Why have a so-called public health option when...

[politicaladdict]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare? Plus they're going bankrupt, why not reform them instead?

When people say we have one of the lowest life-expectancies. So what, that is statistic for death in the U.S. period unrelated to health care, and when you look at the death statistics in "World CIA Factbook" it's related to deaths that have the almost same percentage not even about health.

I do notice, though, that advocates for Universal Health Care never really point ou that we have the highest Cancer Survival rate, which is more related to health care than some random U.S. death statistics.

[Χahar]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

[politicaladdict]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

And Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt aswell as Social-Security.

[Lief]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

Exactly! It would be much easier to simply drop the minimum age for medicare from 65 to 0.

[politicaladdict]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

Exactly! It would be much easier to simply drop the minimum age for medicare from 65 to 0.

What?

[Χahar]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

They work, so it makes sense to extend it to everyone.

[politicaladdict]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

They work, so it makes sense to extend it to everyone.

What tha****?

If those systems work, than why do we need to expand it to people who can afford health insurance?

You don't make sense!

[Χahar]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

They work, so it makes sense to extend it to everyone.

What tha****?

If those systems work, than why do we need to expand it to people who can afford health insurance?

You don't make sense!

They work, so why shouldn't everyone have them?

[politicaladdict]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

They work, so it makes sense to extend it to everyone.

What tha****?

If those systems work, than why do we need to expand it to people who can afford health insurance?

You don't make sense!

They work, so why shouldn't everyone have them?

You should just come out and say we need single-payer insurance for everybody, because a public-option is not enough

Because Medicare and Medicaid is basically a public-option for the poor and elderly.

[President Marokai]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

They work, so it makes sense to extend it to everyone.

What tha****?

If those systems work, than why do we need to expand it to people who can afford health insurance?

You don't make sense!

They work, so why shouldn't everyone have them?

You should just come out and say we need single-payer insurance for everybody, because a public-option is not enough

Because Medicare and Medicaid is basically a public-option for the poor and elderly.

That's right, we do. Medicare for everyone. A form of single payer.

Such a system is sensible policy in many other industrialized nations.

[Χahar]

Why a so-called Public health option when the poor have Medicaid and the elderly have Medicare?

Because people on Medicaid/Medicare generally consider them good programs.

Ok, so if there good programs then why do we need to establish a so-called public-option?

They work, so it makes sense to extend it to everyone.

What tha****?

If those systems work, than why do we need to expand it to people who can afford health insurance?

You don't make sense!

They work, so why shouldn't everyone have them?

You should just come out and say we need single-payer insurance for everybody, because a public-option is not enough

Because Medicare and Medicaid is basically a public-option for the poor and elderly.

Correct.

[Lief]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

[politicaladdict]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

[Lief]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

We don't, dope, and that's why the public option is for people who don't have either. The public option is NOT an entitlement program. It's a government-owned/run corporation that would sell health insurance to consumers.

[politicaladdict]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

We don't, dope, and that's why the public option is for people who don't have either. The public option is NOT an entitlement program. It's a government-owned/run corporation that would sell health insurance to consumers.

What difference is it gonna make to have a so-called option  if medicare, gov program, ain't covering certain people?

Are you saying medicaid ain't enough and instead we need to add more gov programs and increase the bankruptcy like medicare and medicaid and social-security are?

[Χahar]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

We don't, dope, and that's why the public option is for people who don't have either. The public option is NOT an entitlement program. It's a government-owned/run corporation that would sell health insurance to consumers.

What difference is it gonna make to have a so-called option  if medicare, gov program, ain't covering certain people?

Are you saying medicaid ain't enough and instead we need to add more gov programs and increase the bankruptcy like medicare and medicaid and social-security are?

Given that Medicaid works for those who have it, wouldn't it make sense to extend it to all?

[politicaladdict]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

We don't, dope, and that's why the public option is for people who don't have either. The public option is NOT an entitlement program. It's a government-owned/run corporation that would sell health insurance to consumers.

What difference is it gonna make to have a so-called option  if medicare, gov program, ain't covering certain people?

Are you saying medicaid ain't enough and instead we need to add more gov programs and increase the bankruptcy like medicare and medicaid and social-security are?

Given that Medicaid works for those who have it, wouldn't it make sense to extend it to all?

Well one: Medicare is going bankrupt.

And two: No it doesn't make sense to extend to all if those others can afford private health insurance. Besides money comes from somewhere and the gov didn't make it.

Ok enough about medicare for all because no one has a real answer.

Let's move on to explaining why we have the highest cancer-survival-rate? Can any lib answer that?

[Lief]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

We don't, dope, and that's why the public option is for people who don't have either. The public option is NOT an entitlement program. It's a government-owned/run corporation that would sell health insurance to consumers.

What difference is it gonna make to have a so-called option  if medicare, gov program, ain't covering certain people?

Are you saying medicaid ain't enough and instead we need to add more gov programs and increase the bankruptcy like medicare and medicaid and social-security are?

Oops, I think you're literally retarded!

[politicaladdict]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

We don't, dope, and that's why the public option is for people who don't have either. The public option is NOT an entitlement program. It's a government-owned/run corporation that would sell health insurance to consumers.

What difference is it gonna make to have a so-called option  if medicare, gov program, ain't covering certain people?

Are you saying medicaid ain't enough and instead we need to add more gov programs and increase the bankruptcy like medicare and medicaid and social-security are?

Oops, I think you're literally retarded!

I bet you are!

This doesn't answer the question about the highest cancer-survival-rate liberals generally don't want to talk about.

[President Marokai]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

We don't, dope, and that's why the public option is for people who don't have either. The public option is NOT an entitlement program. It's a government-owned/run corporation that would sell health insurance to consumers.

What difference is it gonna make to have a so-called option  if medicare, gov program, ain't covering certain people?

Are you saying medicaid ain't enough and instead we need to add more gov programs and increase the bankruptcy like medicare and medicaid and social-security are?

Oops, I think you're literally retarded!

I bet you are!

This doesn't answer the question about the highest cancer-survival-rate liberals generally don't want to talk about.

Single payer health insurance is a common-sense, centrist policy throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

And the cancer rate is 5 times higher to boot.

Source?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

First of all, the cancer rate certainly isn't five times higher, universally or with specific cancers, so it's disingenuous to say it's five times higher and then present a source without directly citing something backing that up. Aside from that, however, I suspect your more general point was that the cancer rate is still very high in other areas of the world that have single payer of government healthcare plans. But this still has a few caveats. (And by caveats I mean important things you leave out or dismiss that totally discredit this notion.)

Cancer survival rates are totally random, and are, in fact, not always lower than the United States. I was doing some random googling and wiki'ing while I was waiting for my headache to (never) subside, and I came across an article from 2007 that was addressing a study done about the exact same thing you're talking about, cancer survival rates and the like.

The phrase "near the bottom" is the tip-off that McCaughey's reasoning is faulty. All 23 countries in the survey were European, and virtually all of them provide universal health care. If there were something inherently wrong with the ability of socialized medicine to deliver cancer treatment, one would expect to see a dramatic difference between U.S. survival rates and survival rates in all of these countries. But it's clear from the study (actually a series of papers published in the September 2007 Lancet Oncology) that this isn't so. The Lancet papers aren't available free of charge online, but this chart from a news account of the study in the Daily Telegraph tells the story. For women, cancer survival rates are 61.8 percent in Iceland, 61.7 percent in Sweden, 61.6 percent in Belgium, and 61.1 percent in Finland. That's just a whisker behind the 62.9 percent survival rate in the United States. For men, cancer survival rates are 60.3 percent in Sweden, 57.7 percent in Iceland, 55.9 percent in Finland, and 55.4 percent in Austria. That's a more sizeable gap, but it's doubtful one can attribute it to socialized medicine. How could universal health care be good for women who have cancer but bad for men who have cancer?

Nowhere in the Lancet is it suggested that differences among cancer survival rates are attributable to whether a country provides universal health care or not (though an editorial does make the obvious point that something would appear to be seriously amiss with the management of the National Health system in the United Kingdom). The significant differences observed in the study resulted not from a country's relative adherence to market principles in its health-care system, but rather from its relative wealth. "Countries with higher national expenditures on health … generally had better all-cancer survival." Survival rates tended to be highest in northern and Central Europe, middling in southern Europe, dreadful in the United Kingdom, and abysmal in Eastern Europe. Except for the anomalous poor survival rates in the U.K., these findings track with the relative wealth of the countries surveyed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2174722/pagenum/2

And it makes perfect sense. People come to the United States and our survival rates are higher because we're a wealthy country. The survival rates for certain cancers seem random, and there's nothing here that specifically makes the connection between universal and/or government healthcare itself, and the survival rates of the cancers. The NHS is poorly managed, but aside from that anomaly, there's nothing to suggest that the introduction of a government healthcare plan would do anything to lower the survival rates of cancer.

While I'm on this "Caveat" I'd like to take just a few sentences for one of the points in your source. "Fact" 10 in your article talks about how America is the center of innovation, research, and development. This again has nothing to do with the healthcare system itself. There is, again, nothing to suggest that universal healthcare leads to less innovation, and in fact, this again has more to do with the wealth of the United States than our private healthcare system. We've been the world's only superpower for almost six decades! We're the richest nation in the world, and the center of influence and power (economically and militarily) of the world. It makes sense that we would also be the research and development capital of the world when it comes to medical innovations. This has nothing to do with the healthcare itself.

[Sewer]

you taik to politicaladdict why?

[politicaladdict]

you taik to politicaladdict why?

Why do you come to my country before you learn english, or did you just misspell taik on purpose?

[Sewer]

Why do you come to my country before you learn english

Digo bien, como esta, ¿no?

[JSojourner]

Yeah, I don't know why politicaladdict finds this so hard to understand.

Also he's incredibly uninformed if he thinks a public option is the same as medicaid or medicare.

I'm uninformed? Why do we need a public health option for the poor and elderly if we already have medicare and medicaid?

YOU DOPE!

I wasn't buying into your argument until you threw in the "you dope".  Now, I see.  Public Option is epic fail.  And Lief is a dope.

Thanks for setting me straight.