Obama likes fish over people

Originally posted by generalissimo
I think FMF made a valid point.

there is no connection between one thing and another.

I wouldn't say "no connection." Certainly, if the profit margins decrease for pharma companies because government pays less for the medications than private insurance companies would, that would lead to a decrease in pharmaceutical development.

Though, of course, I agree that the two things are different concepts, not completely interrelated.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
i believe you were asking this of utherpendragon who made the claim, so why are you asking me now?

Because you were replying to my question regarding the standard of health care in the US. What was the relevance of your comment if you were not implying any relation between health care research and health care itself?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Because you were replying to my question regarding the standard of health care in the US. What was the relevance of your comment if you were not implying any relation between health care research and health care itself?

i wasn't the one saying "the best health care"....

Originally posted by generalissimo
I think FMF made a valid point.

there is no connection between one thing and another.

so having access to the best/latest research, and a wider supply of drugs, cannot lead to better health care? You see no possible correlation there?

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
so having access to the best/latest research, and a wider supply of drugs, cannot lead to better health care? You see no possible correlation there?

We weren't talking about a "possible correlation". You said that they were indicators that U.S. health care is the best in the world. Do the things you mentioned lead to better care? I don't see how they do. And now you're backpeddling too.

Originally posted by sh76
I wouldn't say "no connection." Certainly, if the profit margins decrease for pharma companies because government pays less for the medications than private insurance companies would, that would lead to a decrease in pharmaceutical development.

Though, of course, I agree that the two things are different concepts, not completely interrelated.

agreed.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
so having access to the best/latest research, and a wider supply of drugs, cannot lead to better health care? You see no possible correlation there?

Who has access to the best/latest research? How many people do and don't? Who has access to the wider supply of drugs? How many people benefit? You haven't made your case.

Originally posted by FMF
We weren't talking about a "possible correlation". You said that they were indicators that U.S. health care is the best in the world. Do the things you mentioned lead to better care? I don't see how they do. And now you're backpeddling too.

im providing evidence of 2 areas the U.S. leads in which could support the idea that the U.S has the best health care, but I even prefaced it by saying "i could be wrong". THere is no way to know who has "the best health care" but if the U.S. does those two things would be contributors. Why don't you provide some facts as to why the U.S. health care is not as good as somewhere else, or do you only nit pick the posts of others?

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
Why don't you provide some facts as to why the U.S. health care is not as good as somewhere else [...]?

Well it isn't me who is claiming that U.S. health care is the best in the world. You are. Then you come out with bizarre 'evidence' that has only the most tenuous connection to 'health care' services experienced and accessed by ordinary people. This is in and amongst the constant stream of petty insults. You don't seem serious. What is your understanding of the term "health care"? How is it affected by how many millions of packets of lifestyle drugs are produced in U.S. factories? What access do ordinary minimum wage type people have to things resulting from "best research"? You have made the claim. And yet the 'evidence' you cite seems completely tangential.

Originally posted by FMF
Well it isn't me who is claiming that U.S. health care is the best in the world. You are. Then you come out with bizarre 'evidence' that has only the most tenuous connection to 'health care' services experienced and accessed by ordinary people. This is in and amongst the constant stream of petty insults. You don't seem serious. What is your understanding of the ou have made the claim. And yet the 'evidence' you cite seems completely tangential.

So if there is a doctor that leads the world in cancer research (for example) you don't think he can provide better cancer treatment than a doctor in another country that hasn't done near the research, or have access to the latest drugs. You really think there is no different there?

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
So if there is a doctor that leads the world in cancer research (for example) you don't think he can provide better cancer treatment than a doctor in another country that hasn't done near the research, or have access to the latest drugs. You really think there is no different there?

Who gets treated by the doctor that leads the world in cancer research? How is this relevant to the health care services available to the U.S. population at large? If that doctor becomes a naturalized Australian, say, will that then make Australia's health system "the best" in the world?

Originally posted by FMF
Who gets treated by the doctor that leads the world in cancer research? How is this relevant to the health care services available to the U.S. population at large? If that doctor becomes a naturalized Australian, say, will that then make Australia's health system "the best" in the world?

cool. Just to be sure, you are saying there is absolutley no correlation between having top notch medical research/drugs and the capability of providing great health care?

I put the odds at 10-1 that you actually answer the question.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
Just to be sure, you are saying there is absolutley no correlation between having top notch medical research/drugs and the capability of providing great health care?

The issue isn't the "capability of providing great health care". The issue is the existing health care, which almost all Americans agree needs reform. What has "top notch medical research/drugs" got to do with the reality on the ground for ordinary people? Are you saying that in the U.S. health care system, these "top notch medical research/drugs" are available to all? Is THAT the basis on which you are claiming the U.S. health care system is the best in the world?

Originally posted by FMF
The issue isn't the "capability of providing great health care". The issue is the existing health care, which almost all Americans agree needs reform. What has "top notch medical research/drugs" got to do with the reality on the ground for ordinary people? Are you saying that in the U.S. health care system, these "top notch medical research/drugs" are available ...[text shortened]... the basis on which you are claiming the U.S. health care system is the best in the world?

again i wasn't the one making that claim, but i am saying that good research and drugs can obviously help health care providers provider better care. That is all I*** ever said. And yes, I have a pretty ordinary insurance plan and after a $250 annual deductible any medical treatments i get are 90% covered. I would pay the other 10%.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
cool. Just to be sure, you are saying there is absolutley no correlation between having top notch medical research/drugs and the capability of providing great health care?

I put the odds at 10-1 that you actually answer the question.

Sure, there is some correlation, but a very rough one at best.