify the reasons for the survival rate differences.

directfiesta 01-26-2017 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips (Post 21486298)
Why do people take medications and drugs? So stupid

why do people breathe ....


( mainly you )

pimpmaster9000 01-26-2017 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj (Post 21487399)
yea, multiple studies published in a world renowned peer reviewed medical journals are not "serious", but some pseudo-propaganda published by bloomberg is?

you are right the bloomerg report from the World Health Organization is pseudo science but your predatory healthcare examining itself is "world renowned" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

are you sure you do not want me to call some serbs to take over your healthcare? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

woj 01-26-2017 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 21487498)
you are right the bloomerg report from the World Health Organization is pseudo science but your predatory healthcare examining itself is "world renowned" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

are you sure you do not want me to call some serbs to take over your healthcare? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

bullshitting on gfy is all fun and games, but you know damn well that if you happen to be put in a position to decide where to get treatment for cancer you would pick US any day over Serbia, as would everyone else...

you are kinda like a Lada owner arguing with a Benz owner, trying to argue that your POS car is better because it costs less or because it gets 25mpg while Benz only gets 20mpg... :error

pimpmaster9000 01-26-2017 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj (Post 21487615)
bullshitting on gfy is all fun and games, but you know damn well that if you happen to be put in a position to decide where to get treatment for cancer you would pick US any day over Serbia, as would everyone else...

you are kinda like a Lada owner arguing with a Benz owner, trying to argue that your POS car is better because it gets 25mpg while Benz only gets 20mpg... :error

well 1 in 1000 die in my country from cancer and if I was in yours it would be 1 in 2000 :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

it is like that circumcision apologist one hung lo saying 1 in 400 non circumcised men will get a urinary tract infection so sinp snip :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

bruh, I can hook you up with some serbian healthcare?

Dobrovoljno zdravstveno osiguranje lica za slu?aj te?ih bolesti i hirur?kih intervencija | www.dunav.com

look for 26$/year you can pretty much get any operation without being insured :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I can offer you the expensive version for 4$/month this is like $48/year but its a rip-off IMO...the $26/year and you are set...I do not have the $26/year I am too lazy to go pay it because shit is so cheap :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc