[quote name='Khaiy' timestamp='1304383388' post='4805727']
Before you start claiming that all government led health care reform is awful, I'd go to Japan and take a look there. After paying for their nationally regulated insurance, they get high quality low cost care, with very little waiting. I remember the story of a journalist in Japan who got in to see one of the top-rated spinal specialists within a week of his calling to make an appointment. There are still issues, namely that their doctors are paid too little (and getting increasingly angry about it), but quality and access to care aren't what are suffering under their system.

Survival rates in the United States for most conditions and cancers are better in the United States than the UK (and indeed most of the developed world). Likewise, when accidental deaths are factored out (workplace accidents, gunshot wounds, etc), life expectancy begins to reach parity with Europe, and that factors into account lack of access to care. In other words, the socialized health care systems manage to do worse than the US system, even though too many citizens here are uninsured or unable to afford health care.

We need real health care reform, to be sure, but the argument that "a painful 2 year wait is better than never getting it at all" holds very little water. At any rate, Europe's health care systems are only going to provide less, not more, as Europe becomes older, poorer, less dynamic, and responsible for its own national security. America's gaze is turning to the Pacific, where its future hopes lie. Enjoy your two-year waits while you still can, my European friends
[/quote]

It holds plenty of water. Our medical care is great. Awesome. There are tons of people who put off going to the doctor because they can't afford it, and then they have much worse conditions that finally force them in, which are more expensive to treat and harder to recover from well. If you present to the hospital, they can't turn you away, so they treat you and you rack up a huge bill. A hospital room is thousands of dollars per day, and that's assuming that you never see a doctor, need any treatment or medicine, or follow-up care. So you can get awesome treatment, on credit, and then be in debt for the rest of your life. That's not a great system, even if we have great doctors and medical technology. And again, given that concern, many people put off going to the hospital.

Survivorship is a great metric of our medical technology, not of access to care. I have seen (I work in a hospital, dealing with insurance, for the record) people's entire retirement accounts wiped out at 60, even when they have insurance. I've seen 20 year olds who will never, ever pay off their debt. Ever. For something that they couldn't control, like getting hit by a car while walking on the sidewalk. And I've seen people die, without treatment, because they couldn't scrape together $120 for a co-pay for their treatment. Meanwhile the cost of care only increases, way beyond the rate of inflation, while access to insurance decreases as insurance in general becomes crappier. And meanwhile, the insurance companies make record profits. Our medical technology is great, and our competent doctors are great. Our system is terrible, and the idea that everyone has access to care and is healthy is patently absurd. The emergency room is not solid medical care, even though they can't refuse to treat people.

And why does everyone in these debates have such a hard-on for the European system? The UK system is not the shining example. That's why I mention Japan, and all that you came up with was that some Japanese doctors suck and/or are shy, conveniently ignoring the better life expectancies and similar (if not better) health outcomes. And by the way, Japan doesn't have socialized medicine in the way that the UK does. So your apparent position, that American can choose between its current system or a Western European system is a false dichotomy. There are other choices, which work better and for less money.

[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304393439' post='4805790'][quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304389985' post='4805775']Again, which resolution gave permission to carry out an invasion?

Sorry, but there's a lot of laws, treaties and conventions regarding war. That statement is so unfounded that it beggars belief that someone would present it seriously. There's no way to even have a discussion if you're not grounded in reality...
[/quote]

The application of international law is purely discretionary, thanks to national sovereignty and the lack of an enforcer.

Afghanistan asked for proof that they were a threat, or in any way connected to the 9/11 terrorism, and no proof was given.
While we're at it, can you dig up a source for the claim that Bin Laden has admitted to planning 9/11?
[/quote]

Osama took credit in a 2004 audio tape. There was other evidence linking Bin Laden to the organization and financing of the effort. You may as well question how they linked KSM to it. Admissions mean little either way. If the United States wanted a scapegoat, they would've picked someone else -- someone they could have easily captured or killed. Bin Laden wasn't taking extraordinary measures to hide from US intelligence for no reason. Neither were his Pakistani protectors.

It's interesting to see who you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt here.

It holds plenty of water. Our medical care is great. Awesome. There are tons of people who put off going to the doctor because they can't afford it, and then they have much worse conditions that finally force them in, which are more expensive to treat and harder to recover from well. If you present to the hospital, they can't turn you away, so they treat you and you rack up a huge bill. A hospital room is thousands of dollars per day, and that's assuming that you never see a doctor, need any treatment or medicine, or follow-up care. So you can get awesome treatment, on credit, and then be in debt for the rest of your life. That's not a great system, even if we have great doctors and medical technology. And again, given that concern, many people put off going to the hospital.

And why does everyone in these debates have such a hard-on for the European system? The UK system is not the shining example. That's why I mention Japan, and all that you came up with was that some Japanese doctors suck and/or are shy, conveniently ignoring the better life expectancies and similar (if not better) health outcomes. And by the way, Japan doesn't have socialized medicine in the way that the UK does. So your apparent position, that American can choose between its current system or a Western European system is a false dichotomy. There are other choices, which work better and for less money.
[/quote]

I don't know enough about Japan's system to comment any more. All I'll share is that in my limited experience, things are not necessarily as they may seem in Japan. The Japanese are especially shy about reporting things that reflect badly on their welfare state. And let's not forget their crushing debt burden. Maybe all is not well in Japan.

Osama took credit in a 2004 audio tape. There was other evidence linking Bin Laden to the organization and financing of the effort.
It's interesting to see who you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt here.

Life expectancy factors all of this into account, and the US may actually be leading there.

Does the U.S. Lead in Life Expectancy?

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. But the point made above is key.

I don't know enough about Japan's system to comment any more. All I'll share is that in my limited experience, things are not necessarily as they may seem in Japan. The Japanese are especially shy about reporting things that reflect badly on their welfare state. And let's not forget their crushing debt burden. Maybe all is not well in Japan.
[/quote]

It's not a welfare system for health care that provides the flexibility. It's somewhat privatized, although insurance companies are legally required to be non-profit organizations, and the government does provide a single-payer plan. Hospitals are required to be non-profit as well, and must be run by physicians. Many people choose not to go with health insurance at all, in fact (though legally they are supposed to). The government aggressively regulates the price of medical procedures, which keeps the cost of most routine medical services extremely low, so while it's still a significant expenditure on the national level it's far less expense per patient than in the US (even with the government picking up ~70% of the tab in many situations).

Insurance is effective for catastrophic issues and so forth, but the non-profit structure removes the incentive to jack up rates. Not to mention that Japanese health insurance companies (like most health insurance companies worldwide) are far more efficient per dollar than US companies.

Japan does indeed have problems. As I noted above, doctors there are not pleased with their pay, especially because lower income makes it more difficult to offset the cost of medical school, as well as making going through that training less rewarding. Japan does have a very high debt-to-GDP ratio, but it's debatable how "crushing" that is for their economy.

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304389985' post='4805775']
Again, which resolution gave permission to carry out an invasion?