James Quinn

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH

I think just telling the truth is revolutionary.


On Nov 11 12:04 PM Cyrus the Great wrote:

> AMAZING. This is an absolutely beautiful creation. Thank you for
> spending the time and energy necessary to produce this.
>
> I am sharing this with all of my friends and family members. What
> else can I/we do?!! Please suggest ways of creating this truth movement.

America, The Nanny State

Knock Knock. I'm more concerned with what the study did not address. It didn't address how long you wait to get care. It didn't address rationing. It didn't address the cost benefit analysis done to decide whether to save an old person's life. It didn't address that they only have one CAT scan machine in the whole country. It didn't address the 50% tax rates and 20% VAT to pay for their socialism. If it is so great, move to Sweden where everyone is equal and individual effort means nothing.


On Nov 03 08:29 PM pacalis wrote:

> You should read that report again.
>
> The US came first in only one of four quality categories - preventative
> care. It comes in last in chronic care, mistakes and coordination
> of care. It lagged all other countries in the study in IT. It also
> fails on access and those other issues. But in sum, it's quality
> score was 5 of 6.
>
> Now ask, why is the US so good in early stage diagnoses? Because
> the insurance companies want to test your s@#t in your 20s so they
> can deny you coverage in your 50s.
>
> PS:
> Knock knock, who's there?
> Taxes....
> Taxes who?
> Who cares!!! US pays more per person Mr. Quinn!!!
>
> On Nov 03 02:28 PM James Quinn wrote:

America, The Nanny State

I'm sure your Australian bretheren and their 45% tax rates and 10% VAT are much healthier and much poorer than we are. Let the government decide whether you live or die. You can have it. Eh.


On Nov 03 02:53 PM l'ami canadien wrote:

> Ok, old man, I'm bored of toying with you now. I'll move on to more
> interesting things, all the while secure in the knowledge that if
> I or anyone I care about or any of my fellow citizens get sick or
> injured they'll have universal health care to rely on. Buh-bye.

America, The Nanny State

Yes Little tadpole

I'm riddled with insecurities. I can barely function. Your high level of intellect is no match for me. Now crawl back into your little hole with goldilocks and talk about weiners.


On Nov 03 02:58 PM GreatWhite wrote:

> Your are obviously a very angry person and I believe that anger stems
> from your insecurities. Which insecurities I know not, but you have
> many and it is reflected in your writings.
>
> GreatWhite

America, The Nanny State

Your numbers don't include the private cost. Provide the data to back up your cost figure for Australia.


On Nov 03 02:50 PM l'ami canadien wrote:

> So, a combination of universal public coverage augmented by private
> insurance 'top-ups' for those who can afford to pay more for faster
> service provides better outcomes at less cost than the US system?

America, The Nanny State

Yes. Such a huge success that 43% of Australians get private insurance. Try again Mr. Canadian

Approximately 43% of Australians also retain private health insurance, even though they are already entitled to free treatment in public hospitals. The major reasons for taking up health insurance despite the free public system are:

Shorter waiting lists in private hospitals (especially for procedures such as joint reconstructions or heart bypass surgery, for which there are often long waiting times in public hospitals).
Choice of hospital/physician in the private system;
Improved accommodation facilities such as private rooms (although medical facilities are usually more extensive in the public system).
Some people choose to have private coverage for ancillary treatment, or "extras", (e.g. chiropractic, dental, optical, ambulance, etc - for which Medicare has limited or no cover) but use the Medicare system for hospital treatment.

The proportion of Australians with private health insurance was declining, but has increased again with the introduction of Lifetime Health Cover (where people who take out private hospital insurance later in life pay higher premiums than those who have held coverage since they were younger) and tax incentives to take out private cover (such as the Medicare Levy Surcharge).


On Nov 03 02:03 PM l'ami canadien wrote:

> How about Australia vs. USA?
>
> Australia has a per capita expenditure on health of US$3137, compare
> to USA's expenditure of $7290. Yet, the life expectancy is over three
> years higher in Australia, and they've got more doctors, and more
> nurses, on a per capita basis. Oh yeah, their health care expenditures
> as a percentage of GDP? About half that of the USA.

America, The Nanny State

Hey Little Flounder

You seem to have a preoccupation with little dicks. Shouldn't you be slinking around a grade school with a hooded jacket.


On Nov 03 02:00 PM GreatWhite wrote:

> It's clear now, TeresaE is your prostitute girlfriend that services
> your "LittleWienner" (as stated in a previous post) and you feel
> the need to stick up for her elementary school intellect.
>
> GreatWhite

America, The Nanny State

Have you ever heard the terms correlation and causation?

I read the findings. The report is geared to say that because we don't have universal care, that puts us in last place. Only one category did the US happen to come in 1st: QUALITY.

It also didn't measure wait times, rationing, letting people die because the cost benefit analysis didn't work out in their favor. The report does not take the taxation of the citizens into account either.

Not a convincing argument. Try again.


On Nov 03 01:52 PM l'ami canadien wrote:

> The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the
> Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia,
> New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its
> 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive,
> it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries. A
> major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the
> study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health
> insurance coverage.
>
> ["Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative
> Performance of American Health Care". The Commonwealth Fund. May
> 15, 2007. www.commonwealthfund.o....
> ]

America, The Nanny State

The White House just called and they want to make you Vice President. To call you superficial would be too much of a compliment, so I'll stick with THE GREAT DENIER.


On Nov 03 01:51 PM AxIt wrote:

> Your approach is clearly superficial. Yes you cannot tell how may
> people will turn 65 more than 70 years from now. You cannot because
> you do not know how, for example, how many immigrants there will
> be, and how many will leave US, and how many will die before reaching
> 65. And in addition, you do not know how many of the people reaching
> 65 would need the healthcare plan, because you do not know which
> is the share that will have private insurance, and you do not know
> how many will simply decide not to use the "public option". You do
> not know, for the ones that will apply to the plan, how many cures
> they will need and so their actual cost. I can go on for other 100
> lines but the simple point is that you do not know anything.
> I can pass you an estimation made for next year, also two years from
> now, let's stretch to five years (and I start to have some doubts).
> But such extrapolations targeting the end of this century are useless
> and just a political tool.
>
> On Nov 03 11:40 AM James Quinn wrote:

America, The Nanny State

I know the the net present value concept probably taxes your mind beyond its breaking point. It is extremely difficult to project how many people will reach 65 years old at a given point in time. It requires using the skills of addition, which you clearly lack.

You have convinced me with your brilliant arguments that adding 1,990 pages of government rules, regulations, mandates, criminal penalties, and a blizzard of new paperwork will surely save costs and eliminate the $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities.

You are truly a genius. The White House could really use someone like you.


On Nov 03 11:24 AM AxIt wrote:

> Again: you do not present facts but questionable projections.
> There a not 100 trillions of unfunded liabilities today. The 100
> trillions figure is the net present value of the unfunded liabilities
> on a time horizon that spans several decades. These number are determined
> forecasting demographics, GDP growth, productivity, etc from now
> to several decades in the future. Forecast just one of these factors
> uncorrectly, and the result is wrong.
> As already said I do not care about such projections, which are pure
> academy. Bring me a valid projection made in 1940 about today. It
> does not exist.
>
> On Nov 03 08:35 AM James Quinn wrote:

America, The Nanny State

Please provide your documentation regarding better health outcomes please. I provided all of my documentation. You have provided nothing. I'm looking forward to the data for India, China and Cambodia. You may also notice Iceland on the chart. Their economic system has since collapsed and their currency is worthless. Just saying.


On Nov 03 09:47 AM l'ami canadien wrote:

> But, Mr. Quinn, I referred to the fact that developed countries with
> 'socialized' health care have better health outcomes and higher life
> expectancies that the USA. Oh, and it doesn't cost us as much either
> (as a proportion of GDP, as illustrated in the graph you provided
> in your own article). Would you care to respond to those facts?<br/>
>
> PS: If I was going to suggest where one ought to move to enjoy socialized
> health care, I'd take Sweden, France or Canada over Venezuela, sorry.

America, The Nanny State

Unsubscribe if you like. That is your choice.

The liberal socialists have no response to my facts, so they attack me personally. That is is the way they operate. I choose to not back down to their tactics. I choose to give it back with both barrels. They then cry like little babies because I'm too mean.

If someone wants an intelligent dialogue about the facts, let's have it. None of the socialists have put forth anything other than name calling. They got nothin. No facts. No reasonable arguments. No cogent thoughts whatsoever.



On Nov 02 11:57 PM User 422488 wrote:

> Mr Quinn while I enjoy your articles I'm going to unsubscribe because
> you're such a complete dick to some of the people who comment. What
> the hell is wrong with you? I've never in my life seen an author
> be so rude to his readers just because they disagree with him. You're
> not going to be able to convince your readers of anything if you
> run them all off. Grow up. Bye.

America, The Nanny State

More denial gibberish. You choose to deny the facts because they don't support your position. That is your choice, but my children and grandchildren owe $100 Trillion for promises made decades ago by politicians who never figured out a way to pay for the promises.

Are you denying there are $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities? If so, then crawl back into your fantasy hole.

If not, how will it be paid? Answer please. I'm waiting. And waiting. And waiting.

Not one liberal idealogue in two days has explained how this will be paid. They don't care. Because it does not fit neatly into their socialist agenda.

Good day sir.


On Nov 03 05:58 AM AxIt wrote:

> Also projections by Malthus were based on "undeniable demographics
> developments". And if he was right we all should be already starving
> in hunger. False. Such long term projections are misleading and always
> wrong. Yes, I deny that the future can be predicted by simplistic
> extrapolations. Such kind of extrapolations were and are at the basis
> of planned economy programs tipical of totalitaristic regimes. Programs
> that never worked because future is not an extrapolation in a graph.
> Paradoxically, you are converging on the way of thinking of people
> that you fight the most.
>
> On Nov 02 07:56 PM James Quinn wrote:

America, The Nanny State

The people who find me cranky have no facts, no arguments, no answers. The socialists have a complete history of failure documented throughout history. The liberal tactics are to attack the messenger who has facts to back up his arguments. When I attack back, you turtles stick your head in your shells and cry like a baby. Go to Venezuela if you want socialism.


On Nov 03 06:56 AM l'ami canadien wrote:

> Wow Quinn, you are one cranky old man. I won't be looking to your
> columns for advice or analysis anymore; you seem psychologically
> unbalanced so I can't trust your judgment.
>
> One note about this article though: all the developed countries you
> showed that spend a smaller proportion of GDP on healthcare all have
> 'socialized' health care, administered by their nanny-state. You
> know what else they have? Better health outcomes and higher life
> expectencies. Guess what? For health care, socialism works best.
> It appears you'd prefer anything but; perhaps you can look to Philippines
> or Niger for health care solutions more suitable to your ideology.

America, The Nanny State

Blow up dolls don't count as girl friends goldy locks.


On Nov 02 08:43 PM GoldLovingPuppy wrote:

> On Nov 02 07:59 PM James Quinn wrote:
> "> Shouldn't your screen name be gold loving asshole?"
>
> Now James Quinn,
> I have a girl friend that knows you intimately and she said your
> name should be "LittleWiener"
> and that's based on a factual evidence!! She was quite amused at
> it too!
>
> Now take that meanie!
>
> Goldey