Scot Dutchy wrote:So it is not an anecdote when you say it?

Read the reports? Which ones, those you cherry pick or all of them? I use the system and have done for over 30 years. It hasn't failed me, or my mother, or my father, or my daughter, or my husband. 4 out of those 5 would be dead now without it, I'd be dead twice over. Your nonsense about the NHS not working is very clearly just that. If you had had any dealings with it at all instead of relying on your wonky judgement, you wouldn't even begin to argue that point. You were completely unaware of the NHS walk-in services, or that you can get appointments with a pharmacist. You thought that anyone who couldn't get an appointment with their GP had no recourse but to rock up at A&E. Basic ignorance, rectified with a simple question, but you chose to make false claims instead. There is no semblance of a balanced or informed opinion coming from you on this matter - even when I directly tell you what the NHS has done for me, you, speaking from the Netherlands, presume to tell me that it's shit and to just accept it. No one should believe a thing you say on this issue when you are prepared to actually try to tell a long-term service user that black is white.

Scot Dutchy wrote:So it is not an anecdote when you say it? It is about quality which is from your stand point pure anecdotal.

willhud9 wrote:The EHCI does not seem very reliable, relies on arbitrary cut-offs to "score" countries and over all just reading that report has no rhythm or rhyme to why they score the way they do i.e. on what mathematical principle are they basing their points?

Oldskeptic wrote:
The man was only identified as Rick in Michael Moore's Sicko and apparently there is no way to verify Moore's story or the exact circumstances. But don't let that stop you from repeating it despite not even knowing where the story came from.

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:So it is not an anecdote when you say it?

Are you unable to parse the parts of what Fallible said which are anecdotal, from the parts which are not.

Here. I will help you.

Read the reports? Which ones, those you cherry pick or all of them? I use the system and have done for over 30 years. It hasn't failed me, or my mother, or my father, or my daughter, or my husband. 4 out of those 5 would be dead now without it, I'd be dead twice over. Your nonsense about the NHS not working is very clearly just that. If you had had any dealings with it at all instead of relying on your wonky judgement, you wouldn't even begin to argue that point. You were completely unaware of the NHS walk-in services, or that you can get appointments with a pharmacist. You thought that anyone who couldn't get an appointment with their GP had no recourse but to rock up at A&E. Basic ignorance, rectified with a simple question, but you chose to make false claims instead. There is no semblance of a balanced or informed opinion coming from you on this matter - even when I directly tell you what the NHS has done for me, you, speaking from the Netherlands, presume to tell me that it's shit and to just accept it. No one should believe a thing you say on this issue when you are prepared to actually try to tell a long-term service user that black is white.

The part in blue is anecodote but, also happens to be factually true (case in point, Fallible is not dead). At no point in the blue text does Fallible make any statements about quality, just the outcomes.

The part in red is not anecdotal.

Rise branded 'catastrophic' after 1,597 patients waited more than 12 to be admitted between January and March this year, compared with just 15 patients in 2012

Scot Dutchy wrote:This is not quality or service:

A&E waiting times: Huge spike in patients forced to wait more than 12 hours

Rise branded 'catastrophic' after 1,597 patients waited more than 12 to be admitted between January and March this year, compared with just 15 patients in 2012

This is just one of many reports of failures in the NHS. It is being starved of money.

Oldskeptic wrote:You are shown that your 60% claim is wrong in one thread yet you just move on to make a whole thread about your erroneous claim.

From the article that Skymutt cited and quoted.

Kaiser's tracking poll in July found 53 percent in favor of having all Americans get their health insurance from the government; 43 percent were against that. Opposition climbed to 60 percent when people were asked to consider that such a plan would call for higher taxes for many. A slight majority also swung against a single-payer plan when respondents were told that former President Barack Obama's health care law would be replaced as a result....

—In his Times article, Sanders cited an Economist/YouGov poll in April that found a clear preference for expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to all — 60-23. The survey did not address the cost or tax implications of taking that course. That survey was conducted using an opt-in online panel recruited with internet advertising, a methodology criticized by some because of concerns that it does not reach a random sample of Americans....

—The Pew Research Center in June found 60 percent who believe the federal government is responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, with 39 percent disagreeing. That supports Sanders' contention that people want health care as a right. But ensuring coverage is not the same as paying for it. Support for a single-payer system registered at only 33 percent in that poll. Many of those who felt the government has a responsibility for making sure people have coverage instead supported a mix of public and private programs.

Oldskeptic wrote:And, you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "La La La". The fact is that the more people learn about Bernie's plan and how it would be funded the less they are in favor of it. Support for single payer plans like Bernie's, after the public is fully informed, drops to 33%.

Teague wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
The man was only identified as Rick in Michael Moore's Sicko and apparently there is no way to verify Moore's story or the exact circumstances. But don't let that stop you from repeating it despite not even knowing where the story came from.

The fact that I remembered the story is good enough to crap all over your dumbfuck reply. It doesn't even matter if "Rick" is real or not, the facts of the outcome would be the same unless you wish to argue they wouldn't be?

felltoearth wrote:Moore was born and raised in Flint, ok a suburb of Flint but that's splitting hairs.

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Moore was born and raised in Flint, ok a suburb of Flint but that's splitting hairs.

That's it? I suppose that if that is your only objection that you agree that Moore did lie about the other things I mentioned.

Oldskeptic wrote:Michael Moore lies more easily than he tells the truth.