Healthcare reform

[kapkomet]

Point 1...the government clearly needs to restore its insurance reserve coffers anyway. It just bailed out the largest insurer in the world.

 

Point 2...who is William Buffet?

 

William Buffet is a rich motherf'er who stole all of Warren Buffet's riches.

 

 

[Balta1701]

 

William Buffet is a rich motherf'er who stole all of Warren Buffet's riches.

And I assume Warren Buffet is the guy at the Gates Foundation who is dealing with all of Warren Buffett's riches there? (Sorry, you miss once, I gotta go for the spellunk error).

[kapkomet]

Why is the infant mortality rate so high in the US?

Infant mortality statistics are difficult to compare because other countries don't count as live births infants below a certain weight or gestational age. June E. O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill found that Canada's infant mortality would be higher than ours if Canadians had as many low-weight births (the U.S. has almost three times as many teen mothers, who tend to give birth to lower-weight infants).

Link

 

There's your answer.

[NorthSideSox72]

Link

 

There's your answer.

So really, its teen births that make it so high (at least compared to Canada)?

 

Seems weird, as I'd think some other countries would have far more teen births.

 

[kapkomet]

So really, its teen births that make it so high (at least compared to Canada)?

 

Seems weird, as I'd think some other countries would have far more teen births.

Most countries do not count any baby under 6 lbs. as an "infant death". That's another part of it. There's also some birth deaths that go unreported because they use a lot of midwifes as well - most don't want to go to the hospital for births.

[StrangeSox]

48% of actual subscribers is a more meaingful number. But still, I am pleasantly surprised at even that number.

 

Ok, so if the government non-profit option will run all for-profit health plans out of business, why don't these non-profit ones do it already?

[kapkomet]

Ok, so if the government non-profit option will run all for-profit health plans out of business, why don't these non-profit ones do it already?

Non-profit in this case means that they spend all the money they take in. Which depending on the situation might not be bad.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Ok, so if the government non-profit option will run all for-profit health plans out of business, why don't these non-profit ones do it already?

 

Not for profit means coming out at zero or more. Government run means coming out at a negative and getting someone else to pay for it.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

 

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

 

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

 

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.

 

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.

 

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.

 

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.

 

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.

 

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.

 

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

[kapkomet]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

Liberal: "none of these matter if you can't pay for it".

 

My answer: It's a CHOICE. You have access to all of this, TODAY. If you are sick or need treatment, you'll get it today. But most of the people in support of this want "something for nothing".

 

 

[Balta1701]

Liberal: "none of these matter if you can't pay for it".

 

My answer: It's a CHOICE. You have access to all of this, TODAY. If you are sick or need treatment, you'll get it today. But most of the people in support of this want "something for nothing".

No, the answer is "None of those are true any more if you count the 15% of the population that doesn't undergo any treatment at all because they can't afford it" and "many of those are that way because of Medicare, and I'll be damned if the government is going to take away my Medicare and replace it with some government-run program".

[kapkomet]

No, the answer is "None of those are true any more if you count the 15% of the population that doesn't undergo any treatment at all because they can't afford it" and "many of those are that way because of Medicare, and I'll be damned if the government is going to take away my Medicare and replace it with some government-run program".

Everyone has health care available to them. It's a choice whether or not you choose to use it.

 

[Balta1701]

There's actually been worthwhile discussion on one of those points, and let's at least highlight it; implied in there is the idea that if the U.S. installs a public option and creates more competition, it will decrease medical innovation. As far as we on the left can tell, no one has ever been able to successfully back this up.

 

The Hoover institute cites medical research innovations, nobel prizes, etc., but doesn't take in to account how that comes about...like the fact that a number of those medical nobel prizes come from places like government funded research institutions or the NIH. Or the fact that a good chunk of that medical innovation is related to drug companies altering their formulas to get around/extend patents.

 

There's really no evidence out there that I've seen that makes a solid case that somehow even if we switched to a single payer system the U.S. would suddenly stop leading the world in medical innovation. It could easily actually increase if we take the dollars that currently go to maneuvering around patents and finding alternatives to other companies treatments that are similarly effective and put them towards actually developing new treatments. Can someone back that up?

[Balta1701]

Everyone has health care available to them. It's a choice whether or not you choose to use it.

Yup. It's either that or rent.

 

Seriously, that's the silliest, most heartless, most incomprehensible argument out there. Yes, everyone can go to the ER after the sickness they haven't treated for 6 months finally becomes critical. They then file bankruptcy and the government foots the bill. This is more expensive for; the person, the government, the taxpayer, and the people doing the treatment. It's a disaster all around. That's the whole bloody point. By some estimates, this method of health care kills 20,000 people every year. It is an economic disaster. It's 10x more expensive than actually getting treatment by a regular physician. There is no logic at all to that response.

[kapkomet]

Yup. It's either that or rent.

 

Seriously, that's the silliest, most heartless, most incomprehensible argument out there. Yes, everyone can go to the ER after the sickness they haven't treated for 6 months finally becomes critical. They then file bankruptcy and the government foots the bill. This is more expensive for; the person, the government, the taxpayer, and the people doing the treatment. It's a disaster all around. That's the whole bloody point. By some estimates, this method of health care kills 20,000 people every year. It is an economic disaster. It's 10x more expensive than actually getting treatment by a regular physician. There is no logic at all to that response.

Yep. Rent's pretty high in CA. It's a choice to live there. Also, it's a choice to make payment arrangements and most physicians give pretty sizeable discounts to self pay patients.

 

It's also pretty heartless to ask everyone in America to pay into a government run health care to pay for everyone else for health care utopia. But I guess "utopia" is a better outcome for the redistribution of wealth model - those heartless rich evil m'fers who dare to work hard to make something out of themselves.

 

Look, there's no easy answer, but there certainly are more choices then either extreme alternative that we're talking about.

 

[StrangeSox]

What's going through the Congress isn't that extreme. It's pretty mild compared to what could be done.

[kapkomet]

What's going through the Congress isn't that extreme. It's pretty mild compared to what could be done.

BS. Keep reading that propoganda. ANY plan that leaves the option of "government insurance" is crap. Medicare is so broken it obviously doesn't work like it needs to yet we want the whole country to be on a "medicare like" plan? No. No. And no. Fix that first, and MAYBE we can consider it after that. You want to "cut costs" (I mean ration) the government needs to get out of the way. Wait. tsk tsk - EVIL PROFITS - tsk tsk - should never be allowed in any industry because that means they are evil-ly taking money away from someone else by definition. Sorry... utopia for all - I need to get that brainwashed through my head.

 

[BigSqwert]

Yep. Rent's pretty high in CA. It's a choice to live there. Also, it's a choice to make payment arrangements and most physicians give pretty sizeable discounts to self pay patients.

What if you get laid off in a recession? You could have earned an MBA and worked very hard to get a home for you and your family and now you have no source of income by no fault of your own. I guess you could get lumped into the "lazy" bucket since you don't have a job. And I doubt any doctor will make pay arrangements to someone earning $0.

[lostfan]

BS. Keep reading that propoganda. ANY plan that leaves the option of "government insurance" is crap. Medicare is so broken it obviously doesn't work like it needs to yet we want the whole country to be on a "medicare like" plan? No. No. And no. Fix that first, and MAYBE we can consider it after that. You want to "cut costs" (I mean ration) the government needs to get out of the way. Wait. tsk tsk - EVIL PROFITS - tsk tsk - should never be allowed in any industry because that means they are evil-ly taking money away from someone else by definition. Sorry... utopia for all - I need to get that brainwashed through my head.

Insurance companies don't ration?

[Balta1701]

BS. Keep reading that propoganda. ANY plan that leaves the option of "government insurance" is crap. Medicare is so broken it obviously doesn't work like it needs to yet we want the whole country to be on a "medicare like" plan? No. No. And no. Fix that first, and MAYBE we can consider it after that. You want to "cut costs" (I mean ration) the government needs to get out of the way. Wait. tsk tsk - EVIL PROFITS - tsk tsk - should never be allowed in any industry because that means they are evil-ly taking money away from someone else by definition. Sorry... utopia for all - I need to get that brainwashed through my head.

B.S. Medicare's costs have gone up less quickly than private insurance for years. Medicare does so with lower overhead than private insurance. Medicare has significantly higher satisfaction ratings than private insurance. Medicare covers everyone above a certain age, and thus, people over that age actually tend to not die because they don't get health coverage for things they need. So many of those great statistics about our health care system that 2k5 used to brag about it happen because medicare exists that you keep making our point.

 

ANY plan that leaves the option of "government insurance" is crap.

So, you're in with the group that wants to end Medicare? I really hope your party actively starts taking that option up.

[StrangeSox]

BS. Keep reading that propoganda. ANY plan that leaves the option of "government insurance" is crap. Medicare is so broken it obviously doesn't work like it needs to yet we want the whole country to be on a "medicare like" plan? No. No. And no. Fix that first, and MAYBE we can consider it after that. You want to "cut costs" (I mean ration) the government needs to get out of the way. Wait. tsk tsk - EVIL PROFITS - tsk tsk - should never be allowed in any industry because that means they are evil-ly taking money away from someone else by definition. Sorry... utopia for all - I need to get that brainwashed through my head.

 

Irrelevant to my point.

 

Single-payer would be radical. Nationalized hospitals would be radical. Removing all private insurance would be radical.

 

Stop jumping off the deep end on every single post. I'm not advocating for this bill.

[kapkomet]

Irrelevant to my point.

 

Single-payer would be radical. Nationalized hospitals would be radical. Removing all private insurance would be radical.

 

Stop jumping off the deep end on every single post. I'm not advocating for this bill.

Well, then, it's radical. Because points one and three is what is going to happen under these bills, and yes, I will jump off the deep end because this is the worst possible outcome we can do in this country regarding health care.

[Balta1701]

Well, then, it's radical. Because points one and three is what is going to happen under these bills, and yes, I will jump off the deep end because this is the worst possible outcome we can do in this country regarding health care.

Really? You're reading totally different bills than I am. It sure seems like they've gone out of their way to write these bills so that points 1 and 3 can't possibly happen without additional reform. The only way it does happen is if the public system works so well that everyone throws up their hands and says "I want in!" Which of course would be a disaster, because then people would be getting good medical coverage.

[kapkomet]

Really? You're reading totally different bills than I am. It sure seems like they've gone out of their way to write these bills so that points 1 and 3 can't possibly happen without additional reform. The only way it does happen is if the public system works so well that everyone throws up their hands and says "I want in!" Which of course would be a disaster, because then people would be getting good medical coverage.

The house bill is pretty clear on these points. No, it's not immediate, but it aboslutely has that effect. They can't flip a light switch, they know that, but they certainly will make sure it happens in the next 1-4 years by the language of the bill. You're playing naive because it makes the cause sound better, and it's a flat out lie.

 

[kapkomet]

Really? You're reading totally different bills than I am. It sure seems like they've gone out of their way to write these bills so that points 1 and 3 can't possibly happen without additional reform. The only way it does happen is if the public system works so well that everyone throws up their hands and says "I want in!" Which of course would be a disaster, because then people would be getting good medical coverage.

Bulls***.

 

And they are going to be forced to throw their hands up when employers won't offer "private" insurance anymore.