If you have no argument, attack the messenger. Do a search under Lancet, dumb bunny.
What’s your point with that link, dumb bunny? All of North America and Europe is red, because they all smoke.
Right, best healthcare in the world, dumb bunny.
No, because you changed the argument to suit you.
We weren’t talking survival rates after treatment. We were talking affordability.
But those numbers are interesting. Did it occur to you, for instance, that treating only those who think the cost is “worth it” automatically selects against the worst cases? That’s an obvious implication. If the US numbers include only those treatable, they’re actually very damning.
I’ll take best healthcare on earth, and worry about the millions of illegals and voluntary free riders later.
I, and most Americans, want A care for 80%, not C care for 100% like in Europe and Canada. You don’t agree, fine, enjoy your year-long wait for a primary care doc and your C outcomes in your craphole socialist countries.
You mean my week long wait? Thanks. It’s pretty great.
Excellent.
What total liberal bull$#!t. The US has the BEST cancer outcomes.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
Meanwhile, the NHS is a disaster.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2418250/NHS-death-rate-worst-West-Patients-50-likely-die-neglect-US-says-study.html
“Scorching” is how bad socialized medicine is.
You didn’t even read the first article. Walt has lung cancer btw.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/lung-cancers/by-country/
Oh, the Daily Mail hates UK healthcare? Next you’ll tell me Samsung copies Apple. Moron. USA! USA!
American.
Best assuming you can afford to pay for it?
And quoting from the Daily Mail is like quoting from Fox News.
Similarly, Canadian Breaking Bad: http://www.tickld.com/images/content/35033.jpg
boo
If you have no argument, attack the messenger. Do a search under Lancet, dumb bunny.
What’s your point with that link, dumb bunny? All of North America and Europe is red, because they all smoke.
Right, best healthcare in the world, dumb bunny.
No, because you changed the argument to suit you.
We weren’t talking survival rates after treatment. We were talking affordability.
But those numbers are interesting. Did it occur to you, for instance, that treating only those who think the cost is “worth it” automatically selects against the worst cases? That’s an obvious implication. If the US numbers include only those treatable, they’re actually very damning.
I’ll take best healthcare on earth, and worry about the millions of illegals and voluntary free riders later.
I, and most Americans, want A care for 80%, not C care for 100% like in Europe and Canada. You don’t agree, fine, enjoy your year-long wait for a primary care doc and your C outcomes in your craphole socialist countries.
You mean my week long wait? Thanks. It’s pretty great.