Free Shit and Trump Hate

iolo said:
I was always taught that to 'hate' anyone was to sink to their level. Can many Americans, on that basis, really be as low as to 'hate' trump? Aren't they just, like everyone else, unbelievingly contemptuous of the fat buffoon?
Click to expand...

If you don't utter "Fuck Trump" at least twice a day, then you are of dubious moral character.
 
CFM said:
The funding for Medicaid runs year to year. Those 45 years and the 6 aren't connected. If you qualified for Medicaid during the year in which the funding occurred, you didn't pay into the pot.

BTW, millions upon millions upon million have paid into the pot which funds food stamps, AFDC, WIC, and all sorts of other social welfare handouts and have NEVER received a dime from it and NEVER will.
Click to expand...

So what dipshit?
Their victims of the destitute?
 
My wife is on Medicaid. She has leukemia and Gleevek, one of her many prescriptions, cost 100 K a year. We should have been like CFM, never get sick and never going to get in an accident.
 
Nordberg said:
My wife is on Medicaid. She has leukemia and Gleevek, one of her many prescriptions, cost 100 K a year. We should have been like CFM, never get sick and never going to get in an accident.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what CFM says, but there's no accountability on JPP.

The truth is probably something completely different.
 
CFM said:
The system has worked fine for ME. If it hasn't for you, that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

There, that's it, the spoiled childish entitled perceptual reality of an american apologist. Fuck this nation and society, I'm ok.

If you have ever had health insurance of any kind at all, you're paying for everyone one else in your pool, including the uninsured who go to the ER. And you like it. And you have THE most expensive and inefficient health"care" system on the planet with substandard health outcomes societally. Fucking Cuba does better at preventive care than america does.

This is all over your head, but I'll post for others:

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
• Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
• Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
• Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
• Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
• Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.
One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article

Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities

One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.
The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.
"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072

US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html

The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.
Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/
 
Nordberg said:
My wife is on Medicaid. She has leukemia and Gleevek, one of her many prescriptions, cost 100 K a year. We should have been like CFM, never get sick and never going to get in an accident.
Click to expand...

That's how it is, fuck you for getting sick. 'Course we're gonna need to to overlook all the water contamination in the public water supply as corporations privatize access to water.
 
LV426 said:
So this is peak entitlement here.

You think that you're entitled to have someone else pay for your health care, and that somehow counts as you paying for it, even though you don't.
Click to expand...

You claim I think I'm entitled. That's what happens when people like you don't have what someone else earned and it makes you jealous.
 
LV426 said:
If you don't utter "Fuck Trump" at least twice a day, then you are of dubious moral character.
Click to expand...

If you do utter it once a day, it proves you're nothing more than a whining little bastard that can't believe your bitch Hillary lost.
 
LV426 said:
Bullshit. You're lying. Your story keeps changing each time you tell it. Remember, at the start of this you said you paid for your health care. Then that morphed to you saying you didn't pay for it, that your boss did, but it's all cool because it's "part of your compensation". So if your boss stopped paying for your health care, who would pick up the tab?

FYI - your boss can decide to stop paying for your health care at any moment. They can also fire you for no reason at any moment; then you'd be out of a job and health care someone else pays for. And I'd be happy to speed that process along by doxxing you and sharing your racist posts here (likely on company time) to your employer.
Click to expand...

I never said I paid for it. I said I received it as part of my compensation.

I've explained to you more than once that your jealousy is getting the best of you, as if there is anything good about you at all, by making claims about a situation over which you have absolutely no knowledge but think you know so much.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
There, that's it, the spoiled childish entitled perceptual reality of an american apologist. Fuck this nation and society, I'm ok.

If you have ever had health insurance of any kind at all, you're paying for everyone one else in your pool, including the uninsured who go to the ER. And you like it. And you have THE most expensive and inefficient health"care" system on the planet with substandard health outcomes societally. Fucking Cuba does better at preventive care than america does.

This is all over your head, but I'll post for others:

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
• Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
• Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
• Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
• Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
• Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.
One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article

Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities

One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.
The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.
"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072

US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html

The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.
Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/
Click to expand...

There you go thinking that because I've earned something it's somehow my place to want to pay more so someone unwilling to earn it can have the same thing.
 
Mason Michaels said:
So what dipshit?
Their victims of the destitute?
Click to expand...

Funny how someone that doesn't understand the way the system works from year to year calls someone else a dipshit. You act as if you should get a credit for the current year because you didn't use something in the previous year. Not how it works.

Typical mindset of a bleeding heart. What we have in this country are two groups. Those that work for a living and those that expects others to work for their handouts.
 
CFM said:
There you go thinking that because I've earned something it's somehow my place to want to pay more so someone unwilling to earn it can have the same thing.
Click to expand...

Actually that's is just a sample of studies on the abysmal american health"care" system. I guess in a manner of speaking, we all "earned" this shitty system that trails the rest of the advanced post-industrial world. But hey, we got 8 endless wars going and more to foment. Priorities.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Actually this is just a sample of studies on the abysmal american health"care" system. I guess in a manner of speaking, we all "earned" this shitty system that trails the rest of the advanced post-industrial world. But hey, we got 8 endless wars going and more to foment. Priorities.
Click to expand...

My care and my coverage have been perfectly fine. Not once, although I use it rarely, has my provided ever turned me down.

We don't trail anyone. Any system where those that contribute nothing to society can get something those that make it function have to earn isn't advanced at all. Plenty of dumbasses on here talk about Medicare for all and single payer claiming that people would contribute through a payroll tax and receive care when they needed it.

Two faults with that type of system. 1) People contribute unequally yet those contributing less get the same thing as those contributing more. Interesting how those that constantly talk about equality have no problem with people benefiting equally despite not contributing equally. Until those that contribute less get care on a proportional basis to that contribution, no thanks to that type of system. 2) There are people that would still receive care despite contributing nothing. Can those that contribute nothing be denied care? If not, there is no difference between what we have now and what is proposed other than the latter involving more and more socialism and government control.
 
CFM said:
My care and my coverage have been perfectly fine. Not once, although I use it rarely, has my provided ever turned me down.

We don't trail anyone. Any system where those that contribute nothing to society can get something those that make it function have to earn isn't advanced at all. Plenty of dumbasses on here talk about Medicare for all and single payer claiming that people would contribute through a payroll tax and receive care when they needed it.

Two faults with that type of system. 1) People contribute unequally yet those contributing less get the same thing as those contributing more. Interesting how those that constantly talk about equality have no problem with people benefiting equally despite not contributing equally. Until those that contribute less get care on a proportional basis to that contribution, no thanks to that type of system. 2) There are people that would still receive care despite contributing nothing. Can those that contribute nothing be denied care? If not, there is no difference between what we have now and what is proposed other than the latter involving more and more socialism and government control.
Click to expand...

The studies speak for themselves whether you can hear or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top