You can’t demonstrate that the govt’s increased involvement in healthcare has had any impact on longevity. The simple advancement in technology and pharmacology however can be shown to have had a dramatic impact.
dantes
616
This post demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge regarding public health, sanitation and government funding of medical research.
How’s that?
The Boston Globe, a very liberal newspaper, even published an article some years back about how time spent at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston yielded a bigger bill, but not necessarily a better outcome.
No, we’re not talking about any of those, we’re simply talking abut their involvement in “healthcare”.
Government gets involved, and people live better lives? Really?
Have you ever been in a V A? Some offer a good level of care.
Those, however, tend to be either in military hubs (San Diego), or at least partially privatized (Atlanta). You don’t want me to tell you about the others.
Rosie’s right. Medical billing being less flexible & more likely a third party will be involved has made seeing a doctor more troublesome than it has to be, and increased the cost exponentially.
dantes
620
You’re absolutely wrong if you think public health, sanitation and medical research have nothing to do with healthcare.
I mean, that’s insane. Even your own post referenced advancement in technology and pharmacology.
They are separate issues from what’s being discussed.
dantes
622
Says who? Do you get to make arbitrary decisions about what healthcare is?
Are you ignoring even your own post ignored technologic and pharmacologic advances?
Yes, healthcare is providing services to patients.
dantes
624
Sure it is. Services that are funded by the government, mandated by the government and developed by the government.
We shall all now turn hard left, and bow to the gov’t while thinking it for our very lives.
1 Like
dantes
626
Just pointing out reality. Sorry if that upsets you.
Nope just acknowledge that it helped a great deal.
Guvnah
628
I already told you.
It’s the standard biological definition of organism.
What am I lying about?
dantes
629
You’re lying about providing a definition. You did not such thing.
You won’t. You’ve refused over and over again. You don’t want to have an honest discussion.
Good grief man you claim to be educated in the sciences so you know damned well what an organism is.
Organism
Definition
noun, plural: organisms
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis
Supplement
An organism refers to any individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal. The earth is home to various organisms and these organisms can be classified taxonomically. There are eight major taxonomic levels: [domain]], kingdom, phyla, class, order, [family]], genus, and species. The three-domain system of biological classification as proposed by Carl Woese and others (in 1977) classifies organisms into the following domains: archaea (archaeabacteria), bacteria (eubacteria), and eucarya (eukaryotes). Both domains archaea and bacteria are prokaryotes.
Organisms may also be grouped based on their cellular composition. A single-celled organism is one that consists of only one cell. In contrast, a multicellular organism is one that is comprised of more than one cell and whose cells are organized into tissues, organs, and then into systems.
Word origin: Greek organon (“instrument”)
Synonym(s):
life form
living thing
living being
See also:
life
living thing
prokaryote
eukaryote
Related term(s):
Yakshi
632
The bigger the idiot, the bigger the need to do that.
Guvnah
633
Did I actually say I provided a specific definition of organism? I don’t recall, but if I did, that’s my mistake.
I provided you a way to find it yourself.
I will continue to refuse to provide you a link. I have no doubt you have already googled it yourself. In fact, I think you know that what you googled proves that biology has an unequivocal and precise definition for an organism, and why an organism is a wholly valid response to what constitutes an “individual”, and why the baby in utero (and even the embryo) constitutes and individual human life.
At this point we just have a matter of wills, where you will just keep calling me a liar because you cannot make me supply a link for the definition of an organism. I’ve dissed you and you can’t stand that.
dantes
634
Cool. Should we consider a fetus (for argument sake let’s say 20 weeks or earlier) an individual that can maintain homeostasis? I’d argue that we cannot say that.
