All About Pocket Knives

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International
Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years
after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%


Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%


Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%


Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within
one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%


Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million
people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18


Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are
in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%


And now for the last statistic:


National Health Insurance?

U.S. NO

England YES

Canada YES



Check this last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked
in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
You know what the private business sector is a real-life business, not a
government job. Here are the percentages.


T. Roosevelt.................... 38%

Taft................................. 40%

Wilson ........................... 52%

Harding............................ 49%

Coolidge........................... 48%

Hoover............................. 42%

F. Roosevelt.................... 50%

Truman............................ 50%

Eisenhower...................... 57%

Kennedy.......................... 30%

Johnson.......................... 47%

Nixon.............................. 53%

Ford................................ 42%

Carter.............................. 32%

Reagan........................... 56%

GH Bush......................... 51%

Clinton .......................... 39%

GW Bush........................ 55%

Obama..................... 8%


This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:
only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!

That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the
last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big
corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one
with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk
about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has
never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff
and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia,
government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should
have been in an employment line.

thats not the way i read it murph. that satistic tells me that this admin doesn't have a conflict of interest when making decisions.

http://paulswansen.com/united-nations-i ... on-survey/ There's a bunch more info out there on Mark Kirk...an interesting Fact check http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer ... nclusions/

I can post a link from a biased website too. You can find the slant you want if you look hard enough.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/second ... nd-canada/

There are reasons that people come in droves to this country for their medical procedures. Also, if the universal health care systems in those countries were so great, then wouldn't doctors be flocking to go work there?

Glenn

glennbad wrote:I can post a link from a biased website too. You can find the slant you want if you look hard enough.

How about posting the link to United Nations International Health Organization....

glennbad wrote:There are reasons that people come in droves to this country for their medical procedures.

I know they have the money to pay for it..

glennbad wrote:Also, if the universal health care systems in those countries were so great, then wouldn't doctors be flocking to go work there?

...aren't we the only industrialized country on the planet without some sort of single payer system?... maybe the docs are flocking here for the big bucks... maybe doctors aren't migratory I don't know... but I do believe someone who is sick should not have go broke trying to stay alive or get well... I'm for single payer all the way... Obamacare ...its not even close to a single payer system..

Tom McLaughlin wrote:

glennbad wrote:I can post a link from a biased website too. You can find the slant you want if you look hard enough.

How about posting the link to United Nations International Health Organization....

Nah, I'll just post this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html

glennbad wrote:There are reasons that people come in droves to this country for their medical procedures.

I know they have the money to pay for it..

So if the universal healthcare in their country were so great, they would pay to get it in their own country, right?

glennbad wrote:Also, if the universal health care systems in those countries were so great, then wouldn't doctors be flocking to go work there?

...aren't we the only industrialized country on the planet without some sort of single payer system?... maybe the docs are flocking here for the big bucks... maybe doctors aren't migratory I don't know... but I do believe someone who is sick should not have go broke trying to stay alive or get well... I'm for single payer all the way... Obamacare ...its not even close to a single payer system..

The government has shown it's so "awesome" at running things, the last thing I would want them to control is the health care system. Maybe you have been fortunate, and haven't had any major medical issues lately. I have, and the health care I paid for was worth every penny.

Glenn

glennbad wrote:I can post a link from a biased website too. You can find the slant you want if you look hard enough.

Hopefully the World Health Organization is unbiased in your eyes. Granted this is over a decade old because WHO no longer ranks the health care of countries, but because US health care has changed little in the last twelve years I think there is still some merit in the rankings.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

I'm just saying, if countries like Morocco, Chile, Oman, and Colombia are ranked above you then you know there's room for improvement in your nation's health care system. For those of you too lazy to click the link (sadly there are some out there) the US was ranked # 37 in the year 2000.

Also, here is an article from The Economist that compares US health care and European health care. One point it makes is that many European countries regulate the cost of medicines which helps keep the cost down. Plus, Europe has been kicking our butt with medical breakthroughs for some time now. If memory serves Germany and France have been the most active.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... e_the.html

A lot of the problems with US healthcare stem from how much more expensive medicine is in the US compared to other countries. I live near the Mexican border, and many Americans around here go to Mexico for doctor visits or to fill prescriptions because it is so much cheaper (5 or 10 dollars compared to 50 for certain prescriptions). And FYI: Many of those doctors went to medical school in America. Another thing some believe is part of the problem is that America is such a sue-happy country. (Fact: There are more lawyers in the greater Los Angeles area than in the entire country of France). Because of this, malpractice suits are much more common, which drives up the price of health care workers' malpractice insurance, which in turn drives up the cost of treatments. I have several doctors and nurses in my family, and they tell me it's no longer worth it financially to become a doctor because of the cost of malpractice insurance coupled with the repayment of student loans which often exceed $200,000.

This part is just on a personal note, but I would like to see America embrace universal health care. In my case, I was born with a medical condition that requires a lifetime of medicine and medical procedures. But because it is a preexisting condition no insurance company will cover me in the private sector. If not for the insurance I get through the government I would never be able to afford the treatments I need because pharmaceutical companies and US hospitals are so expensive. If it weren't for government health care I'd be screwed and most likely would have died or gone broke years ago. That's why I'd like there to at least be a federal government option for all the poor and unisurable to buy into.

glennbad wrote:the health care I paid for was worth every penny.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to afford health care. Plus Obamacare allows people the right to purchase insurance through the private sector if they don't want government run health care. The main issue is that people who can afford health care don't want to be taxed for health care that covers other people.

The Telegraph Not Biased at all..

Single Payer to me is for those who can't afford it... I don't worry about those who can afford just wish them good health..they can get it wherever they please..

Take a look at the operating cost of Medi-care and private insurance..

I happy you can afford the care you received ... How about the people who can't afford it?

Tom McLaughlin wrote:The Telegraph Not Biased at all..

Single Payer to me is for those who can't afford it... I don't worry about those who can afford just wish them good health..they can get it wherever they please..

Take a look at the operating cost of Medi-care and private insurance..

I happy you can afford the care you received ... How about the people who can't afford it?

I never said it wasn't biased. We could spend the whole day firing link volleys at each other from biased web sites, but that's counterproducttive.

I don't think anyone has ever been turned away because they couldn't pay for their care. Heck, look at illegal aliens. Some of them get better care than I do, and they most likely don't pay a dime for it.

I'm not saying that the system isn't broke. I just don't like the alternative.

glennbad wrote:I don't think anyone has ever been turned away because they couldn't pay for their care.

The law requires hospitals to only stabilize a person if their life is in immediate danger. However, hospitals are not required to treat any deadly disease you may have. Say someone who is uninsured and not rich has lung cancer. If the cancer somehow causes that person's lungs to fail then the hospital must do what they can to stabilize the person dying, i.e. keep the failing lungs from killing them at that moment. But they are under no obligation to actually treat or cure the cancer with radiation or chemo or anything. What happens is that person's lungs keep failing and every time the hospital attempts to stabilize them. The cancer continues to spread and weaken the individual, and eventually there will be a time when the hospital can't stabilize them and they die.

dcgm4 wrote: Hopefully the World Health Organization is unbiased in your eyes. Granted this is over a decade old because WHO no longer ranks the health care of countries, but because US health care has changed little in the last twelve years I think there is still some merit in the rankings.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Here are the factors they used in this ranking:

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

While I would say that those are certainly factors you could use in creating a ranking, I'm sure there are other factors that are important (such as the quality of the care). Most of those factors seem to be socially-based points, not the actual "how good is it?" ranking.

A lot of the problems with US healthcare stem from how much more expensive medicine is in the US compared to other countries. I live near the Mexican border, and many Americans around here go to Mexico for doctor visits or to fill prescriptions because it is so much cheaper (5 or 10 dollars compared to 50 for certain prescriptions). And FYI: Many of those doctors went to medical school in America. Another thing some believe is part of the problem is that America is such a sue-happy country. (Fact: There are more lawyers in the greater Los Angeles area than in the entire country of France). Because of this, malpractice suits are much more common, which drives up the price of health care workers' malpractice insurance, which in turn drives up the cost of treatments. I have several doctors and nurses in my family, and they tell me it's no longer worth it financially to become a doctor because of the cost of malpractice insurance coupled with the repayment of student loans which often exceed $200,000.

Maybe people go to Mexico because it's cheaper. Maybe it's cheaper because Mexico doesn't have the protections and rules in place which make it cost more in the U.S. Anyway, that sounds a little like gambling with your life. I could also buy my knives from some off-shore company, but who knows what quality I would get. I guess I would rather pay more for a company that has a good product and good customer service, knowing the "rules" were followed.

This part is just on a personal note, but I would like to see America embrace universal health care. In my case, I was born with a medical condition that requires a lifetime of medicine and medical procedures. But because it is a preexisting condition no insurance company will cover me in the private sector. If not for the insurance I get through the government I would never be able to afford the treatments I need because pharmaceutical companies and US hospitals are so expensive. If it weren't for government health care I'd be screwed and most likely would have died or gone broke years ago. That's why I'd like there to at least be a federal government option for all the poor and unisurable to buy into.

I'm sorry you are having to go through that. I guess everyone's situations are different. I do agree that there needs to be something in place for your type of situation.

glennbad wrote:the health care I paid for was worth every penny.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to afford health care. Plus Obamacare allows people the right to purchase insurance through the private sector if they don't want government run health care. The main issue is that people who can afford health care don't want to be taxed for health care that covers other people.

Again, I'm not saying the system is perfect. Far from it. However, I don't want the government meddling with stuff they can't handle. Cause they're doing so well with everything else they are running.

Glenn

I come to the knife sites to talk knives.

I try to stay out of these types of discussions. They never end well, and create more bad feelings than good.

Gentlemen, your points are well taken. I wish you good luck with your health issues.

I am out of this thread.

Glenn