Fake News Reporting Thread

[Proteus_MST]

. No. Spying on political opponents and facilitating leaks is.

They were spying on russian spies, not on the Trump team.
It is not the governments fault that members of the Trump team had conversations with russian spies.
If you claiim that the Obama government deliberately spied on/wiretapped members of the Trump team, then please prove it

Do you think people weren't getting medical care before ACA? We were getting more medical care than people in other countries. If you think care increased with ACA please prove it.
...

Nope, you had to pay more than other countries. But you weren't getting more medical care than people of other countries (especially compared to thse with universal healthcare).
Maybe the richest few wre actually getting better healthcare than inhabitants of other countries, but thats a small minority

The US health system was ranked place 37 by the WHO in 2000 (after countries ike Costa Rica or Morocco btw. )

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

And in a more specific ranking, compared to 9 other countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, UK):
The USA ranked first with regards to
Healthcare costs per capita (USA = 7437, Leader (Japan) = 2750)
Healthcare costs as % of GDP (USA = 16%, Leader (Japan) = 8.2%)

The USA ranked worst with regards to:
Life Expectancy (USA = 78.1 years compared to leader (Japan) with 82.6 years)
Infant Mortality (USA = 5.1, Japan (Leader) = 2.17)
Preventable Deaths per 100k Inhabitants (USA = 96, France (Leader) = 55)

And despite the fact that the US government only pays for 45% of the health costs of its citizens (compared to > 75% governmental spending in all other countries of the comparison), the USA ranked worst in terms of percentage of governmental revenue being spent on health (USA 18.5 %, Leader (Sweden) just 13.6 % )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...al_comparisons

For additiona reading concerning the efficiency of the US health system seee here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...east-efficient

Also, when it comes to the ACA ... what changed is the percentage of uninsured people ... from > 16% before ACA to less than 10% with ACA ...which is definitely a step into the right direction (= universal healthcare)

[Kidlicious]

The evidence for spying has been shown.

[Kidlicious]

Life expectancy (which is increasing in the US) doesn't mean anything about healthcare is the US when you have statistics that show, for example, that you are more likely to survive cancer in the US than in other countries. And there are many other stats like that. But the left loves the half-truths, and they love misleading stats that prove nothing as much as they like to manipulate people by using their emotions.

You SHOULD get better care if you are a productive member of society and can pay for it. That is an incentive to be more productive. That's why our most productive citizens are the most productive people in the world, and why we have the best healthcare system in the world.

[Proteus_MST]

Life expectancy (which is increasing in the US) doesn't mean anything about healthcare is the US when you have statistics that show, for example, that you are more likely to survive cancer in the US than in other countries. And there are many other stats like that. But the left loves the half-truths, and they love misleading stats that prove nothing as much as they like to manipulate people by using their emotions.

But those statistics surely only include peple who actually were able to afford chemotherapy and otheer treatments that were required (including afterchecks)
They don't however include those people who were too poor to for chemotherapy and afterchecks

The statistics you also doesn't compare the costs of those treatments with the costs of the same treatments in other countries.

And last but not least, the statistics I mentioned also contained infant mortality and preventable death per 100k inhabitants.
The USA has not only a lower life expectancy, but also a more than double as high infant mortality and also an almost double as high number of preventable deaths per 100k inhabitants compared to the statistics leader ... and ranks on worst place in all 3 categories.

This says a lot IMHO

You SHOULD get better care if you are a productive member of society and can pay for it.

People who wash dishes, clean toilets or work in mines often are more productive than many of the richest members of society (especially thoe who didn't work for their money, but got it as heritage). Nevertheless these productive membes of society (i.e. dishwashers, mine workers, may not be able to afford medical treatement for themselves or their family.

So your comparison doesn't hold ... you can be a lazy bum who has inherited a fortune and spends 24/7 with partying and swimming in the pool, but nevertheless be able to afford even the highest medical bill.
And you can be a productive member of society (having the misfortune to be born into a poor family where you already had to work from 16 years old on, not getting a chance for higher education) who works 50 hours a week, but who nevertheless isn't able to afford a health insurance or even to pay for any surgeries on his/her own.

Your comparison (about being more productive -> being better paid -> getting better care) would only make sese, if all people in society got the same starting conditions (which would mean, if all people in society would start at zero, without any families inheritances to help them)

That is an incentive to be more productive. That's why our most productive citizens are the most productive people in the world, and why we have the best healthcare system in the world.

Dream on

[rah]

No one should be surprised that Kid supports letting poor people die.

[Kidlicious]

But those statistics surely only include peple who actually were able to afford chemotherapy and otheer treatments that were required (including afterchecks)
They don't however include those people who were too poor to for chemotherapy and afterchecks

The statistics you also doesn't compare the costs of those treatments with the costs of the same treatments in other countries.

And last but not least, the statistics I mentioned also contained infant mortality and preventable death per 100k inhabitants.
The USA has not only a lower life expectancy, but also a more than double as high infant mortality and also an almost double as high number of preventable deaths per 100k inhabitants compared to the statistics leader ... and ranks on worst place in all 3 categories.

This says a lot IMHO



People who wash dishes, clean toilets or work in mines often are more productive than many of the richest members of society (especially thoe who didn't work for their money, but got it as heritage). Nevertheless these productive membes of society (i.e. dishwashers, mine workers, may not be able to afford medical treatement for themselves or their family.

So your comparison doesn't hold ... you can be a lazy bum who has inherited a fortune and spends 24/7 with partying and swimming in the pool, but nevertheless be able to afford even the highest medical bill.
And you can be a productive member of society (having the misfortune to be born into a poor family where you already had to work from 16 years old on, not getting a chance for higher education) who works 50 hours a week, but who nevertheless isn't able to afford a health insurance or even to pay for any surgeries on his/her own.

Your comparison (about being more productive -> being better paid -> getting better care) would only make sese, if all people in society got the same starting conditions (which would mean, if all people in society would start at zero, without any families inheritances to help them)



Dream on

I think it says enough that you believe dishwashers are productive.

US survival rate for cancer

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

[Kidlicious]

No one should be surprised that Kid supports letting poor people die.

If health care has social benefits, which he admits, then more productive citizens should get better care. Otherwise you are harming society, even poor people.

Even rape victims

[Proteus_MST]

I think it says enough that you believe dishwashers are productive.

I think Dishwashers are more productive than some spoiled rich brat who just spends all the days partying and does no work at all.

To give you some additional statistics:
70% of wealthy families lose their fortune during the 2nd generation ... and after the 3rd generation, 90% of all wealthy familis have lost it

Source:
http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-f...s-lose-wealth/

From the article:

"Looking at the numbers, 78% feel the next generation is not financially responsible enough to handle inheritance," says Chris Heilmann, U.S. Trust's chief fiduciary executive.
...
When I asked financial planners why the wealthy are so poor at passing along money smarts and why second- and third-generation heirs turn out to be so ham-handed, the answers were surprisingly frank.

A sampling: "Most of them have no clue as to the value of money or how to handle it." "Generation Threes are usually doomed." "It takes the average recipient of an inheritance 19 days until they buy a new car."

That the heirs (of someone who actually worked hard in order to get wealthy) don't share their ancestors productivity (but often rather are busy with spending their ancestors money) seems to be more the norm than the exception.
So, yes, I would see a dishwasher, mine worker or toilet cleaner as more deserving of good medical aid than such a 2nd or 3rd generation heir who just spends his ancestors money

US survival rate for cancer
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200...ary-by-country

But the problem, as I mentioned is:
This statistic was made with "patients who are in medical treatment for cancer"

People who cannot afford medical treatement for cancer (i.e. chemotherapy and the like) will not appear in these statistics (but rather in the statistics about avoidable deaths). Likewise people who don't even go to the doctor because they cannot afford an examination (and therefore actually die without a specific type of cancer being diagnosed [lab diagnostics for cancer are quite expensive])

And, as said, the statistics also don't answer the question how expensive US chemotherapy is, compared to other countries.

[rah]

If health care has social benefits, which he admits, then more productive citizens should get better care. Otherwise you are harming society, even poor people.

Even rape victims

The problem is you're really substituting wealth for productivity. Hence you support letting poor people die.

[BlackCat]

Maybe Kiddy just has a fetish for eating food prepared with dirty kitchen tools and from plates with remains from the previous person that used them

[rah]

Yeah, what's the old adage? Don't piss off the people that handle your food.

I've worked in a kitchen at a restaurant, first as a dishwasher and then as a cook. To insinuate that I wasn't productive based on my salary is somewhat silly. I wasn't making much money so obviously I wasn't really doing any work.

[Uncle Sparky]

I liked this -


I'm sure the atheist would sell you the bible... best way to create more atheists...

[rah]

Yeah, that one about sums it up. And I agree that the atheist has no religion to hide behind so he'd sell you the bible. I always find it funny that they think they're so special that their religious affiliation must be capitalized but not the atheist.

[Kidlicious]

I think Dishwashers are more productive than some spoiled rich brat who just spends all the days partying and does no work at all.

To give you some additional statistics:
70% of wealthy families lose their fortune during the 2nd generation ... and after the 3rd generation, 90% of all wealthy familis have lost it

Source:
http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-f...s-lose-wealth/

From the article:



That the heirs (of someone who actually worked hard in order to get wealthy) don't share their ancestors productivity (but often rather are busy with spending their ancestors money) seems to be more the norm than the exception.
So, yes, I would see a dishwasher, mine worker or toilet cleaner as more deserving of good medical aid than such a 2nd or 3rd generation heir who just spends his ancestors money




But the problem, as I mentioned is:
This statistic was made with "patients who are in medical treatment for cancer"

People who cannot afford medical treatement for cancer (i.e. chemotherapy and the like) will not appear in these statistics (but rather in the statistics about avoidable deaths). Likewise people who don't even go to the doctor because they cannot afford an examination (and therefore actually die without a specific type of cancer being diagnosed [lab diagnostics for cancer are quite expensive])

And, as said, the statistics also don't answer the question how expensive US chemotherapy is, compared to other countries.

I'm sure there are some lazy rich people but I think they are about 0.1% of the population. And you can get cancer treatment in the US without insurance.

I'm not too invested in this discussion here. I feel like I got baited into it.

[Kidlicious]

The problem is you're really substituting wealth for productivity. Hence you support letting poor people die.

The wealthy are more productive. But I'm not talking about your hair brained world view.