![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Killing Christians Through Better MedicineLand of the Free Ride, Home of the Depraved How jew "doctors" kill Christians
As The Federalist has reported previously, science is finally catching on that prayer works! A study at North Carolina's Duke University Medical Center found that patients with heart problems who received alternative therapy after angioplasty were 25 to 30 percent less likely to suffer complications, while those who were subjects of "intercessory prayer" on their behalf had the greatest successful recovery rate. The study of 150 patients, conducted between April 1997 and April 1998, involved random assignment of patients to study groups, and neither the patients nor the physician researchers were aware of the group assignments. Prayer had the greatest health benefits, surpassing such alternatives added to standard heart care as guided imagery, stress relaxation, and healing touch therapies. - The Federalists
GULF W AR SYNDROME
EVIDENCE: French forces who served in the Gulf War were
Two Competing Health Care SystemsIn 1980, the US already had one of the most expensive systems ever heard of, with two competing health care systems consuming 9% of GDP, each larger than those in most industrialized nations: private health care vs. government health care. By 2005, health care costs as a percent of GDP almost doubled to 15.3%, with government health care costs consuming 6.9% alone (a whopping $856 billion, up from only $717 MILLION in 1948, an increase of 1,211 TIMES in less than 60 years). If those trends continued to 2009, we now spend 18% of GDP for health care, with the government contribution now exceeding the private contribution. When a "liberal" says "health insurance" to you, what they mean is that they want YOU to work hard and pay lots of taxes so THEY can get the ultimate free ride. Race is not a FactorThroughout the world, throughout history, the most expensive and least effective is "free" government health care, where the same organization is tasked with paying "retirement benefits" in the form of Social Security in the same breath it has the opportunity to greatly reduce costs by reducing life expectancies. That has been a success. Our four year shorter life expectancy than Japan or Australia is not because of Blacks or Hispanics who have six and three years shorter life expectancies than Whites--it's Whites themselves whose life expectancies are four years shorter. Nationalized Health Care Reduces Health, not Health CostsIn ten industrialized nations (with an r-squared of 0.75) a 1% of GDP increase in health care costs parallels a one year reduction in life expectancy. In Russia, the longest running "free" health care system around which this author is familiar with, "health care" is at an all time low, with the life expectancy of the Russian man now being only 58 years. This is the ultimate accomplishment of more than 80 years of the finest health care ever provided by government in a country where there was no competing private health care system, and no other option for citizens who weren't happy with the way government did things [or didn't do it]. If you're in Moscow on a cold, snow blown day and see long lines snaking around buildings, it's either the Post Office or a doctor's office they're waiting to enter. A friend's wife, a gynecologist in Moscow, invited us to visit her office which consisted of a steel door with 9 locks on it, a telephone ,a table, and three chairs, one for the doctor, one for the patient, and ONE for a visitor, which means one of the two Americans in the room, me, had to stand up. The only "equipment" in the room never stopped ringing and was never answered. The long line at her door was interrupted only by patients who came to the beginning of the line to exchange Rubles for the right to see her first, accompanied by groans from the entire line. One patient in particular seems to have gotten good news, because she came in the room looking very gloomy, and left as cheerful as she could be. At dinner that night, with her retired Russian admiral husband present, and several other Russians and Americans, we asked her specifically what it was that had made that woman so happy. She remembered that patient, and stated point blank that she had cancer, without offering up why she seemed so happy. So we asked her what made her so happy, and her candid reply was "I told her she didn't have cancer". Tilt! I TOLD HER SHE DIDN'T HAVE CANCERThe Russians in the room were so used to this, that they even attempted to help her explain the system to us Americans who sat in the room in complete shock and awe. When we asked why she didn't at least try to offer treatment or medicine, her candid reply was "we don't have any", accompanied by agreeing nods from the other Russians there--and of course they don't. When we asked why she would LIE to her own patient, she replied "there's nothing that can be done about cancer anyway", again accompanied with the knowing nods--and again with a ring of truth. When we asked her if she would at least tell the TRUTH to a relative (a son or father or brother), her reply was that she was prevented BY LAW from doing so, again with the knowing nod--and with even more shock and awe from us Americans. Of course no bureaucrat wants to waste their time dealing with nosy relatives who'll probably just ask even stupider questions than we Americans asked, and she is after all only a simple bureaucrat earning only 6 Rubles [6 cents at the time] per day--plus tips, which are legal and even expected. Efficiency at its finest. The ultimate in government care. And with the life expectancy of a Russian man being down to only 58 now, her husband was probably already dead anyway, both of which saved a lot of Rubles in social security payments. The Ultimate Free RideIt wasn't just that this bureaucracy had finally resorted to lying BY LAW that shocked us so much, it was the fact that the free ride was so appealing to Russians that they heartily endorsed lying BY LAW. Russians are not docile people--they can get upset about a number of things and aggressively take corrective action, particularly when it offends their Christian sensibilities. But the promise of the ultimate free ride, 100% "free" government sponsored health care, overrides those sensibilities and has them all nodding in agreement when they defend it against its obvious and serious and mortal flaws. The amorality which must accompany such "freedom" cannot be overcome, as I was never able to convince anyone in Russia that a private health care system, what they call "speculation", is even viable much less preferable. Even as quickly as it's disappearing, though, I'm sure glad I grew up in a country where I at least had the OPTION of NOT being the recipient of such warm government care. The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems. Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb) The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task. See also: Healthy Life Expectancy By Country See also: Health Performance Rank By Country See also: Total Health Expenditure as % of GDP (2000-2005) See also: Main Country Ranks Page Rank Country
See Section 30 of the 1999 US Statistical Abstract http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html
Totalitarianism or Health Care?To accept the theory that an increase in government spending will resolve economic, social, or health problems is to create a totalitarian state before you know what happened, at the same time that you either obscure the original problem, or make it even worse. In the case of health care costs, the increase from 9.1% to 14% of US GDP in only 18 years, 1980 to 1998, solved nothing. If the following ten industrialized nations are representative of the US, then each 1% increase in health care costs as a percent of GDP decreased life expectancy by one year. This is a gross oversimplification, and it's not proof that cutting health care costs in half guarantees that US life expectancies would increase by 7 years--but it is proof that the solution in 1980 was not to increase spending. With these increased costs used primarily to fund the education and hiring of the incompetents which affirmative action forced the medical industry to hire, and with the recent reports that up to 95,000 deaths in the US are due to medical mistakes, the correlation between increasing costs and decreasing life expectancies isn't too difficult to grasp. When two major countries like Japan and Australia both spend half as much as us, but live an average of four years longer than us, we need to focus more on the health care systems of Japan and Australia and less on the failed theories of the medical practitioners in this country, where medical schools now accept Indian students rejected by Indian universities, from a country where the average IQ is only 81. At best, this graph suggests that fatherlessness, not lack of health care spending, increases mortality rates and that no amount of health care spending can reverse the trend. At worst, it suggests that increasing health care spending *causes* life expectancies to decrease.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modified Wednesday, June 03, 2009 Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||