"Evidence" is raw data. Statistics matter. So also do more abstract considerations, which I have argued and "Cat" and "Dechasor" have not addressed. Everybody dies. Unless we die by accident, we will become ill. For most of us, at some point, somebody or some body will assess whether an additional __X__days of life are worth an additional __$Y__ dollars and conclude: No. This is most obvious at the extreme ends of the usual lifespan (post-conception to age 6 months or so, age 85+) but it can occur at any time when doctors assess a severely damaged human and share information with the people who will pay for care. Whether __X__ additional days of life justify the expenditure of $Y dollars depends on the value of that life to the people who make the decision. That will depend, in part, on the level of function. Where does any advocate for tax-subsidized care disagree, so far?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I already did agree with you that people often are put in a position of trying to decide if "Y" treatment is worth "X" days of life when it comes to people who are paying out of pocket. Is your position that the government is less likely to agree to "Y" treatment than a private insurance company is? Because I already addressed this, and as it is now, private insurance companies deny medically necessary procedures allt he time.
However, if you're aiming at another point I'm not grasping, please let me know and I will address it.
I have a serious question - if you were willing to take the time and look into your claims, and did realize, as has been poitned out to you, that everything you have said here has been a lie (I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying Democratic politicians and their shills lie to people like you), does that change your opinion at all? Also, does it bother you even a little bit that all the Democratic points you've been told are flat out lies?
That's not the way it works. You can't just say, "well you said everything I said is wrong, so I'm going to say everything YOU say is false too!"
I have, in detail, explained exactly which claims you have made and
why they are false.
If you think anything I have said has been false, please point them out to me and I will address them in turn.
Also, I am not a Democrat and my arguments are not from Democratic talking points, unlike your arguments, which come
exclusively from right wing talking points. Please point out to me what faulty Democratic talking points I have relied upon, rather than presenting my first hand knowledge of the inaccuracies of your arguments.
I feel our politicians on both sides of the isle are pretty ignorant of what exactly goes into healthcare. For instance, leftist politicians and pundits tend to advocate nonsense such as anti vaccine propaganda, or endorsement of alternative medicine, homeopathy, etc. Due to that fact, I really don't have much respect for the political left's position on healthcare.
My opinions on health care do not come from politicians, because I have not offered you
opinions. I have offered you factual data that I am aware of due to working in the healthcare industry.
Oh, and I have no idea who Sally Pipes is, but if you are telling me that you will base your entire opinion of how health care works based off of one singular book, I'd say that's really poor researching.
Update: I just looked up Sally Pipes. She is a right wing political advocate who has no medical credentials and no experience working in the healthcare industry.
That's the difference between me and you. You get your opinions from politicians and pundits with a political agenda.
I get my facts from a healthcare system whose agenda is providing the best healthcare.
I told you before that every major medical association in America, along with most major hospitals, advocates for universal healthcare.
Can you explain to me why you think a woman with no experience in healthcare and no medical qualifications, with an admitted political agenda which is the basis of her book, is a valid source of data on the healthcare industry, versus every major medical associations and most major hospitals in the United States?
Right now, it appears to me you actually aren't trying to research anything, but rather are trying to look for validation of your political views. Can you comment on that?
Right away she looks very untrustworthy because she clearly cherry picks data. For instance, she points out (correctly) that cancer survival rates are lower in Canada. However, the flip side of that is there are plenty of diseases in America in which the opposite is true. For example, Canada has a higher survival rate for cardiovascular disease as well as general non communicable disease. They also have a lower infant mortality rate.
It also is worth noting that cancer is increasingly common the older you get, and cancer treatment can be very hard on a person. Especially in old age, successful cancer treatment can still leave you with a very poor quality of life due to side effects from treatment or surgery. One of the common complaints we get, particularly from the elderly, is that their cancer treatment makes them feel much more sick than their actual cancer. I wonder if more people in Canada opt
not to have cancer treatment in old age, because they do not feel a little longer lifespan would be worthwhile in terms of the side effects of treatment. I'm really not sure when it comes to Canada, but it's something to consider.
Also, from what I have read on Sally Pipes, she seems to use Canada as the comparison for universal healthcare, rather than factoring in other nations which also have universal healthcare but have better ranked healthcare systems then Canada. This makes me think she falsely attributes any problems with Canada's system to universal healthcare as a whole, even if other nations with universal healthcare do not have the same problems as Canada.
