Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Healthcare Healthcare Forum - For topics and discussions about health care, health policies, and health care systems


Thanks Tree97Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 30th, 2017, 01:10 PM   #91
Hiding behind the sofa
 
MichaelT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stockport England
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bentley View Post
That is a lie. America counts every live birth, no matter the likely outcome. Most other nations, even EU nations, do not do so. The numbers are thus vastly skewed, vastly skewed.

No country does more to save premature babies either.
The UK counts all live births, the same as the USA.
Infant mortality per thousand live births in the U.K. in 2010 was 4.2 compared to the USA which was 6.1
Thanks from imaginethat and RNG
MichaelT is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 01:21 PM   #92
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
You mean like the text of the law?

Maybe you can point out the part that applies to US Naval personnel...
The term “seaman” was a naval rank. Navel is in Article I, Section 8. They were merchant seamen to be exact. The act was created for national security, not health care.

They were naval merchant seamen because of North African pirates, Napoleonic Wars, the Continental Navy being disbanded, the French’s naval protection ended, etc.

The act was also tied to international and interstate commerce in Article I, Section 8.

The debates revolved around acts of Parliament and British naval seamen dating to Charles II because it regarded naval seamen and British precedent, which is in Article I, Section 8.

It was not a tax because the word tax was debated and taken out of the act. The tax was taken out so the act would be funded in the same manner as fees charged for inspection laws, which is in Article I, Section 10, clause 2.

The act was constitution based on Article I, Section 8’s military and naval clauses and the commerce clause, and Article I, Section 10, clause 2.
Thanks from Jimgorn
Jimmyb is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 01:29 PM   #93
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
The UK counts all live births, the same as the USA.
Infant mortality per thousand live births in the U.K. in 2010 was 4.2 compared to the USA which was 6.1
It is still not an apple to apple comparison. Just one example: the U.S. has a sixty five percent higher preterm birth rate than Britain.
Thanks from Sabcat
Jimmyb is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 01:31 PM   #94
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Is there really anyone who does not know the difference between the compact clause and its purpose and the Constitution being a compact between the states?
Jimmyb is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 01:36 PM   #95
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Really now, "a compact between states?"
Then why is Article I section 10 entitled "Powers FORBIDDEN To The States?"
@Jimmyb

Well, you have an answer or not?
Hollywood is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 01:58 PM   #96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
It is still not an apple to apple comparison. Just one example: the U.S. has a sixty five percent higher preterm birth rate than Britain.
That's because in Britain and Canada and all the other countries with universal health care, every expectant mother gets prenatal care, something that many American women can't afford, only 83% of American mothers got early prenatal care.
Better Care, better outcomes, that's what the number show.
Thanks from imaginethat

Last edited by goober; April 30th, 2017 at 02:01 PM.
goober is online now  
Old April 30th, 2017, 02:02 PM   #97
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
That's because in Britain and Canada and all the other countries with universal health care, every expectant mother gets prenatal care, something that many American women can't afford, only 83% of American mothers got early prenatal care.
Better Care, better outcomes, that's what the number show.
Are you saying Medicaid should be abolished because it is sub-standard?
Jimmyb is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 02:12 PM   #98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The term “seaman” was a naval rank. Navel is in Article I, Section 8. They were merchant seamen to be exact. The act was created for national security, not health care.

They were naval merchant seamen because of North African pirates, Napoleonic Wars, the Continental Navy being disbanded, the French’s naval protection ended, etc.

The act was also tied to international and interstate commerce in Article I, Section 8.

The debates revolved around acts of Parliament and British naval seamen dating to Charles II because it regarded naval seamen and British precedent, which is in Article I, Section 8.

It was not a tax because the word tax was debated and taken out of the act. The tax was taken out so the act would be funded in the same manner as fees charged for inspection laws, which is in Article I, Section 10, clause 2.

The act was constitution based on Article I, Section 8’s military and naval clauses and the commerce clause, and Article I, Section 10, clause 2.
That law passed in July 1798, in December 1798, President Adams proposed to congress that a similar law be put in place that would apply to officers and sailors of the United States Navy.

Why would the president propose expanding the law to cover what, according to you, the law already covered.


The law was meant to address a problem, most Americans were farmers or farm workers. If you got sick or disabled, you got cared for on the farm you happened to be at, usually close to your family.
If a merchant seaman got sick or disabled, they were put ashore at the next port of call. So America's seaports were accumulating indigent sick and disabled seamen. Which was discouraging young men from pursuing a career at sea.
So the care of sick and disabled seamen, removing them from begging in the streets, and putting them in shelters where they could be fed and cared for and brought back to health, was considered important to the shipping business, which was one of the most powerful interests in the country.

That's why the law applied to seamen employed on privately owned vessels.
goober is online now  
Old April 30th, 2017, 02:22 PM   #99
Senior Member
 
roastpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Further, about the only things the Canadian System and the UK system have in common are a sensible cost and a high popularity. They are organized differently, administered differently and funded differently.

There are such variations between most countries. So there is a lot to pick and chose from. That's what Canada did when it instituted its plan, study most systems in the world and cherry-picked what was thought to be the best fit for our particular situation.

If we end up with a single payer system where are all those Canadians going to get their most excellent surgeries, etc. I guess they'll just have to wait in line in their own country-eh.
roastpork is offline  
Old April 30th, 2017, 02:30 PM   #100
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
That law passed in July 1798, in December 1798, President Adams proposed to congress that a similar law be put in place that would apply to officers and sailors of the United States Navy.

Why would the president propose expanding the law to cover what, according to you, the law already covered.


The law was meant to address a problem, most Americans were farmers or farm workers. If you got sick or disabled, you got cared for on the farm you happened to be at, usually close to your family.
If a merchant seaman got sick or disabled, they were put ashore at the next port of call. So America's seaports were accumulating indigent sick and disabled seamen. Which was discouraging young men from pursuing a career at sea.
So the care of sick and disabled seamen, removing them from begging in the streets, and putting them in shelters where they could be fed and cared for and brought back to health, was considered important to the shipping business, which was one of the most powerful interests in the country.

That's why the law applied to seamen employed on privately owned vessels.
Adams did not. The navy was established in 1798 and the act had a provision to pay seamen who were wounded in battle. There was no health care clause. You have yet to address my post.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Tags
medicine, owns, socialized, state



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So now that we have socialized medicine... Sabcat Healthcare 1 February 4th, 2017 02:45 PM
Welcome to Socialized Medicine. roastpork Healthcare 4 May 20th, 2014 05:01 AM
Welcome to Socialized Medicine roastpork Current Events 41 May 9th, 2014 03:59 PM
Medicine, Socialized intangible child Healthcare 32 April 15th, 2013 02:45 PM
Socialized Medicine = obamaDOESN'Tcare JestMe Socialism 38 December 7th, 2012 07:04 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.