as to what you are talking about and it surprises me deeply that you are willing to kill your internet pride by persisting in your nonsense argument. I am not going to make this long and instead will simply make shorty rebuttal points.

Expectancy of life, you are such a clever little boy. How much of a difference do you think there is between us and them? Let me help you out. As of 2009

Canada 2.4 years
France 2.4 years
Italy 2.2
Germany 1.1
England 1.1

Oh god they live sooooo much longer and that does not show the difference in culture, crime deaths, etc. The whole we live longer nonsense is as old as the stars and no one to date has ever shown the factors used to determine life expectancy of a country. But I will:

Myth: Americans don?t live as long as their counterparts in Canada and Europe

Fact: While the overall life expectancy of Americans is lower than that of people other nations, it the result of higher rates of homicides, accidents, and obesity, factors that are at best tangentially related to the health care system.

The homicide rate in the U.S. was 5.9 per 100,000 people in 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In contrast, it was 1.99 per 100,000 in Canada, 1.66 in France, .98 in Germany, and 1.63 in England and Wales (approximately 1.71 including Scotland.) 1

In the U.S., in 2006 there were 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people from auto accidents.2 Canada had 9.25 fatalities2, France 7.43, Germany 6.194, and 5.39 in Great Britain (U.K. excluding North Ireland)5. In general, injuries of all kinds accounted for 47 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S. in 2002 but 26 in the U.K., 29 in Germany and 34 in Canada. Only France, at 48 per 100,000 was equivalent.6

While Americans are not the most likely to be overweight, they are more likely to be obese than people in other nations. While critics of the U.S. system often try to drag the issues of obesity into the realm of health care failures, it is the result of complex factors related to culture and economics as much as to health.

The U.S. has a very heterogeneous population with many ethnicities and nationalities represented. With this diversity comes not only genetic differences but also cultural and lifestyle ones that can affect health and life expectancy. African-Americans in particular have low life expectancies, well below those of other ethnic groups. Life expectancy can often be correlated to country of origin, with those from nations with high expectancies showing equivalent, or even greater, life expectancies.

While 2008 data shows that life expectancy at birth is higher in the Netherlands than in the U.S., for both men and women (76.66 vs. 75.29 and 81.6 vs. 81.13) this advantage reverses when you look at those who have reached 65.7 In 2007, the rate of traffic fatalities was 4.84 per 100,0008 and the homicide rate in Holland is 1.27 per 100,000 population, less than a quarter the rate for the U.S.9 Injuries also claim fewer lives in the Netherlands than in other countries, only 23 per 100,000 people in the 2002.10

The life expectancy at birth in Switzerland is 80.74 (77.91 for men, 83.71 for women) and those who make it to 65 can expect to live to 81.9 for men and 86 for women.11 But Switzerland has a number of advantages that influence these statistics. It is a small country with a quite homogenous population, low infant mortality due to its restrictions in counting premature babies, and relatively low rates of automobile accidents and homicides. In 2007, Switzerland had a vehicle accident fatality rate of 5.06 per 100,00012 and the homicide rate in Switzerland was 2.95 per 100,000 people in 2004.13 As for injuries, in 2002, 32 per 100,000 deaths were from this cause, versus 47 per 100,000 in the U.S.14

MYTH

Understanding how the so called life expectancy table is reached is key to using it in an argument. You used it to prove the myth that they live longer due to their health care type and you failed miserably.

Second, I could give a rats ass who you talked to, real or otherwise, as the facts do not back up your assertion that the people who live in socialized states like what they have. As a general rule, their welfare class do like it just as our welfare class like their handouts. Why? Because they are leeches on society and love getting stuff for nothing. But the reality is most who can afford their own care, seek it. The biggest black market item in Canada is not drugs, guns, prescription meds, etc it is black market care, health care. When my wife and I lived in MI, the doctors office she worked for saw more Canadians than Americans. Why you ask, because they wanted real care, quality care, now not when they won the lottery or when they year out appointment came around. We get patients constantly in this country for health care because ours is better and they can get the care now, People fly in constantly from Europe to get our care even though they get it “free” in their own home state. People have died in those countries waiting for care including a woman in Canada who died months before she was able to be seen for a suspected lump in her breast. She was denied life saving care and exams (by death panels) and by the time her appeal was heard and won, she was dead from breast cancer. This is not an anomaly, this is a constant occurrence in every country ran by socialized medicine.

Lastly, your constant statement death panels do not exist. Sarah was not the first to expose them, many have done so before. Just weeks ago the famous case of the young boy in Canada who was refused further care by a panel, death panel to be more exact, and was ordered to be removed from his tubes so that he could starve and slowly suffocate to death. Finally through the help of a charity, permission was granted to allow him to be taken to the states in order to receive care. The panel had even gone to court to fight this offer demanding the killing occur in the presence of their agent in the hospital he was currently in. So stop with the nonsense. These panels are already in this country and they determine the life value of a person seeking care under medicaid/medicare. They do not counsel the patient in end of life decisions, they make them for the patient. And since Obama has loudly proclaimed that he copied his plan from the Canadian plan, why should we expect to not have the same panels they do?

Fact is, you do not know what you are talking about. You are trolling this site starting nonsense and straight out misrepresenting the reality of what is going on. Either educate yourself or move on. I doubt Neil is going to have much more patience for your nonsense than he did for the other jokers in this thread. But regardless of that fact, stop with the BS. The only person fooled on this post is you and I do not even think that is the case. I just think you are here to troll and you are a failure at even that.

you are seen as a troll. You did not come in to debate the merits of Erick’s post, your original post was this:

“555. Erick and the rest of the “Death Panelers” are being hypocritical… ”

So you come in , call the head honcho a hypocrite, and give “5′s” to a guy who says this:

“You are right, Medicare should just pay for any and every treatment that anybody wants at any age and in any health condition right? Knee replacements for terminally ill patients? No problem. Medicare is a never ending slush fund correct?”

His statement and subsequent post had nothing to do with what Erick wrote or what people were discussing. That is trollish behavior on his part and on yours. It is also not that wise to start you post with an attack on a person much less the head guy of the site.

Then in your posts, you state:

“Since when is endless medical treatment and costs associated with it, borne by taxpayers, a conservative idea?”

No one said anywhere that they support endless medical treatment, so his and your argument are nothing more than straw man and trollish in nature.

“What?s most interesting here is what I expect to be a generational issue?I would bet money that those of you hyping this ?Death Panel? hysteria are almost certainly Boomers or Greatest Generation folks.”

HUH? So you have to be an old person in order to support one side on this issue and worry about death panels? Nonsense.

“And while you sit around and complain about creeping Socialism and out of control government spending, you violently recoil at the possibility that you may not be able to get absolutely every medical procedure you want on the taxpayer?s dime.”

Another line of crap and trollish in nature. The only intent of this type of statement would be to rile people and start trouble. It is not a statement backed in evidence. so it is a trouble making type comment.

“Instead of engaging in a rational debate about how to fix a broken health care system and achieve efficiency, you instead go the intellectually lazy ?death panel? route and use fear to silence the discussion.”

And yet to date you have not offered one piece of evidence to back up your assertions or show us that we are wrong. You simply attack using straw man arguments hence why you were called a troll,.

“And yes, I?m biased here because I?m young, pay a ton in taxes, and know that I will never get back even a small percentage of the government benefits I?m forced to ?invest? in. But I?m sick of hearing self-professed older conservatives complain about Government spending while trying to shut down all debate on healthcare reform efficiencies.”

Oh boy, do I really need to address this one?

“When you refer to them as ?death panels? to invoke fear, you appear as little more than hypocritical cowards to me.”

Again, absolute nonsense and is nothing more than an attempt to cause strife.

So now that your above “arguments” are blown away, you come off with a half ass walk back, yet in point number 4, you desperately cling to the last bastion of your argument that I did not directly address above. In point 5, you claim to be a person who loves research, yet you fail to again give a single bit of evidence that what I and so many others say is wrong. You simply again claim to not believe it so we must be hysterically wrong.

A quick search, since I have no personal experience with the issue here in the states, brought me this info:

1993, Clinton orders cuts in medicaid/medicare, specifically targeting Oregon. Patients were then given care based on age, disease, or in other words, worth of life. If a patient was over a certain age, terms used to state they pay or do not pay taxes, even life saving or life extending treatments such as chemo were denied if it could not be proven that the treatments would extend the life no less than 5 years.Patients that would have their life extended one, two, three, or even four years were denied this care while other more worthy patients were granted the treatment regardless of extension of life. Gets a little better………..

Worse, even though it is not a formally ranked procedure, assisted suicide is covered under state law. Thus, when recurrent cancer patients were rationed out of receiving potentially life-extending chemotherapy in 2008, an administrator wrote a letter assuring them that the state would pay for the costs associated with their assisted suicides. Screw you, will not pay for life sustaining measures due to your worth, but we will pay the grand to kill you.

Would you consider that death panels and here in the US? If not, we really have nothing more to talk about as we live in two different realities.

But moving on to another potential case of death panels in WI. Wisconsin Medical Society recently argued that the state?s Medical Assistance program should be ?allocated? and ?prioritized? by creating a ?ranked order? of coverage. ?The goal is health,? the association stated, ?rather than health services or health insurance,? a potentially alarming prospect for those with serious?and expensive to treat?illnesses and disabilities. The Wisconsin Medical Society went on to state that patients should be ranked by age, life expectancy regardless of disease (meaning a 80 years old who has no disease at the moment would be ranked low simply because they assume he will die soon anyways), and that those ranked below a predetermined rank would be denied all care other than that which will allow them to die comfortably (thank God for small favors). While the WMS does not directly make decisions on how medicaid funds are dispersed, they do have a hand in policy as to what is covered and how policy is set. They are routinely contracted by the state for these purposes. Not too mention they are the largest medical association of doctors in the state and have extreme pull in the state congress. Many times bills that pass the congress were designed and lobbied for by the WMS.

Do you need more? I could give a case in Arizona where a panel of doctors decided a 32 year old father of 4 was not worthy enough to receive a Kidney transplant, not for habit reasons or previous alcohol reasons, but because he was ranked low on the worthy scale due to his permanent disability and his inability to work.

Need another from Texas, I got ‘em.

Go do the research you claim to love before constantly calling us wrong. And when you call us wrong, list some proof, not just your opinion. And when you do that people will debate with you and drop the troll title. But when you have done nothing but tell us we are wrong, call us all hypocrites, give kudos to an idiot, and give no proof as to why we are “wrong,” troll will be the name that follows you around.