Public Health Care: Epic Fail

Did a little looking after a reader tip who claimed he's seeing TV ads up along the border marketing US health care to Canadians as the preferred alternative for their care.

Yep! Public health care in Canada is bad enough to justify a complete marketing campaign by a US hospital system to bring patients in from over the border. I guess there's always Mexico after the Democrats get done. Save your pesos. No wonder Obama said more Americans should learn to speak a foreign language. It might be good to have if you get sick under Obamacare.

Kaleida Health welcomes our Canadian neighbors!

At Kaleida Health, we believe that providing compassionate, quality health care in a timely manner is the cornerstone of maintaining a healthy life. Our commitment to our patients is simple -- when you need us we will be there. Expedient treatment is your right and it is our privilege to provide it.

BGH Surgeons Bring Free Weight Loss Seminar to Canadians in St. Catharines

Buffalo General Hospital announced today that the surgeons of the Kaleida Health Comprehensive Weight Loss and Bariatric Surgery Program will provide a FREE educational seminar on morbid obesity (100 pounds overweight or more) and surgical options available for weight reduction on Saturday, November 7 from 10 a.m. – Noon at the Holiday Inn, St. Catharines—Niagara.

Comments

[spot_the_dog]

Most big American hospitals, especially cancer centres, do have "international liaisons" of some sort and do market to overseas patients. If you ever go to, say, MD Anderson in Texas (that's just the one I'm familiar with), you will see a fair number of furriners who have made serious sacrifices to go as far as halfway around the world to get themselves some of that terrible third-world we-should-be-ashamed needs-to-be-overhauled American healthcare.

I'll let you know next time there's a bake-sale/lamington-drive here in Oz to help send a leukaemia patient to Cuba instead of to the US for advanced treatment... Don't hold your breath, but.

[spot_the_dog]

Just further to my last comment, here's info on MD Anderson's international services & marketing:
http://www.mdanderson.org/patient-and-cancer-information/guide-to-md-anderson/international-center/index.html
Again, that's just the one I'm familiar with - I'm sure other big US hospitals do the same. Cheers.

[Bob]

Sure, nothing's perfect. But it's amazing that so many Americans have been duped by industry propaganda into thinking that the Canadian healthcare system is worse than ours. The data is freely available that shows what Canadians think about their healthcare system vs. Americans. They like it WAY MORE:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx

"One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%)."

Why else would Riehl be forced to use healthcare advertisements to try to imply that Canadians in general don't like their healthcare system? Because all the REAL data says just the opposite.

[Darth Venomous]

"Why else would Riehl be forced to use healthcare advertisements to try to imply that Canadians in general don't like their healthcare system? Because all the REAL data says just the opposite."

And why would Roberta the hypocritical, lying, delusional, cowardly racist skank want to trumpet a NEARLY SEVEN-YEAR-OLD POLL about Americans supposed dissatisfaction with the affordability of their healthcare?

Why, there can be no other reason than to distract you, the loyal _RiehlWorldView_ reader, from this poll showing that support for the so-called "solution" to this so-called "health-care crisis", i.e. Bambi's, Piglousi's and Dingy Harry's health care "plan", HAS FALLEN TO A NEW LOW OF 38%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

"Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan."

Dance, Roberta, you stupid bitch - _dance!!!_ (guffaw)

[PA]

"But it's amazing that so many Americans have been duped by industry propaganda into thinking that the Canadian healthcare system is worse than ours."

When Trudeau was PM, and his mother required heart surgery, it did NOT happen in Canada. She was brought to south FL to an American vascular surgeon.

When your own PM sends his own mother out of country for critical surgery, that speaks volumes my friend. Volumes.

[xerocky]

"Why else would Riehl be forced to use healthcare advertisements to try to imply that Canadians in general don't like their healthcare system? Because all the REAL data says just the opposite."

If there were no market for our hospitals in Canada, why would they bother to advertise? It's the bottom line, they see a market and they want to go after it. Otherwise why would they flush good money down the toilet?

A big part of why Canada may be happy with their care is because they have the option to go to the United States, which of course will be gone with Obama care.

[xerocky]

And by the way Bob, why are your numbers "real"?

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[Canerican]

Bob, let me just say that I am from Canada. All of my family lives there, and I lived there until 5 years ago, I would guess that I am probably far more qualified to talk about the horrors of Canadian healthcare than you. I lived in a town of about 50,000, called Granby, it's about an hour east of Montreal. I had a doctor there, but no one was ever willing to move away because if you move you need to find a new doctor (as you do in the US). The only problem is that here you call a few offices, look at reviews and pick one. In Quebec you sign up onto the waiting list, wait anywhere from 2-5 years, and you get your doctor assigned to you. I have actually heard that it's far worse in northern Quebec.
Now, assume you have a GP in Canada, you are happy with your doctor, he is nice, and generally a good person. You get pretty sick, say you need a CT scan. This happened to my aunt (who lives in the same town). She has to drive to Montreal for the procedure - not to bad yet - in about 13 months. This is far from uncommon. It is pretty much expected that unless the doctor thinks you need to be fast tracked you will wait at least a year. Or and by the way, fast tracked means you wait about 3 weeks. Not the 3 or 4 hours you might wait in a big city in the US.
Say you are pretty healthy, and don't need any of that. Pretend that the same thing happened to you as happened to me: I broke my foot playing hockey. I was in excruciating pain, and sat in the ER for 11 hours before waiting another 4 to get a cast put on. 15 hours in all for a normal procedure. There wasn't any pandemic, but again, that is perfectly normal wait times in Canada.

Bob, don't you see that Kaleida realizes how bad it is in Canada? It is truly horrendous. People die on waiting lists.

Which would you prefer? Go bankrupt, or die?

There is, of course, a third option. Based on true free market principles. Allow competition between the states, which would drive down costs for the end consumer, and make insurence more affordable for everyone.

Is there room for government? Yes. If someone has legitimate need, like seniors or the disabled, there already is a big enough public option called Medicare.

[Bob]

"Bob, let me just say that I am from Canada. All of my family lives there, and I lived there until 5 years ago, I would guess that I am probably far more qualified to talk about the horrors of Canadian healthcare than you."

It's not my opinion; it's the opinion of other Canadians, many more of whom (according to the polling data) like their healthcare system compared to people in the U.S. Of course, there are some people -- like you, apparently -- in Canada who don't like the healthcare system at all. Any scientific survey will have views across the spectrum. The existence of people who like or don't like a given system is not the issue in and of itself, it's the distribution of those views. And the U.S. has far fewer people who like our system, and far more people who DON'T like our system, compared to the views of Canadians about their own system. So again, it's not my opinion; it's what the data says.

I'm sure that the wait times vary according to to the severity of the condition. Compare that with tens of millions of Americans who'd have to wait until they're 65 to get any healthcare here.

[SS]

Bob,
You don't even have a leg to stand on here. You're basing everything you're saying on a poll that is 6 years old. We're in an entirely new situation concerning health care than we were in 2003.
Now, even if that poll were dated for yesterday, I would still have something to say about it. That poll asked about the availability of affordable healthcare. Anyone in their right mind would agree that affordable healthcare is easier to come by in Canada than it is in America. I think that has something to do with Canadian healthcare being free or something? ha. Let me just take a quick moment to mention that just because something is free, that does not mean it is of good quality. And with that I say, free healthcare is nothing I want, if it means that the quality of the care is going to be similar to that of Canadian healthcare.

"So again, it's not my opinion; it's what the data says."

So again, find better data.

[Canerican]

Actually, if you spent some time in Canada, talking to Canadians, which it is clear that you haven't - you would hear that Canadians like not having to pay. They hate the waits. The care you do get is fine, but it's rationed.

Why don't you go ahead and actually spend a few seconds doing some research before telling a Canadian how we feel about socialized healthcare.

But on a positive note for Canadians, it has gotten so bad there that private insurers are cropping up everywhere, especially in the West. Now, only the really rich can afford to see private doctors, but at least they receive care. You wonder how bad it truly is? Spend a few minutes and ask the questions and might actually learn that it is rosey.

And one last thought for Bob. I used to post here around 2 years ago and you posted here back then. Wouldn't you be better off doing something constructive? Sure you might manage to get a point in here and there, but honestly, trolling gets sooo lame after that long.

[Bob]

"Let me just take a quick moment to mention that just because something is free, that does not mean it is of good quality. And with that I say, free healthcare is nothing I want, if it means that the quality of the care is going to be similar to that of Canadian healthcare."

Herre, SS, try this on. A different objective analysis of the QUALITY of healthcare shows Canada to be somewhat better than the U.S. (30th place in the world vs 37th place for the U.S.):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems

"A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."[7] Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S., but there is debate about the underlying causes of these differences. One commonly-cited comparison, the 2000 World Health Organization's ratings of "overall health service performance", which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th among 191 member nations."

But of course, despite your demands for better data, I guess it was too hard for you to look it up yourself. Anyway, here's the data that proves you wrong. What will you claim now?

[Bob]

"Why don't you go ahead and actually spend a few seconds doing some research before telling a Canadian how we feel about socialized healthcare."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=a_zs1Y1FspIM

"There is an image of Canadians flooding across the border to get care," said Donald Berwick, a Harvard University health- policy specialist and pediatrician who heads the Boston-based nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement. "That’s just not the case. The public in Canada is far more satisfied with the system than they are in the U.S. and health care is at least as good, with much more contained costs."

Canerican, perhaps your own opinions are out of line with more scientific or objective measures of the quality of Canadian healthcare.

"And one last thought for Bob. I used to post here around 2 years ago and you posted here back then. Wouldn't you be better off doing something constructive? Sure you might manage to get a point in here and there, but honestly, trolling gets sooo lame after that long."

No, I wasn't posting here two years ago. It must have been someone else. And why should you possibly care where I post? Are right wingers so obsessed with uniformity and conventionality that they can't tolerate people having different opinions? At least I back up my claims with actual data, as opposed to the rest of you pulling opinions out of your asses. I think you're just threatened by someone challenging your cozy and sacrosanct little right wing assumptions.

[Canerican]

No, I just care for your well-being. I think that you could be a far more productive member of society. In all honesty, you have to realize that this is the internet and no one really cares what you think. Do you honestly think that people care what the right wingers who post at DK or DU think? No, not at all. They get responses because they annoy the left wingers (though the responses are nowhere near as polite or as well written as on a Conservative site), the same goes for you and all the left wing trolls that came before you. No one really cares what you say, we just respond because you are there, just as we would respond to a right winger.

You really have two options: Do something productive, keep posting here so you can be oh-so-proud of how you stuck to those right wingers "and now they'll support Obamacare because I explained it so well using my handselected polls to prove that THEY are the minority."

====

Now let me address something that you mentioned, now I'm not 100% what qualifies someone who clearly already supports Obamacare to talk up Canadian healthcare (that guy you quoted from Harvard) but while he is right there isn't a stream of people flooding the border to get healthcare here, and why would there be? If you had universal healthcare and your choices were pay $300,000 for your cancer treatment in the US, or hope that you manage to get into a good hospital in Canada, most would hope for the best, because few Canadians have health insurence in the US, and few have $300,000 sitting around. It's just not feasible.
Like I said earlier, the issue in Canada generally isn't the care you recieve, its the wait. There aren't enough doctors, equipment, or facilities. I remember waiting in the cold in January outside a clinic, you had to get there at about 7AM, because it opened at 9, and if you got there any later the lineup would be about 50-60 people long - a day-long wait. The issue is the rationed healthcare and the amazingly long waits. 13 months for a CT scan. 3 weeks for a simple x-ray!
I would never say that I thought the care once you were in was significantly worse than in the US, the issue is simply getting in.

Do I think that people will start dying from day 1 with Obamacare? No. Do I think that after 5-10 years the government will have to set priorities and tell certain people that even though they pay into the system, that their healthcare will be rationed? Absolutely.

Bob, do yourself a favor and listen to actual Canadians. Would most give up their socialized healthcare? No, they don't know any other way. Do most wish that the byproducts of socialized healthcare like massively long wait times would go away? Without a doubt.

And here's a nice quote from a real-life Canadian doctor, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

[Bob]

"You really have two options: Do something productive, keep posting here so you can be oh-so-proud of how you stuck to those right wingers "and now they'll support Obamacare because I explained it so well using my handselected polls to prove that THEY are the minority."

So then why would it be any different for you, if nobody cares? I don't believe your "concern troll" posturing that you care about my well-being. You're criticizing me because you don't like what I'm saying, and posturing at the same time as if your own motivation is somehow more honest than mine. There's no difference between what you're doing vs. me with ONE EXCEPTION: I provide evidence to support what I claim, while you're just expressing your opinion without backing it up.

"Like I said earlier, the issue in Canada generally isn't the care you recieve, its the wait. There aren't enough doctors, equipment, or facilities. I remember waiting in the cold in January outside a clinic . . ."

But your personal experiences are just that: your personal experiences. You need to take a broader, more scientific and fact-based approach if you want to draw serious conclusions about the whole Canadian system vs. the whole U.s. system. What matters are health outcomes, and the ACTUAL DATA says that the outcomes for CANCER between Canada and the U.S. are almost identical:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems#Cancer

"An assessment by Health Canada found that cancer mortality rates are almost identical in the two countries."

And the key issue is that while individual Canadians like you may complain, ALL Canadians are covered, their health is as good or better than comparable Americans, and their health outcomes, on average, are actually BETTER than Americans. There aren't tens of millions of Canadians who can't even GET health insurance, and also unlike here in the U.S., there aren't HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Canadians going bankrupt because of healthcare expenses.

It just amazes me that right wingers can keep spouting the same industry-sponsored propaganda over and over in direct contradiction of most of the available facts.

[Canerican]

You whine about me not using using science then you make a comment like, "their health is as good or better than comparable Americans, and their health outcomes, on average, are actually BETTER than Americans." Which is not backed up by scientific polls, only by your delusions of Glorious Socialism working well.

" There aren't tens of millions of Canadians who can't even GET health insurance"

You are right, because if we are dealing in multiples of ten, then by your statement it would say that there aren't at least 20 million Canadians who can't get health insurance, in a country of 30 million. Ugh.

And you are right, in Canada people don't go bankrupt getting health treatment, they die not getting it. I don't understand how you can say that I contradict FACTS when I LIVED in that country for most of my life. If there is anyone here without a solid grasp on the realities of Canadian healthcare it is you. Let me ask, how many times have you visited a Canadian hospital? Emergency room? Clinic? Afterhours clinic? Oh wait, they don't have afterhours clinics... nevermind, it's not in the budget. So why don't you tell me about your experiences with the Canadian healthcare system if you are so well versed in it, you certainly must have some first hand knowledge if you are challenging my first hand knowledge...

Oh I am SOOO eager.

[Bob]

"And you are right, in Canada people don't go bankrupt getting health treatment, they die not getting it."

Can you understand basic scientific concepts? If what you claim is true, then the healthcare outcomes, as statistically defined in the link I provided earlier, would show that Canadians died at a higher rate than Americans. Since that's not the case, then obviously you're mistaken. Just because you might know someone who died doesn't mean that it bears out on a larger scale. That's the difference between "anecdotal" and "scientific" evidence. Nobody who knows anything puts much weight on anecdotal evidence.

It's not a matter of first-hand evidence. It's a matter of looking at broader trends, which show that Canadians have as good or better health outcomes (do you understand that term?) than Americans. You can't argue against real statistical evidence by pulling assertions out of your ass, which is all you do.

Here, read it again . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems

"A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States."

What does it mean when a review of all studies says Canada's system delivers "superior health outcomes?" It means it's better. Can you not understand such a simple concept?

[Canerican]

Know someone who died waiting for healthcare... Not one person only. I've known several people who went to the US and were told that if they got treated in time they would have lived.

I don't know about you, but in my opinion if just one person is denied care because a government bureaucrat says that the care isn't important enough, and doesn't contribute to the Greater Good enough, that is too many. In Canada, necessary tests are denied all the time in order to ease the infrastructure.

I think that if Obamacare gets through that you would be a little upset if the care that you needed was denied, and you had nowhere to go. When you are the one suffering and in pain, and have no way to get healthcare, you will probably regret Obamacare, should it pass.

I don't wish that upon you, but everyone needs medicine at some point, and hopefully we defeat Obamacare and make that a reality.

The good news is that the public option seems DOA, and only 41% of American people support it. WHen the GOP takes back 30 seats in the House and 5 in Senate, it will have absolutely zero chance of getting though. Even now, it looks extremely unlikely.

[Bob]

"I don't know about you, but in my opinion if just one person is denied care because a government bureaucrat says that the care isn't important enough, and doesn't contribute to the Greater Good enough, that is too many."

Again, you offer no objective proof for the problem that you claim exists. And in any case, you fail to put it in perspective. The U.S. healthcare system has far worse problems than wait times. First, people are denied healthcare here all the time because an INSURANCE COMPANY BUREAUCRAT has been tasked with maximizing profits by finding specious reasons to deny claims. Or the even bigger issue of having tens of millions of Americans with no healthcare AT ALL. "One person" as you say? How does that stack up against tens of millions under the U.S. system? Tens of thousands of Americans DIE every year because they don't have health care.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

You offer no proof that your anecdotal stories about Canadian healthcare means that the overall system is worse than the U.S. system. Scientific, objective, non-biased data says that the Canadian system provides as good or better service than the U.S. system. It's not my opinion -- it's what the fact say. You can't credibly deny these facts while providing no objective, factual data of your own.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Ah yes, another classic example of Bob's "objective, factual data".

"Tens of thousands of Americans DIE every year because they don't have health care."

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/09/21/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death/

Long story short, these "studies" work by finding people who are uninsured at the beginning of the survey, seeing if they die over the survey period, and then claiming that, in every case, lack of insurance caused their death --- without verifying whether the person ever got or had health insurance at the time of their death.

To put it bluntly, if I don't have insurance today, but get it tomorrow and die nine years later fully insured, these paid whores like Bob claim my death nine years from now was caused by not having health insurance today.

That is not scientific. It is manipulated information, produced by paid whores of the Obama Party.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Meanwhile, we should also point out how Bob's "study" is produced by paid whores of the Obama Party, whose sole goal is to force Americans into single-payer health insurance.

"David Himmelstein, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a universal, single-payer national health program, and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, talks with the Foundation’s Jackie Judd about how a single payer model will lead to universal coverage, the obstacles to achieving it and the implications of such a plan on health care providers and the insurance market."

And what about "Dr." Woolhandler?

"As part of her ongoing efforts to increase care for the underserved, Dr. Woolhandler helped found Physicians for a National Health Program in 1986. The group is a single-issue organization that advocates single-payer national health insurance for all Americans."

http://www.pnhp.org/multimedia/stephanie_woolhandler_shares_her_views_on_universal_healthcare.php

Again, this is the classic example of Bob's dishonesty and perversions of science. He and his paid Obama whores like Woolhandler and Himmelstein believe that scientific data should be ignored if it contradicts leftist dogma, and that false "studies" that are completely invalid should be performed to lend a veneer of "science" to push the Obama Party takeover agenda.

[Bob]

The link below is from a completely independent study that shows the same trend in a completely different context: emergency room care. Uninsured emergency room patients have a higher death rate than those with insurance. It's just one isolated facet of the undeniable, scientific data that proves that uninsured Americans actually die from the effects of a lack of insurance:

http://www.denverpost.com/healthcare/ci_13801075

"The researchers analyzed data on nearly 690,000 U.S. patients from 2002 through 2006. Burn patients were not included, nor were people who were treated and released, or dead on arrival.

In the study, the overall death rate was 4.7 percent, so most emergency room patients survived their injuries. The commercially insured patients had a death rate of 3.3 percent. The uninsured patients' death rate was 5.7 percent. Those rates were before the adjustments for other risk factors.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the National Trauma Data Bank, which includes more than 900 U.S. hospitals."

"The researchers took into account the severity of the injuries and the patients' race, gender and age. After those adjustments, they still found the uninsured were 80 percent more likely to die than those with insurance—even low-income patients insured by the government's Medicaid program."

So there's another piece of completely independent proof that uninsured people pay in many cases with their lives. People like NDDADT basically don't give a sh*t.

[Canerican]

What the ER death rate in Canada, Russia, China, or Japan where everyone is insured?

[North Dallas Thirty]

Of course, we can tell that the paid whore Bob doesn't actually read what he links -- he just recites the talking points that the Obama Party gives him.

For example:

"Uninsured patients with traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, falls and gunshot wounds, were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital as similarly injured patients with health insurance, according to a troubling new study"

So according to the paid whore Bob, lack of health insurance causes car crashes, falls, and gunshot wounds. Got it.

Also, what else is interesting in that article?

Gawande favors health care reform and has frequently written about the inequities of the current system."

What a surprise. Another "Harvard researcher" who wants single-payer and who, given his colleagues, is more than willing to slant data to "prove" it.

Meanwhile, paid whore Bob, you don't really care about these people. If you did, you would be reaching into your own pocket to pay for their health insurance. You simply are a moocher, unwilling to pay for your own health care and trying to exploit "the poor" to prove it.

Our proof? Look what you supported and endorsed your Barack Obama doing.

"Sen. Barack Obama's wife and three close advisers have been involved with a program at the University of Chicago Medical Center that steers patients who don't have private insurance -- primarily poor, black people -- to other health care facilities."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article

[Bob]

"So according to the paid whore Bob, lack of health insurance causes car crashes, falls, and gunshot wounds. Got it."

You're as stupid as you are dishonest. Can't you even read? It means that uninsured people died at a higher rate FOLLOWING those injuries compared to INSURED people who had similar kinds of injuries. Were they receiving less aggressive treatment due to payment concerns? Whatever the cause was, the statistical evidence shows that they came through the experience worse than insured people and died more often as a result. Facts don't lie, unlike North Dallas Thirty. The facts prove that people die from the various effects of not having medical insurance.

And North Dallas Thirten then tries to pretend that being a Harvard medical professor is now a mark of shame or something. In wing nut world, being knowledgeable and intelligent is considered to be a bad thing. To which I can only add, ND30, you're doin' a HECKUVA JOB! LOL. You're dumb and dishonest: the perfect wing nut. Now maybe you can take some reading comprehension classes and work on your rebuttal some other time when you can actually understand the point of the study. Oh well, at least, from what people say, "ignorance is bliss." So have a blissful Thanksgiving, ND30.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"The facts prove that people die from the various effects of not having medical insurance."

And again, the paid whore Bob claims that lack of health insurance causes car crashes, falls, and gunshot wounds.

The other hilarious thing that the paid whore babbles is about "similar" injuries. A gunshot to the head is different than one to the foot, but the paid whore whines and screams in his "study" that both are the same. Again, another fine example of junk science from another paid "scientist" who starts with a leftist dogma and manufactures "data" to prove it.

And this was beyond funny:

And North Dallas Thirten then tries to pretend that being a Harvard medical professor is now a mark of shame or something. In wing nut world, being knowledgeable and intelligent is considered to be a bad thing.

The paid whore Bob is now whining that the fact that you went to or are at Harvard means that you are automatically "knowledgeable and intelligent" and anyone who dares to criticize you is "dumb and dishonest".

George W. Bush has a Harvard MBA. Therefore, Bob is "dumb and dishonest" for criticizing Bush, and Bob should shut up, because Bush is automatically "knowledgeable and intelligent".

Paid whores like Bob really have no sense of honesty or intellectual curiousity. They only know what Barack Obama tells them and repeat the talking points Obama gives them -- obvious in Bob's complete and utter refusal to condemn Barack Obama for dumping poor patients out of the University of Chicago Medical Center so that it could do more lucrative procedures.

[Bob]

So, North Dallas Sociopath, having been caught in an embarrassing misunderstanding of what the study I linked to said, now doubles down on the stupid, RESTATING his misunderstanding. Sorry, but simply restating somethig that's wrong doesn't make it right. No, it just makes you look EVEN DUMBER. And it shows once again your sociopathic disregard for truth and honesty.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And once again, the paid whore Bob tries to scream his way out of his "facts" being exposed as junk science based on starting with a leftist dogma and trying to force data to follow it.

You would think that, if the paid whore's primary concern was good care, he would be screaming at Barack Obama for dumping patients without insurance, especially since the paid whore is trying to argue that doing so is why his "data" behaves the way that it does. But again, the paid whore is not actually interested in the data; he's interested in the leftist dogma, and he supports and endorses his leftist masters doing exactly the same thing he criticizes, regardless of how hypocritical it makes him look.

[Bob]

"You would think that, if the paid whore's primary concern was good care, he would be screaming at Barack Obama for dumping patients without insurance . . ."

Good idea, ND30, time for you to try changing the subject. That's as sure an admission of defeat on your part as there is.

[North Dallas Thirty]

The funny part is that the paid whore Bob doesn't even realize how much he's projecting, given how many times the paid whore has changed the subject, spun, and tried to get away in this very thread.

The paid whore is once again demonstrating that he's not capable of intellectual debate or honesty. He just repeats the talking points of his Barack Obama, who appeals to Bob's little communist and Marxist brain, honed by a lifetime of failure and incompetence and a jealousy of those who actually work, are productive, and earn money.