Opinion

Opinion

Other nations make universal care work

March 2, 2010

Advertisement

One of the most bewildering aspects of the current health-care debate is the failure to learn key lessons from health systems abroad.

Conservative talk show hosts decry the alleged evils of “socialized medicine” in countries with universal health coverage; they warn grimly of rationed health care. Yet there’s nary a peep from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck — let alone Congress — about countries such as Germany, France, Switzerland or Japan, where coverage is universal, affordable and top quality, and patients see private doctors with little or no waiting.

And, oh yes, their health costs are a fraction of our bloated numbers: The French spend 10 percent of GDP on health care, the Germans 11 percent, and they cover every citizen. We spend a whopping 17 percent and leave tens of millions of Americans uninsured.

If you want a very readable short course about how European systems really work take a look at “The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care,” by T.R. Reid, a former Washington Post foreign correspondent. You might also watch a fascinating 2008 Frontline series, available online, in which Reid was an adviser: “Sick Around the World: Can the U.S. Learn Anything From the Rest of the World About How to Run a Health Care System?”

So far, the answer seems to be “No,” not because there aren’t valuable lessons, but because politicians won’t relinquish their myths about European health systems. Reid takes up that task.

Myth No. 1, he says, is that foreign systems with universal coverage are all “socialized medicine.” In countries such as France, Germany, Switzerland and Japan, the coverage is universal while doctors and insurers are private. Individuals get their insurance through their workplace, sharing the premium with their employer as we do — and the government picks up the premium if they lose their job.

Myth No. 2 — long waits and rationed care — is another whopper. “In many developed countries,” Reid writes, “people have quicker access to care and more choice than Americans do.” In France, Germany and Japan, you can pick any provider or hospital in the country. Care is speedy and high quality, and no one is turned down.

Myth No. 3 really grabs my attention: the delusion that countries with universal care “are wasteful systems run by bloated bureaucracies.” In fact, the opposite is true.

America’s for-profit health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs of any developed country. Twenty percent or more of every premium dollar goes to nonmedical costs: paperwork, marketing, profits, etc. “If a profit is to be made, you need an army of underwriters to deny claims and turn down sick people,” says Reid.

In developed countries with universal coverage, such as France and Germany, the administrative costs average about 5 percent.

That’s because every developed country but ours has decided health insurance should be a nonprofit operation. (We once thought that, too, until private insurance companies began buying up nonprofit health insurers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and converting them into profit-makers.) In France and Germany, health insurance is sold by private insurers, who can only charge fixed rates in the nonprofit health field, but can sell other forms of insurance for a profit.

These countries also hold down costs by making coverage mandatory and by using a unified set of rules and payment schedules for all hospitals and doctors. This does NOT mean a single-payer system or a government-run health system. But it does sharply cut health costs by eliminating the mishmash of records and charges used by our myriad insurance firms, who use all kinds of gimmicks to shift their costs.

A unified system makes it possible for France and Germany to use digital records; every insured person has a smart card that includes all his or her health information, further cutting the number of bureaucrats. U.S. companies oppose such efficiencies, Reid says, “because they spend money on proprietary systems and no one wants to get together on a common system.” Can we afford this stubbornness?

For those who think we could never make the switch to such systems, take note that Switzerland shifted from private health insurers to nonprofits in 1994. And it’s hard to see how we can cut costs without reining in our private health insurers.

None of these European plans have to be adopted wholesale. Yet there’s no sign we’re even examining them for useful lessons. Some U.S. senators on the Finance Committee bought Reid’s book, but have you heard anyone talk about European health systems? Of course not.

It’s easier to embrace our myths and pretend Americans know best about managing health care. But that’s the biggest myth of them all.

— Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. trubin@phillynews.com

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

"It’s easier to embrace our myths and pretend Americans know best about managing health care. But that’s the biggest myth of them all."

Let the litany of myths begin--

Brent Garner 5 years, 2 months ago

Ms. Rubin makes some very strong claims about these other countries healthcare systems. I, for one, would like to know her sources for this information before I can be expected to believe her version of the story. I note she does not cite England or Canada countries for which there has been an abundance of expositions on the problems with their healthcare systems. I also find it interesting that she does not consider a system where you buy your insurance from the government to be in anyway socialistic. Sounds somewhat socialistic to me!

BigAl 5 years, 2 months ago

People will believe that Obama wants to install death panels and "kill Grandma" but won't give the points in this article much consideration. Flatly stated, our country needs health reform.

I believe that there are many conservatives against health care reform simply because Obama is proposing it.

christy kennedy 5 years, 2 months ago

I agree with BigAl.

The most vocal who oppose reform seem to care little for actual facts, solutions, or people in need.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

no sh*t.... we all know that socialist countries have universal healthcare. what's new? the U.S. sucks in that area and anyone who attempts to remedy it gets put on a spit and roasted. that's one of the reasons why no one has been persistent about true reform. we'll see if obama comes thru... i hope he does, but if he doesn't, its not at his own undoing.

boltzmann 5 years, 2 months ago

Solomon (anonymous) says... "Newfoundland's Prime Minister comes to the U.S. for surgery. Patients are revealed to be uncared for and in unsanitary conditions in England. The waiting lists to see a Dr. in the U.K. or Canada are long---sometimes requiring months before an appointment. Many Canadians cross the border for care.

The U.S. system does not need to be overhauled. It certainly will not be improved by letting the government run it. (Think of the window clerk at the post office as your physcian.)"

This is a load of BS. Countering a reasonably sourced argument with an anecdote. Many American's go to India for heart surgery - by your argument that would say that our cardiac care is substandard to that of India. If you are going to make arguments, at least try to sound intelligent.

The second sentence is equally logically flawed and idiotic. Suppose someone wanted to argue for getting the private sector out of health care and said "It certainly will not be improved by letting the private sector run it. (Think of the cashier at your local McDonald's as your as your physcian.)" See how stupid that sounds.

And Tom "Hey, if you don't like America's healthcare, move to France, Canada or Germany" Shewmon: a) I'm sure the immigration authorities in those countries, might have something to say about it and b) Why should some one have to leave because they do not share the same belief system that you do? You say Obama supporters are arrogant, but I haven't heard any of them tell you that you should leave the country because of your opinions.

grammaddy 5 years, 2 months ago

Medicare for all, by reconciliation!!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

"(Think of the window clerk at the post office as your physcian.)"

Why not think of the clerk at UPS or Fedex?

Mary Sucha 5 years, 2 months ago

We have universal health care in this country. If you are age 65 or over you qualify. If you have certain diseases or are below a certain income level, you qualify for universal health care the the USA.

Why not give the rest of us the option of buying the same health care as federal employees?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

"(Think of the window clerk at the post office as your physcian.)"

Or even more pertinent, why not think about figuring out exactly what's covered in your insurance policy, and then making a claim with the insurance company bureaucracy-- and the healthcare bureaucracy in the US is much larger than in countries with universal care.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 2 months ago

T.R. Reid sang the praises of government controlled health care at a KU lecture last October.

In a moment of honesty, Mr. Reid (who works for state-run NPR) described leaking roofs at British hospitals, breathtakingly high taxes in Scandanavia, and months-long waiting lists for elective surgeries in Canada.

Despite this admission, he would not go so far as to criticize these governments which pretend to offer all things to all people while leaving citzens with little dignity, income or personal responsibility.

monkeyspunk 5 years, 2 months ago

Excellent article. If our leaders had the balls to produce such a plan, I would support it wholeheartedly.

but there was one hole in the OpEd's article:

"Individuals get their insurance through their workplace, sharing the premium with their employer as we do — and the government picks up the premium if they lose their job."

What happens if my employer doesn't offer health insurance? Are employers forced to provide health care?

james bush 5 years, 2 months ago

Everybody just relax. Obama will take care of us all.

james bush 5 years, 2 months ago

OTOH, If government is the panacea for what's wrong with ...anything or everything, why didn't Utopia spring from President L. B Johnson's Great Society wherein he gave away the store!? Seems to me things get worse the more government gets invovled in giving away the money other people work for.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Gee, I'm shocked that a Washington Post writer would think everyone else's healthcare is better. Almost as shocked as I am to learn that his book is full of misleading half-truths.

Yes, Switzerland has universal insurance, accomplished through mandating coverage and preventing insurance companies from denying policies or charging more based on health status - for BASIC coverage. If you want all the bells and whistles, you need an optional policy, which something like half the Swiss carry, and guess what - the insurance companies CAN deny you that policy or charge you more because of health status.

How about Japan? Japan's system works only because of ridiculous price controls set by the government. A physician gets something like $10 to treat a wound less than 6 inches. Tell you what - get American doctors to agree to those price cuts, and we won't NEED insurance. Oh, they'll tell you that other things can be done cheaper in Japan, like CAT scans. What they won't tell you is that, in order to come in under the government's price limits, they use cheaper machines with poorer image quality.

Look, folks - what works in Japan, or Switzerland, or Left-Lower-Bugwamisberg isn't necessarily going to work here. In Venezuela, the government owns the gas companies, and they sell the stuff for 12 cents per gallon. If the government took over the gas companies here, would we be able to achive the same results with the little detail that we import our oil?

And when trying to convert an existing system to copy another that was purpose-built or evolved that way, it's ridiculous to expect similar results. You might be able to drop an electric motor into a Corvette to try to convert it to a Tesla Roadster, although you'd have to give up the trunk and virtually every cubic inch of space for the batteries. But you'd never get the performance of the Tesla after the conversion. You'd have to rebuild the thing from the ground up - and it would be more likely you ended up with a Prius than a Tesla.

This is pretty simple - changing the way we PAY for healthcare to copy the way it's done in other countries is pointless when we do nothing to address the fact that health CARE costs more here. Somehow I doubt that every physician in the country is going to take a 50% pay cut. And it just isn't feasible to replace every CAT scanner in the country with cheaper Japanese models, even if we were willing to sacrifice the quality - those machines are already in place and have to be paid for. Blame the insurance companies if you want - and most of you will - but take out that 3.4% profit margin, and you still have a couple of trillion dollars in health CARE costs to pay for, and guess what - that's a whole heck of a lot more than those countries spend with their universal systems.

It's the COST, people, not how we pay for it. Failing to address that will result in more of the same, with a different (and far less efficient) insurer in charge.

james bush 5 years, 2 months ago

And then again, I've always thought Switzerland would be a nice place to live , socialist or not. It would surely beat the USA if Obama runs things the way he wants.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says...

"Why not think of the clerk at UPS or Fedex?"

So you're admitting private companies can run the show better than the government? How uncharacteristically astute of you.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

ckennedy (christy kennedy) says...

"The most vocal who oppose reform seem to care little for actual facts, solutions, or people in need."

"The most vocal who support "reform" seem to care little for actual facts, solutions, or people in need.

There, fixed that for you.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

What does Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama think about Obamacare? “…It's gotten personal, Griffith says. "You have personalities who have bet the farm, bet their reputations, on shoving a health care bill through the Congress. It's no longer about health care reform. It's all about ego now. The president's ego. Nancy Pelosi's ego. This is about personalities, saving face, and it has very little to do with what's good for the American people." Conflicts driven by personal feelings can lead to self-destructive outcomes. Ask Griffith whether Speaker Pelosi, his old leader, would accept losing Democratic control of the House as the price for passing the health care bill, and he answers quickly. "Oh yeah. This is a trophy for the speaker, it's a trophy for several committee chairs, and it's a trophy for the president." It does not seem to matter that if Democrats lose the House, the speaker will no longer be speaker, the chairmen will no longer be chairmen, and the president will be significantly weakened. As Griffith sees his former colleagues, Democratic leaders have become so consumed with the idea of achieving the historical goal of a national health care system that they are able to explain away the scores of opinion polls over the last six months that show people solidly opposed to the Democratic proposal. The polls are wrong, they say. Or the polls are contradictory. Or the polls actually show that people love the health care plan. And even if the polls are right, and people hate the plan, real leaders don't govern by following the polls. So just pass the bill.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/For-Obama-and-Pelosi_-health-care-is-ego-trip-85871962.html#ixzz0h2El9MME

ivalueamerica 5 years, 2 months ago

How embarassing for people like Solomon who has to fake it to try and make his point.

Canada has a95% approval rating for their health care. Less than 00.09% of their population choose to leave the country for health care (actualy far less than the number of Americans who leave the country for health care for affordability).

In fact, every nation with socialized health care has much higher approval ratings for health care than the USA.

If he can not make apoint without teling a lie, does he have a point?

My answer..no, he is pointless.

BrianR 5 years, 2 months ago

Solomon, Nice stories from overseas but the same conditions exist here.

One huge reason US business can't compete in the global marketplace is that foreign companies don't have the added expense of paying for health care.

Single-payer government health care or fail, that is pretty much what we've got.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 2 months ago

I'm sure that all of those socialist countries have very nice socialized medicine. where folks in those countries don't mind working to pay for those who don't/won't. America is a very different place. This land was founded by people who were hard working. Modern Americans, for the most part, still embrace that ideal.

Those are some very nice countries you remarked about, and they happen to have great immigration policies. Feel free to check them out.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

barry, dude, you need to stop posting for a day.

jaywalker 5 years, 2 months ago

notajay shoots and scores!!!!!!!!

Soon as our government actually focuses on THE problem I'll be more than happy to embrace "reform". But nota's 100% correct - cost is the problem, not how or who we pay. He's also correct in pointing out that expecting other's systems to fit perfectly or even similarly here is wishful thinking. Not certain, but I don't think that if you combined the four countries Rubin chose to cite they'd equal our population. I reckon a nation 1/6th the size of ours would have a much easier go at converting their system to governmental control. Not to mention these countries all benefit from our R & D without the burden of paying the billions for it.

Bottom line is that THE problem is cost. For a refreshing change, please focus on THE problem, D.C.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

" where folks in those countries don't mind working to pay for those who don't/won't. America is a very different place. This land was founded by people who were hard working."

A very good demonstration that the issue for most so-called "conservatives" isn't getting the best bang for our healthcare buck, but rather perpetuating the myth about hardworking Americans vs. the wimpy, lazy socialists they fear we'll become if we reform our Rube-Goldberg healthcare system.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 2 months ago

sorry bozo, I'm not conservative. But I'm certainly not a socialist either. My health care coverage is excellent. I work hard to have it.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 years, 2 months ago

The problem is that way too many people today are dumb-as-a-pile-of-dirt-and-rocks ignorant. Our education system has produced a generationof idiots who are easily lead to believe that JFK was shot by two gunmen, that we really did not land on the moon, that NASA faked the eintire event, that humans have caused global climate change, that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck really have our best interests at heart. People who hear the shouts of "socialism" and "liberals" and have not the faintest idea of what these words mean. They are just a handy concept to embrace, but sadly, few really understand what socialism really means. P.T. Barnum (someone else a lot of people have never heard of) said that "There is a sucker born every minute and two to take him." We have become a nation of "well-rounded" people who will roll any way we are pushed, and those who have discovered that the "pushing" (i.e. Limbaugh and Beck and their ilk)can be very profitable for themselves, to hell with the rest of the country.

This is called Freedom. A laudable concept. But lacking any shred of intelligence and common sense, it is unbridaled irresopnsibiliy.

The result is these idiot "tea party" dolts, Sarah Palin, financial predators who continue to thrive, and on and on and on.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

"I work hard to have it."

There are literally millions of people in this country who also work hard, but have no access to affordable healthcare insurance (and thus, no access to healthcare.)

This isn't how hard people work. It's about a healthcare system that is overly expensive and ineffective.

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

I believe that one of the points of the article was to point out that we don't even look at systems that do work and learn from them. We don't have to copy other countries health system, but surely we can learn something from them. Surely the best country in the world with the best and the brightest can come up with the best system. I know that the anti-elitist conservative crowd is afraid of intelligent thoughts, but sometimes intelligence is the path to a better world.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

tom, can i get that ticket? well, really just the money for it? :D

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

Stop trying to hand over your lives to the government. Ding dongs.

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Palin is your front runner by default! You have no one else, you are out of ideas, your old ideas ran this great country into the ground and now you expect us all to believe your half-cocked half-truths and follow you blindly deeper into this hole. Step aside and let someone with ideas lead!

jaywalker 5 years, 2 months ago

"What you can't seem to wrap your head around is that the status quo will have to change for us to have universal coverage"

There will have to be change in the status quo for "us to have universal coverage"? Gee, thanks for pointing out the extraordinarily obvious.
Now please show how you came to the erroneous conclusion above that I can't "wrap my head" around the rhetorical assertion that we need change to change.

"Tom, here's a measure of how stupid your demographic is..."

Thanks for showing how stupid YOU are. - No "demographic" "nominated" anyone. The RNC nominated two people running as a team, and the majority of their consideration is based on the top of the ticket, which would be McCain, who already had the nomination in the bag before selecting Palin. - The only one's who truly believe Palin is the "leading candidate for the Republican candidate for President." are people like yourself. It's probably more wishful thinking than actual belief, but it's just as silly.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

1793 The first local health department with a permanent board of health was formed in Baltimore, Maryland.

1795 Thomas Paine wrote his pamphlet, "Agrarian Justice," (published in English in 1797) in which he proposed a social insurance program for the nations of Europe and potentially for the young American Republic.

1796 The founding of the Boston Dispensary, Boston, Massachusetts, was the first organized medical care service in New England. This was the recognized forerunner of present day home care programs.

July 16, 1798 The Marine Hospital Service was established by an act of Congress, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick and disabled seamen. This was the first prepaid medical care program in the United States, financed through compulsory employer tax and federally administered. This service later became the Public Health and Marine Hospital Service, predecessor to the Public Health Service of today.

================================================================== Government run health care is financed as we speak with our tax dollars in the USA. However it requires a huge commitment from americans. It also comes without co-pays and deductibles. Join the Marines,Navy,Army,Air Force and Coast Guard for that is only possible way to get USA Government health care.

Unfortunately the public option insurance will still be managed by the for profit insurance industry thus still a gravy train. BTW the insurance industry as we speak is receiving about $1.2 trillion big government socialist tax dollars every year.... next year it will be more.

What exactly is the concern about big government socialist tax dollars?

Rex Russell 5 years, 2 months ago

Tom, dial back the xenophobic, paranoid, patriotism. You're too close to the edge today.

Mixolydian 5 years, 2 months ago

And we have medicare/medicaid with 30% fraud, waste and abuse. Fix that first then let's talk.

jumpin_catfish 5 years, 2 months ago

Just remember the republicans will be in power again someday and when they "ram it down your throat" with reconciliation (whatever it may be) no crying.

LoveThsLife 5 years, 2 months ago

I watched the PBS program mentioned in the article and wasn't really impressed. They mentioned that Japanese Hospitals are dealing with lack of money..like being on the verge of bankruptcy. To me it seemed like there were still major issues...they were just different.

I just don't see how Universal Healthcare will work when we really don't have any money to fund it.

It seems like the programs we have now are constantly on the verge of running out of money and all that is done is that we raise the debt ceiling so that we can keep funding what we have or we increase taxes...I find this very disturbing.

I don't want ANY new programs until we get rid of wasteful spending.

PosseComitatus 5 years, 2 months ago

There are some lessons to be gained by checking out other Countries, but remember that our constitutional republic doesn't allow us to take the exact same approach as other Countries.

A complex scenario created this mess, here's a thumbnail sketch.

Workers unionized and demanded health care from corporations. Corporations bought insurance as this was cheaper than providing care at the work place. Non-union companies gave insurance to attract workers. Cost of health care started to rise do to cost disassociation. Government created programs to help non-workers. Unions were vilified and stripped of their bargaining power. Health care cost rose. Insurance raised prices. Companies deferred price increases to labor. Health care cost rose. Insurance raised prices. Free trade zones were established opening cheaper job markets. Companies moved operations to other Countries. Companies dropped insurance. Government programs are on the verge of bankrupting the Country. Insurance companies saw the banks getting free profits from the government. Insurance industry writes health care reform bill. Congress rewrites 2 versions of this bill. Insurance industry is mad and threaten politicians. Insurance industry jack prices up to force action. Politicians claim this crisis can only be fixed by this legislation and they must act. Talking heads turn this into a democrat/republican argument to divert your attention.

We have to look at the examples from other Countries and apply them at the State level. This should be driven by and for the people, not the insurance companies.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 2 months ago

"There are literally millions of people in this country who also work hard, but have no access to affordable healthcare insurance (and thus, no access to healthcare.)"


there are also literally millions of the same people who can afford internet, cell phone, really big shiny rims, cigarettes, alcohol, weed, etc. It's really a matter of making the right decisions. many people do have access to affordable health care, but refuse to acknowledge that fact. They presume it to be expensive, or are just plain apathetic about it because some government program will come along to take care of them.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

Just a note on reconciliation:

Apparently it was ok for the Bush administration to do it - tax cuts, etc. but it's not ok for this administration.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

Also, Switzerland switched from the kind of system we have now to what they've got, and it seems to work better.

Many of the criticisms above are of other countries than the ones mentioned in the article.

Mandating that health insurance companies operate as non-profits is not "socialized" medicine - the companies are still privately owned and operated, we still would have a variety of options, and the state doesn't own anything (defition of socialism: state-owned).

I'm not saying this is the best idea for us, but let's stay clear on what's actually being discussed/proposed.

The idea that we would be well off to look at other countries and systems to see if we can find some ideas that would help improve ours is a very good one, I would think.

wolfy 5 years, 2 months ago

AreUNorml: Are you suggesting that government should never intercede to protect consumers? Or, are you just saying that government should not intercede on behalf of people who buy "shiny rims", etc.?

Fact is, none of what you have said here is relevant. Healthcare reform is not about class or cultural warfare. It's about fixing a chaotic and fragmented health system -- an inefficient and abusive oligopoly beholden to Wall Street which shifts costs instead of containing them. When the U.S. joins the rest of the industrialized world in providing universal health coverage, costs will be contained for everyone, regardless of what they might choose to do with their discretionary income.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

areunormal, so are you comparing people who work hard and don't have healthcare insurance to people who work hard but don't have spinners on the wheels of their cars? i don't even get the analogy there... are you trying to say that access to affordable health care should be a priviledge or a luxury item like a pimped-out car is?... that can't be what you mean because, if so, that is the most asinine thing i've seen in this thread so far.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 2 months ago

what I'm saying is that if you have thousands of dollars to throw at any of those items, yet can't seem to come up with the money to pay an insurance premium then there is a problem with your priorities. I was told that there are millions of people who don't have access to affordable health insurance. I say that's bull, and that most of those people haven't even tried to get health care. I have to pay for my health insurance because I want to have health coverage. If I didn't want it and would rather have big shiny rims, then I wouldn't buy health insurance. how hard is that to understand? Most people buy the things they need before the things they want. if you're not doing that, you shouldn't expect the rest of society to continually lift you up.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 2 months ago

wolfy, yes government should provide some safety for consumers. such as making sure meat isn't tainted. But once you ask them to pay for your health care, you're also inviting them to mandate what you can and can't do with your body.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

"there are also literally millions of the same people who can afford internet, cell phone, really big shiny rims, cigarettes, alcohol, weed, etc."

I'm sure there are people like that, but it's a straw man argument to assert that the only reason people don't have insurance is because they have shiny rims.

By far the single biggest reason people don't have insurance is because the only policies available to them are either way too expensive, (even if they didn't do any of the things on your list) or they have such high deductibles and co-pays as to make them pretty much worthless.

It may make you feel good to assert your moral superiority because you happen to have insurance, but it doesn't change the fact that the healthcare system in this country is badly broken.

PosseComitatus 5 years, 2 months ago

Agnostick , As I said it is a thumbnail sketch. You are correct that initial creation was a result of government actions during WWII. I counter that the right of collective bargaining ensured this practice was continued after the war. The unions had to take this to the supreme court to continue the practice, which doesn't just happen without a fight. Here is a government site as a reference. http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar01p1.htm

That kind of gets away from the intent of the original post though. If the word union bothers you ignore that line like it didn't happen. We can save those debates for later, and no I'm not a union man.

I try to break the issues down to the simplest terms I can. Sometimes it gets a little fuzzy, but I'm not a tool. These are my opinions formed by studying actions and deciphering the motives behind them.

james bush 5 years, 2 months ago

....government of, by and for the people.

Do you think Obama's idea of government as a socialialist, utopian republic can work when we all just wait for instructions from Washington DC and that those in power won't work only to sustain themselves in power? This healthcare issue has become a big government vs the people issue.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

It was a red-baiting campaign by the AMA that killed national healthcare in 1945-- the unions supported it.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

"The most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan. In his November 19, 1945 address, President Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury.

President Truman's health proposals finally came to Congress in the form of a Social Security expansion bill, co-sponsored in Congress by Senators Robert Wagner (D-NY) and James Murray (D-MT), along with Representative John Dingell (D-MI). For this reason, the bill was known popularly as the W-M-D bill. The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as "socialized medicine", and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers "followers of the Moscow party line".* Organized labor, the main public advocate of the bill, had lost much of its goodwill from the American people in a series of unpopular strikes. Following the outbreak of the Korean War, President Truman was finally forced to abandon the W-M-D Bill."

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

I appreciate Ms. Rubin's skills. She puts forward three straw issues and destroys them so as to proclaim national health care the winner. No one has settled for me the issues of rationing, care availability, quality of care and payment responsibilities. From my research on all of these the existing national health care systems would reduce my care, cost me more and probably kill me earlier. Most of them provide a cutout for the rich so that they can retain care quality while many of the the rest of us lose. So why is it I would want to go there??

james bush 5 years, 2 months ago

I'd be less concerned about big government if Harry Truman were president.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

"From my research on all of these the existing national health care systems would reduce my care, cost me more and probably kill me earlier."

Really? Care to document (just a little bit) this "research?"

Or is mere assertion all that's necessary to counter Rubin's "straw?"

Kirk Larson 5 years, 2 months ago

Canadians overwhelmingly approve of their health care system. Sure some complain, but so do we. If you ask Canadians if they would like to switch to America's system you will get a resounding "NO!".

independant1 5 years, 2 months ago

Despite what I read about how broke healthcare is in USA I have anecdotal evidence, 2 brothers, 1 w/juvenile diabetes the other with MS and an uncle HIV positive in early 90's. They were not insuredand were not turned away. They were treated and received the best treatment available. Part out their pockets, huge hospital/specialist write offs, some public dole and one even paid the large cost of private insurance. Bankrupt over long hospitalizations, multiple amputations, laser surgery home care etc., nope. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Tweak it with stuff like Ins. across state lines, tort reform (like in Calif.), there are many items to tweak.

Analogy, I have a headache, prep me for brain surgery.

I do not belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat (will rogers).

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"noatajayhawk, I'm sure you have some references for your anecdotal stories, don't you?"

Yes, and I've posted them before. If you're that curious go back through my posts and find them. Or, gee whiz, try something original, and look it up for yourself instead of swallowing the pabulum Obama/Reid/Pelosi are jamming down your throat.

I suggest you Google a story from NPR about Japan's system, and maybe something difficult like 'health insurance Switzerland'.

"By the way, have you secured health insurance for your family? You claim to be in mental health care. Health insurance is easy to get for people who actually work in the industry. "

Well, you've demonstrated pretty well and pretty frequently that you know nothing about the healthcare industry. But since you asked nicely, as you already knew, we have health insurance on the children, and my wife and I pay our own way. And we're quite happy with the healthcare we receive as a result, thank you.

"The facts are these. America stands in 33rd place in Infant Mortality Rate as assessed by the United Nations. America stands in 46th place in Infant Mortality Rate as assessed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. The United States stands in 38th place in longevity as assessed by the United Nations. The United States stands in 50th place in longevity as assessed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States."

I've asked you this before, porch - if those are objective, measurable facts you're throwing out, why do the two agencies you cite not even agree with one another?

By the way, porch - what are the top five causes of infant mortality in this country, and how are they affected by our healthcare system?

For extra credit, what are the leading causes of death in this country compared to any hal-dozen or so of those in other comparable countries, and how is that affected by our healthcare system?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

"Despite what I read about how broke healthcare is in USA I have anecdotal evidence,"

Unfortunately, most anecdotes involving the uninsured don't have the same happy endings-- and often not even for those who (theoretically) have insurance. The system is broke, and needs fixing.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"I'll take "look it up" as "I have no reference to back up my claims". I'm not obliged to support your arguments."

Ah, I see you still haven't learned to read. I said I have already posted the links. It's not my job to educate the terminally stupid such as yourself and re-post them every time a troll doesn't believe the facts.

You're the one who challenged my information, pooch - and you have what to back up that challenge?

What?

Nothing?

Gee, there's a surprise.

"You've gone from "We don't have health care at all, on principle" to "We picked up health care when we had the kids" to "We have health care for the kids but we still can't afford it / don't want to have it on principle again / etc". ... yada yada yada ..."

As usual, the troll resorts to lies. All my posts on the subject of whether and when I've carried insurance are still there, troll. Either you're deliberately lying (as you usually do, putting things in quotes to make it appear I said them), or you're just too much of an idiot to understand what people write. The two are not mutually exclusive, BTW, and every member of these message boards has seen you repeatedly lie, and more than enough evidence of your extreme ignorance.

"You make the disingenuous argument that the United Nations and CIA rankings are non-objective and, in your next breath, initiate a rationalization for our position in those rankings."

So, as usual, you're not going to answer the question? Or the other two I asked?

Gee, another shock, troll.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Since you're evidently too stupid to remember the questions, pooch, here, let me ask again:

1) How can the CIA and U.N's numbers be objective, measurable 'facts' if they don't even agree with one another?

2) What are the top five causes of infant mortality in the U.S. and how does our healthcare system affect those?

3) What are the leading causes of death in this country compared to any hal-dozen or so of those in other comparable countries, and how is that affected by our healthcare system?

Still waiting, troll.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

So in other words, porch_troll, you're still ducking the questions.

What a shock.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

"What you two Rhodes Scholars don't realize is that your rationalizations won't work for all of the thirty to forty to almost fifty countries ahead of us in the rankings."

Which is it, troll - 30, 40, or almost 50?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh, but Liberty, the pooch has a justification for that:

porch_person (anonymous) says... "People use infant mortality rates for comparison under the assumption that children are precious and how a country treats its most precious demographic can be extrapolated to how it treats other demographics" January 27, 2010 at 2:06 p.m. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/26/health-care-reform-rally-set-downtown-lawrence/#c1125638

In other words, his objective, measurable, verifiable rankings on "outcomes" is an "extrapolation" (actually, two "extrapolations" - that disagree with one another) based on an "assumption" of what the population considers "precious".

And the topic of this LTE was about "myths" used by the opposition to the Democrats' plans?

(laughter)

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"I'm not the guy who has been asked to back up his opinion twice and told the other guy to look it up himself. "

No, you're the troll who questioned the information without anything to back up your challenge.

"Please provide data which shows that either or both are wrong. "

You've already done that, troll - according to you, the U.N. said the CIA is wrong, and the CIA said the U.N. is wrong. You're just too stupid to realize you can't present two conflicting pieces of information and claim both are correct. (Psssst - poochie, babe - 33 does not equal 46.) But then, it didn't even bother you when you were talking about Cuba that your two sources disagree even as to whether Cuba's life expectancy is ahead of or behind the United States'.

"I submit that this is no argument why our health care system is in 33rd place in Infant Mortality Rate as assessed by the United Nations and 46th place in Infant Mortality Rate as assessed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States."

So in other words, porch_troll, you're still ducking the questions.

"I submit that you have no idea what the five cause of infant mortality in the United States are."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5642a8.htm The leading causes of infant death are 1) congenital abnormalities, 2) pre-term/low birth weight, 3) Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), 4) problems related to maternal complications of pregnancy, and 5) complications of cord, placenta, or membranes.

I submit you're a moron who couldn't find the information for himself.

"I submit that this is no argument why our health care system is in 38rd place in longevity as assessed by the United Nations and 50th place in longevity as assessed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States."

So in other words, porch_troll, you're still ducking the questions.

"I submit that you have no idea what the leading cause of death are in the United States."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Heart disease: 631,636

Cancer: 559,888

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599

I submit you're a moron who couldn't find the information for himself.

Funny thing, that - the United States leads the world in cancer survival rates, and we're pretty high up there on heart disease, too. So it's kinda' hard to blame our healthcare system for the lower mortality, isn't it? (Well, hard for anyone that has a functioning brain cell, which leaves you out.)

"I've declared your questions irrelevant."

You always do when you can't answer them. Which is pretty much all the time.

Troll on, child. You're right - I shouldn't take the word of NPR or the Swiss government, I should take the word of an ignorant fast-food worker from a small Midwest college town.

(laughter)

LoveThsLife 5 years, 2 months ago

Here's the issue with the stats Porch keeps posting...and it isn't just the statistics he is posting it's comparing health care systems in general.

In order to get valid statistics comparing health care between countries it needs to be collected without variation. Very difficult to do when dealing with various countries. The UN stats are simply reported by the countries themselves and then published by the UN. This makes them pretty much useless because the probability of each country collecting the data without variation is close to none. Some countries will include certain populations in their data collection while others do not- making any analyses of the collected statistics not very informative as a result.

In addition, Liberty makes a very important point. When collecting said statistics you have to control for confounding variables.

I think this is probably why both statistics that Porch keeps posting conflict. There is just way too much variation right now when comparing health systems.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

Blaming Unions probably is not the answer...

*How about medical insurance executives retiring with multi million dollar bonus packages such that CIGNA = $73 millon dollar retirement bonus

*How about medical insurance companies making consumers pay what they should have paid totaling billions of dollars http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

How about the fact that insurance companies are charging more yet consumers are getting less and less: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

And in the past few months health care industry has spent $380 million on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/10/bill_moyers_michael_winship_in.html#more

How about the industry blowing $1.4 million dollars a day to save their $1.2 trillion a year big government socialist tax dollar gravy train?

How about consumers are paying 33% of their insurance costs to cover administration expenses?

Why are medical insurance companies donating millions upon millions upon millions to political campaigns using dollars that should be dedicated to health care?

Why do we have a medical insurance system that concerns itself with high dollar executive pay and stockholders?

Now we see why the USA has the most expensive medical insurance system in the world which obviously is not due to health care costs alone....

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

How is it that IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for All can provide a family of four with complete coverage for about $250 a month,no co-pays,no deductibles and never will cancel? AND would save school districts about 50%.... the same with local,state and our federal governments = tons of tax dollar savings.

What coverage you ask?

long term care such that cancer demands prescription drugs hospital surgical outpatient services primary and preventive care emergency services dental mental health home health physical therapy rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) vision care hearing services including hearing aids chiropractic durable medical equipment * palliative care

IMPROVED Medicare for all eliminates co-pays and deductibles

IMPROVED Medicare Health Insurance is an extraordinary deal that would free up more personal expendable cash to be spent elsewhere thus creating new jobs. Things like birthdays, home improvements, investments,wellness programs or a fuel efficient automobile

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

If only we'd seen more copy/paste posts about HB 676.....

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

areyounormal, i believe that there are millions of people who work and are uninsured (or underinsured). it is very discouraging to think that there are people like you out there who don't believe that folks can be hard working yet have no insurance just because they "haven't tried" to get any. and that those same folks are the people driving pimped-out vehicles and living ghetto fabulously, enjoying all the trappings of the pimp-my-ride/mtv cribs mentality. you really need to get out more... amongst people... like maybe not live in a bubble, thinking everyone who doesn't have insurance are trifling low lives who care more about baubles and bling blings and nothing about health care for themselves and their families.

it is THAT narrowmindedness that the far right (since several people here keep mentioning "the far left" over and over again) displays which makes people think they are segragationist asses.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

gotta love porch, tho. very smug. he makes really good points the majority of the time tho. i'll give him that.

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Conservatives, do not, I repeat, do not, let the liberal socialists humanize the health care issue! It is all about money, your money, do not let the liberals sway you from that moral argument! Remember, Jesus was the first capitalist, you are just following in his footsteps! Barry, go back to sleep, you are babbling again!
BTW Barry, where is your religiousity on this issue?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"Except the rankings from the United Nations and the CIA."

Poor poochie, his alcohol-addled brain can't keep the questions straight. You asked for evidence of the anecdotes I posted early on regarding Japan and Switzerland, pooch, and it was that I said you you hadn't presented any evidence to dispute those anecdotes. Um, the rankings from the UN and CIA say what, again, about the fee structure for a physician in Japan, or the optional insurance in Switzerland?

""Longevity" is a parameter near and dear to every patient's heart."

No duh, dipweed? But then, there's a difference between the longevity of an individual and the global statistics for a population, isn't there?

"Are you trying to pretend that I'm just making this up?"

No, poochie - I'm not pretending anything - merely pointing out that you keep throwing out numbers without the faintest idea of what they mean.

"Do you have any other health care parameters that you feel would be more accurate?"

Gee, I don't know, pooch - how about survival rates - you know, something where healthcare actually enters into the equation?

"You haven't provided one yet."

You're right, pooch - I presented at least three. Do I need to remind you yet again? Is your goldfish-like memory that bad?

Here, let me remind you yet again:

1) How can the CIA and U.N's numbers be objective, measurable 'facts' if they don't even agree with one another?

2) What are the top five causes of infant mortality in the U.S. and how does our healthcare system affect those?

3) What are the leading causes of death in this country compared to any hal-dozen or so of those in other comparable countries, and how is that affected by our healthcare system?

Still waiting, troll (except, of course, for the parts I've already had to answer for you).

"See how you're trying to distract from the rankings? You've named the five leading cause of infant death. Good for you!! Now for your next challenge, you have to tie that in with your thesis that the United Nations and CIA's rankings are wrong."

See - again, you try to porchfinkle and change the question. The question, troll, was how do those leading causes of infant mortality reflect the quality of a healthcare system?

Come on, troll - I could use the (laughter) today - I'd really like to hear you make something else up about how the healthcare system accounts for congenital malformations, or SIDS.

[continued]

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

[continued}

"presenting a medical fact isn't an argument until you can show how it applies to your argument. Create a causal connection, back it up with data conclusively showing that this is the reason why the United Nations numbers and the CIA's numbers are wrong. You haven't done that. All you've done is show that you can look up a medical fact. Whoopee!!"

Well, first, porchfinkle, the infant mortality rates have nothing to do with the UN and CIA numbers. The have to do with YOUR contention that infant mortality is an accurate representation of healthcare quality between systems. So please, pooch - show us the causal connection between infant mortality and healthcare quality. You haven't done that. All you've done is show you can look up some statistics. Whoopee!!

"Furthermore, if we "lead the world in cancer survival rates" and are "pretty high up there on heart disease too", why are our longevity rankings in the toilet? You seem to have contradicted yourself."

Wow, you really are so stone-stupid you need it spelled out for you. But then, you've already demonstrated repeatedly you don't understand statistics.

Um, moron? If our cancer survival rate is higher than in other countries but more people still die of cancer here, that means we started with more people having cancer. And that has nothing to do with the healthcare system, it has to do with lifestyle and environmental factors.

"Is everyone else stupid but you?"

Just you, porch_troll. And each and every time you touch your keyboard you fascinate us with the depths of that stupidity.

By the way, troll, are you going to answer the questions?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says...

"gotta love porch, tho. very smug. he makes really good points the majority of the time tho. i'll give him that."

Seriously, Mel? If he's the poster child for your cause, you're pretty much doomed.

I used to have some respect for your posts, but if what that troll says makes sense to you ...


georgiahawk (anonymous) says...

"It is all about money"

Unfortunately, georgia, to the Democrats it is all about the money. They are doing absolutely nothing to reform healthcare, just trying to figure out whose money they're going to take to pay for it.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

nota, dude, if you don't respect me then so be it. i didn't think too many people took me seriously up in here anyway... i post because its something to do. other than work. but hey-- gotta get that paper so i can put those spinners on my car!.... cough cough dammit.... why don't i have any healthcare? effing republicans......

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

"Said in jest, but indicative of the entitlement attitude. " so you are also in the same boat as areyounormal, right? you truly think that everyone (or the majority of people) who don't have health insurance don't because they spend their money on bling bling stuff? seriously?? what makes you think that? because one time you drove down troost and you saw some low life colored folks washing their tricked out cars but at the same time you noticed they walked w/ limps or had snotty noses? i am not sure where you and areyou are getting the ammo to make these sweeping generalizations. they are effing ridiculous and they make you both seem to be very sheltered, alarmist, emotionally isolated people. it is very crude and actually quite derogatory and insulting on the one hand but on the other it is preposterously goofy. and it goes to show you why people think of republicans as elitist, segragationist snobs. now i know that all republicans are not like that-- i can atleast have an open enough mind to know that much. but its folks who spew that kind of bulls**t that make me shake my head.

maybe instead of going into that disertation, i should've just coined porch person's phrase and dismissed your post as irrelavent.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 2 months ago

and barry you need to take a sick day and lay off posting for a day or two.

jaywalker 5 years, 2 months ago

"I would buy catastrophic only insurance, but by law insurance companies are not allowed to sell that to me"

Actually, that's almost the case. But check out Mega Life and Health. You can get catastrophic only but a drug rider comes with it, which doesn't jack up your rates more than 5 or 10 bucks a month. If you're in your early twenties, Liberty, and don't have any pre-existings that ramp up the premium, I'm bettin' you can get something from them for less than $100/month. Deductibles range from 1k to 7500, but your max out of pocket will never be more than double your deductible no matter where you're treated. Just a tip.

Orwell 5 years, 2 months ago

Nothing bewildering about it. Greed is the ace of trumps.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says...

"nota, dude, if you don't respect me then so be it. i didn't think too many people took me seriously up in here anyway"

Not true. And Mel, I am not one of those who say or imply that people who don't have health insurance are spending it on a loty of bling. I merely cautioned you about taking what the porch_troll says as anything more than mindless rambling. Just examine the posts on this thread alone - he ducks questions, changes the questions and claims he answered them, all the while criticizing people for the very thing he's doing.

The fact is that no matter how we decide to pay for healthcare in this country, it costs too much. Insuring more people would hurt more than help because all it does is prop up that inflated price structure. SOME of that higher cost, however, is not going to go away. Doctors get paid more here, for just one example.

Overall the quality of CARE delivered by our healthcare system is second to none. Trolls like porchie will throw around meaningless statistics they don't understand, like infant mortality rates, which have little if anything to do with healthcare system outcomes. When this is demonstrated to him (and it has been, numerous times), he changes the question, distracts, blusters, whines, and throws in a dose of (laughter) to cover up the fact that he was caught, yet again, trying to make an argument that has been proven baseless numerous times.

If you really think poochie makes good points, maybe you could help him, say, establish that causal link between healthcare system quality and infant mortality? Otherwise, Mel, be careful who you encourage.

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Nota, I agree, health care costs are out of control and until we bring that under control the rest is just propping up the current system. However, don't defend the insurance corporations because they have some responsibility for our current situation. Also, your argument that things like infant mortality rate is no indication of the quality of care that all of us are receiving is also bogus. The key word here is "all". If you can afford the best insurance then you can get the best in America, and that includes all of the maintenance programs you need to keep healthy. If you cannot afford insurance then you do not have the best health care, period. It is disengenuous to say otherwise.

LibertyOne, you are young and immortal, you can afford to be without insurance. Wait until you are older and the things you used to shake off now present problems that cannot be ignored. Wait until you have children and they want to play sports or just be a kid, you will want insurance then. You might want to look at fixing the system now before $1000/year is $1000/month, which is where we are headed. BTW, pie-in-the-sky-libertarianism is not the answer!

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

What are they saying over at the WSJ? “Abuse of Power A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can't stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it's good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Barry, how do you reconcile your couldn't-care-less for my fellow citizens attitude with your religion. Or are you only "religious" when we are talking about Obama's middle name.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

georgiahawk (anonymous) says...

"Also, your argument that things like infant mortality rate is no indication of the quality of care that all of us are receiving is also bogus. The key word here is "all". If you can afford the best insurance then you can get the best in America, and that includes all of the maintenance programs you need to keep healthy. If you cannot afford insurance then you do not have the best health care, period."

georgia - please explain how having money and therefore access to better healthcare would change the incidence of congenital defects or SIDS.

I completely agree that our healthcare resources could be allocated better. But that doesn't change the fact that the quality of that care is second to none. Given the choice between having the best care available and having to work harder to gain access to it, or having easy access to lower quality care, thanks, I'll take option number one. As for those who truly need help gaining any access at all, there are better options available than letting the government get its hooks into every nook and cranny of the system.

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

nota, admittedly there are some things that cannot be prevented, there is also plenty that can be. So what exactly is your point! Are your sighting something that cannot be prevented and then saying that because we cannot prevent these things that better healthcare is useless?

When you do not have insurance, for whatever reason, chosen or not, then you do not have access to the best healthcare in the world without giving up the rest of your life paying off all of the debt that the best healthcare cost. That is not having the best healthcare in the world!

So, what is your idea as to how the insuranceless gain access?

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

So Mr Liberty College Boy, how do we get there from here?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

georgiahawk (anonymous) says...

"admittedly there are some things that cannot be prevented, there is also plenty that can be. So what exactly is your point!"

My only point was, and is, that the parameters commonly cited as "outcome" measures when comparing the efficacy or quality between healthcare systems often have nothing whatsoever to do with those systems.

"When you do not have insurance, for whatever reason, chosen or not, then you do not have access to the best healthcare in the world without giving up the rest of your life paying off all of the debt that the best healthcare cost. That is not having the best healthcare in the world!"

My wife and I don't have insurance. We get pretty darned good healthcare.

"So, what is your idea as to how the insuranceless gain access?"

I don't feel like re-typing this whole thing, someone asked me a similar question recently, you can read my answer here:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/24/wellpoint-go-ahead-insurance-rate-hike/#c1165092

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

L.O. - which also explains the people in other countries' satisfaction with their own various systems, BTW.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 2 months ago

For anyone wondering about the truth of our village " " statements on Obama giving money to Brazil for offshore oil drilling, here is the skinny at this link.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Liberty one, dream on, still no practical ideas. If they won't work, it is just another utopian view without practical application. It is you that needs to gain some life experiences! Mommy, daddy and school is not a full life experience! I too had utopian views of what the world should look like when I was in school, 37 years later I have a more rounded view of our world. Not fully rounded, I am still learning! It is a life long quest! If you can get it to work as you think, go for it! Otherwise come down to earth and lets look at it taking into consideration human beings.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Agnostick (anonymous) says...

"Big difference between "imagination" and "reality." Lewis Carroll was able to imagine "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," too."

And just look at the works of L. Frank Baum - I mean, who would ever believe there was some strange little city, a 'green' city if you will, somehow in but separate from Kansas, fully of small, squeaky people with no concept of the real world?

Oh, wait ...

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

georgiahawk (anonymous) says...

"still no practical ideas. If they won't work, it is just another utopian view without practical application."

You've summed up the Democrats' plan pretty succinctly.

jumpin_catfish 5 years, 2 months ago

Obama's 2012 campaign slogan: Go Nuclear or Go Home!

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

This afternoon I tuned in on an interview with Mitt Romney and his wife. A portion of the interview addressed the possible colon cancer detected in his son. Son was in Britain -national health care. Despite the potential for rapid growth and a resulting loss of life the British system could not provide proper screening for him for at least six weeks. When my wife’s tumor reoccurred last fall we were into the MRI game in just a few days. Maybe national health care is great for normal things and healthy people – like our vocal younger bloggers. It is not a good deal for us older folk who are just anti social enough to want proper care in a timely manner – after all our leadership elites receive such care.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Could be why Great Britain (with their nationalized healthcare) has about the worst cancer survival rates in the developed world, George.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6765210/Britain-has-among-worst-cancer-survival-rates-in-developed-world.html

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

As soon as Dear Leader pledges to make his own family use only government health care, the rest of us should consider getting on board with him.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

Republicans apparently don't know that it was their beloved President Theodore Roosevelt who in 1912 proposed national health insurance for all. "Some American critics of socialized medicine cite nightmarish accounts of bungled medical treatment abroad, boasting that America has the best medical system in the world.

As a foreign correspondent, I lived in Britain, Germany, Israel, and the Soviet Union and did not discover any sapping of a nation's vital essences because the public enjoyed publicly funded national health insurance.

As a US citizen who lived more than two decades abroad, I found socialized national health insurance programs are often more compassionate and charitable than what I have seen with profit-driven, private insurance companies in the United States.

Some years ago my former wife took my sons on a driving tour of Britain and became involved in an accident. My elder son had a badly broken leg and was taken to a hospital for six weeks until his leg healed. Although I didn't live in Britain at the time, the British National Insurance system paid all his hospital and doctor bills. When I offered to reimburse the hospital, the British charitably declined and only charged me $35 for a crutch my son used to hobble aboard a plane home to America.

A decade ago, a federal report shocked the nation by suggesting that our modern medical system was one of the leading causes of death in America. It called for cutting the rates of medical mistakes in half within five years. But it's only gotten worse. Today, preventable medical injuries kill some 200,000 Americans each year.

Earlier this year, a friend entered a suburban Chicago hospital to have a gall bladder removed. The surgeon was scheduled to go on vacation immediately after finishing the operation. In the process of making a large incision, the doctor unknowingly nicked the lower intestine and punctured the aorta. My friend nearly bled to death before the surgeon discovered his error.

Where is the statistical evidence that private healthcare outperforms national health insurance programs? The United States ranks 37th on health outcomes, according to the World Health Organization, and it has one of the highest infant mortality rates among developed countries, suggesting that socialized medicine may afford better patient care in some situations.

Opponents of the White House healthcare plans deliberately distort the extent of government involvement in such programs, when the only thing to be "socialized" was the so-called public option health insurance plan – and that may be dropped. Doctors and hospitals would remain private. Critics appear to have deliberately polarized public opinion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0916/p09s02-coop.html

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

I am stunned by those who support the medical insurance industry and the $1.2 trillion big government socialist tax dollars that pour into their cookie jars annually.

And those who obviously believe the more that is paid the better it is. Then again I tend to believe those who support all of the above are not paying their own,are shareholders,are employees or all three.

Then again why would any fiscal conservative support any of the above knowing full well it increases the cost of living across the board whereas IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for ALL reduces the cost of all governments(reduction in taxes), reduces the cost of living thus freeing up dollars for investing smart.

kansanbygrace 5 years, 2 months ago

Uh, Richard, I searched for the estimates of the iatrogenic deaths, and including failure to act, erroneous diagnoses, infections and injuries caused by negligence or incompetence, delivering wrong drugs, cutting off the wrong limbs, and screw ups in surgery, extended waits, and correct treatment to wrong patient, the estimates range from 275,000 to 995,000 deaths per year, caused by the medical and hospital industries in the US. That makes systemic screwups one of the five greatest causes of death in the United States of America. I think there's lots of room for improvement. I think also this does not describe the best health care system in the world.

leedavid 5 years, 2 months ago

Anyone aware of Americans going to France, Germany (or any other country with socialized medicine) to have a medical procedure done? Nope, but we are all aware of persons coming from other countries to the US for medical care.....that should say it all.

The people from Canada and England that say they wait in long lines and wait for months to have a procedure done.....they are all liars right? And we should believe this artilce because it states that is not the case.

All of this and 16 million Americans still remain without coverage. If you want the nation to have health care....put the nation back to work. That is how we get health care coverage.

leedavid 5 years, 2 months ago

Anyone aware of Americans going to France, Germany (or any other country with socialized medicine) to have a medical procedure done? Nope, but we are all aware of persons coming from other countries to the US for medical care.....that should say it all.

The people from Canada and England that say they wait in long lines and wait for months to have a procedure done.....they are all liars right? And we should believe this artilce because it states that is not the case.

All of this and 16 million Americans still remain without coverage. If you want the nation to have health care....put the nation back to work. That is how we get health care coverage.

BrianR 5 years, 2 months ago

"Anyone aware of Americans going to France, Germany (or any other country with socialized medicine) to have a medical procedure done?"

Of course I am. Perhaps you need to broaden your circle of friends?

Nations make Universal Care work because it DOES work. The U.S. system needs to be crushed by any means necessary.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

When I visited Canada, it seemed as though many aspects of their society worked better for the average citizen, including health care.

There is an undercurrent of anxiety/stress in America that didn't exist in Canada.

Physicians we spoke to at length told us of their experiences in both countries - their take on them was that if you have lots of money, you can do well in America - if not, you can do better in Canada.

Someone we met had just gone to the doctor, and was considering some medical procedure. It would be covered, but she was thinking about whether it was really necessary. She was surprised to find out that Americans often have trouble paying for health care, and said in a very sympathetic tone "That's just not right".

A comparison of the two countries' systems came to the general conclusion that "The vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of their health care needs met the vast majority of the time" and that the same cannot be said of Americans.

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

BrianR (anonymous) says...

Might work for you - not for me. I hope you are not suggesting extra legal means to impose your solution. It could get ugly!

There is no question that service is reduced under national health care. May be cheaper for some but fatal for others

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

"BrianR (anonymous) says... Nations make Universal Care work because it DOES work. The U.S. system needs to be crushed by any means necessary." Stalin would have been proud of you.

BrianR 5 years, 2 months ago

"May be cheaper for some but fatal for others"

That sounds exactly like the present U.S. system.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

porchie, are you so confused that you can misunderstand my direct reference to the statement "the US system must be crushed by any means necessary"? (laughter)

georgiahawk 5 years, 2 months ago

snap_pop_no_crackle,

Are you saying that countries that have adopted socialized medicine are Stalinist?

Are you that confused?

Answer: yes! But it all makes beck-sense!

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

Worth repeating: jaywalker (Anonymous) says… ...Porch_person's modus operandi when confronting opposing viewpoints: (Step 1) Quote something completely random the opponent says. It doesn’t have to be a full sentence or more than 5 words .(Step 2) Claim their quote should be interpreted to mean s/he supports ‘X’ ('X' = anything you want, like paving the streets with post-notes. Similar to how porchie claims you say something, even when he quoted you saying the exact opposite. It really doesn't matter what 'X' is, as long as it is ridiculous, and keeps the opponent on the defensive to distract from the fact you can't back up your argument). Alternatively, repeat step 1, and using the two random quotes claim they contradict each other. (Step 3) Mock opponent for believing ‘X’ (Step 4) When opponent claims s/he didn’t say that, respond by stating that you quoted him/her directly (even though when you paraphrase the statement it isn’t anything close to what s/he actually said) (Step 5) Insert “(laughter)” (Step 6) If opponent continues to claim s/he didn’t say ‘X,’ use a specious analogy. (Step 7) If opponent continues to respond, claim s/he is “in Garfinkel mode” trying to get away from the fact he said ‘X,’ and/or contradicted himself. But never explain how the quote you randomly pulled is anything close to ‘X.’ And never respond to his/her questions. (Step 8) Insert “(laughter)” (Step 9) If this does not work engage in personal (attacks) by making up facts about opponent, again using random quotes, as described in Step 1 (Step 10) Repeat until you have lost all credibility on the issue.

emptymind 5 years, 2 months ago

March 2, 2010 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goldwater (anonymous) says... We have universal health care in this country. If you are age 65 or over you qualify. If you have certain diseases or are below a certain income level, you qualify for universal health care the the USA.

Why not give the rest of us the option of buying the same health care as federal employees

I'd like to know how that works. I'm disabled, unemployed, and have been turned down by several companies due to underlying health problems. I've yet to see Universal health care in this country, it's all about how much can they squeeze out of you

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Well, let's see, snap, I think he covered 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 in his next post alone.


porchfinkler (ignoramus) says...

"a universal health care system which currently outperforms our own in over thirty other countries (I'm being conservative here) "

Based on what, again, junior?

Oh, that's right - infant mortality rates.

(laughter)

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

BrianR (anonymous) says... "May be cheaper for some but fatal for others"

That sounds exactly like the present U.S. system.

Not for me! Must it be necessary that in order to help some we must hurt others. Sounds like your solution Brian!

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

emptymind (anonymous) says...

I am sorry to hear that. Do you not qualify for Medicaid?

PosseComitatus 5 years, 2 months ago

By accepting health insurance as a condition of employment through out the years and the subsequent creation of a government product similar to commercially available health insurance has created this "feeling" that it should be a guarantee, much like the minimum wage.

This has caused two very distinct problems that can not be solved by national level intervention.

The first is that both insurance and medicare are based on a Ponzi scheme that requires the continual addition of new people into the scheme to make it function. With the contraction of workers in both systems the base level contributions have to increase to meet outflows. In an economic contraction the model becomes unsustainable at a given point of time. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

The second problem created by this system is cost disassociation. Proper and prudent business decision are not made when somebody else is paying for your transaction. This also creates a problem where prices are continually raised by both parties in an effort to maintain a balance.

By mandating a national scheme whether it is through the government product or the insurance industry product doesn't solve the problem, it just puts it off for a while.

This may be a nation wide issue, but it is not a national issue. Your health care and treatment is business transaction between you and your chosen doctor.

This has to be solved locally by some type of direct delivery process. Neuhofel has some workable solutions.

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

Has anyone on here ever been under universal health care? I have, and I miss it dearly. Yes, I paid more in my taxes over there, but it was nothing compared to what I'm paying after my insurance company takes me to the cleaners. (Right now I have a $432 bill for my last physical. No joke.)

I'm tired of watching my parents spend their hard-earned retirement money on my dad's medication, and I'm tired of my insurance company not covering simple, standard procedures.

Our health care system is an embarrassment.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porchfinkler (ignoramus) says...

"Do you have any other parameters you feel would be more insightful? I asked you this question on March 3, 2010 at 1:25 a.m. Didn't get an answer. In fact, I haven't gotten any relevant data from you at all."

Oops, poochie - yes I did. (You probably - as usual - had too many adult beverages to notice.)


""Do you have any other health care parameters that you feel would be more accurate?""

"Gee, I don't know, pooch - how about survival rates - you know, something where healthcare actually enters into the equation?"

March 3, 2010 at 8:42 a.m. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/mar/02/other-nations-make-universal-care-work/#c1167995


So when are you going to answer my questions pooch? (That was a rhetorical question, pooch, we all know you're not going to.) What is the causal link between the quality of a healthcare system and infant mortality? I've asked yu several times now, poochie, child.

That one too tough for you, little one? How about an easier one?

Of the countries from your rankings that do better than the U.S. in infant mortality, how many of them don't count preemies (as the U.S. does)?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

DKB79 (anonymous) says...

"I'm tired of watching my parents spend their hard-earned retirement money on my dad's medication, and I'm tired of my insurance company not covering simple, standard procedures. "

Quick queston for you, DKB:

As a percentage of total household expenditures, who pays more for out-of-pocket medical expenses (those things insurance doesn't pay for), Americans or Canadians?

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

notajayhawk: "As a percentage of total household expenditures, who pays more for out-of-pocket medical expenses (those things insurance doesn't pay for), Americans or Canadians?"

I (and American) pay my out-of-pocket expenses, on top of my premiums, and taxes, and rent, and everything else.

However, 3 years ago as an American in the UK (who was a tax-paying, employed alien of that country) received excellent health care without the ridiculous price tag.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

DKB79 (anonymous) says...

"I (and American) pay my out-of-pocket expenses, on top of my premiums, and taxes, and rent, and everything else. "

Thanks, but that wasn't the question.

It was a trick question, anyway - the U.S. and Canada are tied in out-of-pocket healthcare expenses as a percentage of household consumption - which is pretty strange, when you consider that Canadians have 'universal coverage'. BTW, another country, mentioned in this article as having 'universal coverage', Switzerland, has more than double the U.S. average in out-of-pocket medical expenses as a percentage of household expenditures. Again, pretty strange.

Oh, but you wanted to talk about the UK - they do pay less out of pocket. But then, you get what you pay for:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6765210/Britain-has-among-worst-cancer-survival-rates-in-developed-world.html


porch_person (anonymous) says...

"You suggest that we should only consider deaths outside of those which are the result of health care. "

No, dillweed, he said you should only consider the deaths that ARE the result of healthcare - because YOU keep mindlessly insisting that is a measure of healthcare 'outcomes'.

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

notajayhawk:

Your link didn't come through--but I'm sure it probably contains some horror story about universal health care. We've got more horror stories on this side of the fence, my friend, and until you've experienced both sides, I think you should stop contributing to the fear factor of health care reform.

You only know what you've been fed.

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

not a jayhawk: "It was a trick question, anyway - the U.S. and Canada are tied in out-of-pocket healthcare expenses as a percentage of household consumption - which is pretty strange, when you consider that Canadians have 'universal coverage'. BTW, another country, mentioned in this article as having 'universal coverage', Switzerland, has more than double the U.S. average in out-of-pocket medical expenses as a percentage of household expenditures. Again, pretty strange."

When you're talking about "out of pocket expenses" you're only talking about the people in those countries who have opted for private insurance--not people who are under the universal health care system.

Until you've been on both sides, I suggest you stop posting out-of-context "facts"

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"I've already posted the rankings in longevity."

Why, yes, you have. Unfortunately, they still are not indicators of healthcare "outcomes" as you keep insisting. So again I'll ask you, troll: What is the causal link between healthcare and infant mortality?

This is getting tiresome, child. As much fun as it is to watch you repeatedly make an a of yourself day after day after day, it's about time I told you: Mortality and longevity rates are used in calculating the general HEALTH of a population, not the quality of their health CARE. Too bad you're too stone-stupid to understand the difference.

"Are you suggesting that America can have a better "survival rate" and poorer longevity?"

Um, yes, dipstick, since "survival rates" refers to the outcome of the healthcare system (e.g. treatment for cancer) and "longevity" is affected by numerous factors outside the healthcare system

Here's another question for you (that you won't answer): The OECD (who gathers, compiles, and publishes more data on health and healthcare in developing countries than anyone) uses several factors in assessing the quality of a country's healthcare. Are mortality and longevity taken into account, pooch?

"Don't see how we can perform better in "survival rates" if people live longer in other countries and more of their infants survive that ours."

Now show me where I specified survival rates for infants, numbskull.

"I've been asking for you to provide a relevant and insightful argument, backed with facts, for awhile now. Provide the data. Refute the scientists at the United Nations and the CIA. Go for it."

Funny, I asked you the same question - are we ranked 33rd, as you claim in some places, or 46th, as you claim in others?

Unfortunately, pooch, nobody knows the true rankings. Your numbers from the UN and CIA are meaningless, because countries don't count infant mortality the same.

From the OECD:

"Note: Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or not). In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births."

http://www.ecosante.org/index2.php?base=OCDE&langh=ENG&langs=ENG&sessionid=

Since you'll never find it yourself, you have to click on: 'Health Status' 'Mortality' 'Maternal and infant mortality '

in the left-hand pane, then

'Infant mortality'

in the right-hand pane.

PosseComitatus 5 years, 2 months ago

Porch_Person, The Military Health System (MHS) is a global medical network within the Department of Defense that provides cutting-edge health care to all U.S. military personnel worldwide. Equipped with 59 hospitals, 364 health clinics and a $50 billion budget, the MHS delivers the highest quality health care in the world to a beneficiary population of 9.6 million service members, veterans, and family members. Yet the MHS is more than a large network of health care providers; it is an elegant synergy of Army, Navy, and Air Force capabilities that serve, protect and treat the service members who defend our country.

Being that the US Military is not what I would consider a for profit agency, this is best real world model of raw health care delivery cost in the US. This equates to $434 per person per month.

This is your best universal health care possibility in this Country. Now if you can get all health care providers to sign 4 year contracts, provide them with public housing, food and eliminate all competition you might be able to pull this off.

If you add an insurance company to the mix it adds to the cost, it doesn't make it cheaper.

This needs to be a creature that is built from the ground up. Build it around one hospital first. Get what it costs to run LMH for a year to include outside specialists, divide it by the number COOP members, set an annual membership fee and you have a local solution. Any COOP member gets whatever they need. Non-members pay cash or equivalent.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

DKB79 (anonymous) says...

"Your link didn't come through--but I'm sure it probably contains some horror story about universal health care. We've got more horror stories on this side of the fence, my friend, and until you've experienced both sides, I think you should stop contributing to the fear factor of health care reform."

The link works fine, and it's a report from a UK paper on the fact that the UK has among the worst survival rates for cancer in the developed world. As opposed to the United States, which has the best. Sorry if you find facts 'fearful'.

"When you're talking about "out of pocket expenses" you're only talking about the people in those countries who have opted for private insurance--not people who are under the universal health care system. "

Sorry, nice try, but the OECD tok into account public and private insurance:

"Financial protection through public or private health insurance substantially reduces the amount that -people pay directly for medical care, yet in some countries the burden of out-of-pocket spending can still create barriers to health care access and use."

http://www.oecdilibrary.org/oecd/sites/health_glance-2009-en/06/04/index.html;jsessionid=we432mw4r2dc.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2009-62-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

By 'out-of-context' facts, did you mean those that dispute your point, DKB?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

DKB79 (anonymous) says...

"Your link didn't come through--but I'm sure it probably contains some horror story about universal health care. We've got more horror stories on this side of the fence, my friend, and until you've experienced both sides, I think you should stop contributing to the fear factor of health care reform."

The link works fine, and it's a report from a UK paper on the fact that the UK has among the worst survival rates for cancer in the developed world. As opposed to the United States, which has the best. Sorry if you find facts 'fearful'.

"When you're talking about "out of pocket expenses" you're only talking about the people in those countries who have opted for private insurance--not people who are under the universal health care system. "

Sorry, nice try, but the OECD tok into account public and private insurance:

"Financial protection through public or private health insurance substantially reduces the amount that -people pay directly for medical care, yet in some countries the burden of out-of-pocket spending can still create barriers to health care access and use."

http://www.oecdilibrary.org/oecd/sites/health_glance-2009-en/06/04/index.html;jsessionid=we432mw4r2dc.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2009-62-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

By 'out-of-context' facts, did you mean those that dispute your point, DKB?

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

notajayhawk:

Ugh. You're an outsider to universal health care, and it shows. As I said--you only know what you've been fed.

Never, in my 5 years under universal health care, did the term "insurance" crop up. Nor did the term "out-of-pocket expenses" (unless you want to count my antibiotics that cost me a whopping 8 pounds that one time...which is all a prescription would ever cost anyone--that's if the cost wasn't already covered under universal health care--which most of them are).

Keep barricading your doors and making everyone else afraid by furiously posting links from web sites that you peruse--it's a bit different when you get out into the world and actually have to deal with the reality of the situation--which is that this country's system is absolutely ridiculous. I bet I could find a link for that...

You can get a computer to tell you just about anything you want to help you support just about any point you want to make. I'd like to know that unicorns exist--and I'm sure I could find a web site that could tell me that they do.

AMERICA NEEDS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NOW. I bet I could find a link to tell you why--but I don't need to--I'VE ACTUALLY LIVED UNDER BOTH SYSTEMS!

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porchfinkler (ignoramus) says...

"The assessments of the United Nations and the CIA are not measurements of malpractice deaths."

Ooh, pooch, you're soooooooo close now. Come on, little one - it's such a tiny step from here - say it with us:

'Infant mortality and longevity are not measures of healthcare "outcome".

Come on, poochie, you can do it - fan that little spark of reality.


DKB79 (anonymous) says...

"Never, in my 5 years under universal health care, did the term "insurance" crop up."

And yet the UK appears on the rankings by the OECD. Those numbers are the dollar amounts spent for healthcare out-of-pocket as a percentage of household expenditures. The OECD clearly included private and public sources of healthcare payments. If you don't like their numbers, take it up with them.

"You can get a computer to tell you just about anything you want to help you support just about any point you want to make. I'd like to know that unicorns exist--and I'm sure I could find a web site that could tell me that they do."

Pretty sure the OECD isn't counting unicorns, DK. You're seriously comparing data from the OECD to a website that says unicorns exist? And I'M the one who's 'barricading my doors'? What color is the unicorn you rode to school today, DK?

"i've actually lived under both systems!"

Luckily you didn't get cancer while you were under theirs. Or are you saying the cancer survival rates are made up, too? Have another glass of good old American kool-aid, DK.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"I'm extremely happy you turned everyone on to OCED. It's a great source of information. It's also an organization whose data confirms that the United States is not the best country in the world in health care outcomes and / or expenditures."

Um, dipstick? It's OECD, not "OCED".

Glad you like the website - try using it to answer one of the questions - do they include infant mortality and longevity in their assessment of the quality of a country's healthcare syetm, or not?

Still waiting, buffoon ...

leedavid 5 years, 2 months ago

I will ask again: Anyone aware of Americans going to France, Germany (or any other country with socialized medicine) to have a medical procedure done? Nope, but we are all aware of persons coming from other countries to the US for medical care.....that should say it all.

And anyone that is so stupid to say getting drugs from Canada equates to a medical procedure is just to stupid to even comment on this thread let alone call out a liar. The question is are they naturally stupid or did they go to school to become that way?

leedavid 5 years, 2 months ago

I will ask again: Anyone aware of Americans going to France, Germany (or any other country with socialized medicine) to have a medical procedure done? Nope, but we are all aware of persons coming from other countries to the US for medical care.....that should say it all.

And anyone that is so stupid to say getting drugs from Canada equates to a medical procedure is just to stupid to even comment on this thread let alone call out a liar. The question is are they naturally stupid or did they go to school to become that way?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porchfinkler (ignoramus) says...

"You made a mistake and notajayhawk made a mistake in trying to defend you."

Yes, because the pooch knows better than you do what you were 'trying' to say, Liberty.

At least he hasn't stolen one of your posts (yet) today and tried to pass it off as his own to claim he was on the right side of the argument.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Good, poochie, you're trying.

Now, look at your own post so you don't even have to go back to the website - do life expectancy and infant mortality appear under the heading of "Health STATUS" or healthcare quality - because the OECD - who you just praised - has them separate, don't they?

Thanks for playing, fool.

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

notajayhawk:

It's funny you should mention "you're lucky you didn't get cancer over there" because I actually did.

I was well cared for, and my total out-of-pocket cost = 0 pounds.

The hard part is getting a doctor to look at me here, and actually be proactive about my situation. All they do is send me down to Northwestern to have someone else breeze me over and out the door and then send me a whopping $500 bill for spending 30 minutes in their office. No biopsies, no preventative care.

The problem with your web sites is that they don't look at the entirety of the problem we have over here.

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

I will ask again: Anyone aware of Americans going to France, Germany (or any other country with socialized medicine) to have a medical procedure done? Nope, but we are all aware of persons coming from other countries to the US for medical care.....that should say it all.

Read my previous post. I'm about ready to...

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

leedavid:

I'll respond a bit further on your post about "why aren't people going to places with socialized medicine to get procedures done."

I'll tell you exactly why--because people who travel for medical care (Americans do it too--check out what they're doing in SE Asia) have money. Lots of money.

You can't land yourself in Germany for a week and decide to have a hip replacement on their dime.

The problem with our system is that it is ridiculously overpriced. Health insurance is not affordable or attainable for millions of Americans--and since they appear to be on a budget--I highly doubt a flight to France is in the cards.

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

Group,

You keep ignoring the disparate care in many National Systems. For normal things, they work well and are cheaper as many of your comparisons reflect. For things of interest to me, they do not as real statistics reveal (cancer death rates in Britain for example). Those systems trade quality and scope of care for costs. No MRI saves money and can kill the patient per my earlier example. Both the wife and I have tumors - we do not want to be thrown under the bus. Until one of you comes up with a system that does not ration care (scope and quality), your arguments are meaningless and demeaning to seniors. I am beginning to think that many of you do not care about anybody but yourselves - reduce care to the ill and elderly and make your own care cheaper. How disappointing.

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

You know we can have a wonderful time arguing about the meaningless.

Statistics are not meant to be taken simplistically. First, outcomes need to be examined to determine if differecne are the result of actual care and not life style choices (or other factors). Second, we need to look within the statistics to see if they are homogeneous. (you can kill off the elderly who become ill and conceal doing that by balancing it off against preventive procedures for everyone (we are bad here). Costs need to be reviewed to make sure we are comparing apples and apples. Government run care may not reflect capital costs and other factors included in our costs.

If I were in Britain, many of the elements of care we have received would either be denied or delayed. Your desires for cheap care for your self will not become our sentence of death.

shotgun 5 years, 2 months ago

For all of you who have a problem with President Obama and his attempt to reform health care..............Here's an oldie but goodie for you, "America, Love it or Leave It!"

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

I am sorry sir, but I get excellent care at a reasonable price. You are peddling the unknown. Factual data shows that some national systems would not treat me as well (cancer).

I have no idea how your proposed system would treat me and I fear it. You cannot assuage my fear with platitudes. You argue forcible for an unknown yet ask me to accept that your unknown would treat me as well as the current system would. You also argue that this unknown system would reduce costs substantially. I fear that, as I do not accept your arguments about the scope of waste in the current system.

I have endured the military medical system and the VA. Both ration care in their own way, as do all systems on the planet. I have no reason to expect that any system run by our government would not continue to ration care and likely increase the rationing to avoid costs.

I am sorry but real experience trumps your holy grail every time!!!

Michael Throop 5 years, 2 months ago

If you call with a medical emergency in France, you don't get taken to the hospital. A crew of doctors and EMTs are sent in a vehicle to your home (or wherever you are) and they ALONE decide whether you will have further medical treatment.You have NO SAY in the matter You are triaged, and allowed a followup ONLY if a doctor gives permission..Ask Princess Diana how French health care worked for her! I don't know that much about Germany's situation,though there are a couple of things to take into account. Europe is a very stratified society, we are homogenious.Their populations are dwarfed by ours.Their economies are in continuing decline and there are fewer taxpayers to pick up the bill. Great Britain's National Health Service is a disaster,with months-long waits for the most routine medical and dental work;why else would the NHS recommend people pull their own teeth? As for T.R Reid, he is a far-left author, and the fact he did a show for "Frontline" has to wave a red flag..no pun intended. That said, I support some sort of risk pool for the truly destitute,and those who are not able to obtain basic insurance. Anything else takes us into an area of control by The State that is unacceptable.

Michael Throop 5 years, 2 months ago

say what you will, the delay was still a delay.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"When the discussion turns to how OECD organizes it's web site, we'll give you a call."

Awww, pookie, I thought you could do better than that.

We've all lost track of how many twists and turns your ethanol-soaked consciousness has tried to take this "discussion" to. Since you have the memory span of a (brain-diseased) goldfish, let me point out the "discussion" was about your frequent - constant - touting of infant mortality and longevity as measures of healthcare "outcomes". You claimed these were widely used indicators.

The OECD compiles the most exhaustive data set on health-related issues in developed countries available - you were praising it a little while ago, or did you forget that, too? They have been working for years on developing a set of health care quality indicators that can be used to compare health systems internationally - funny thing, though, neither infant mortality nor longevity are included in that list of indicators:

Care for chronic conditions

Avoidable asthma admission rate Avoidable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) admission rate Avoidable diabetes acute complications admission rate Avoidable diabetes lower extremity amputation rate Avoidable congestive heart failure (CHF) admission rate Avoidable hypertension admission rate

Care for acute exacerbations of chronic conditions

Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) 30 day case-fatality rate Stroke 30 day case-fatality rate

Care for mental disorders

Unplanned schizophrenia re-admission rate Unplanned bipolar disorder re-admission rate

Cancer care

Cervical cancer screening rate Breast cancer screening rate Cervical cancer survival rate Cervical cancer mortality rate Breast cancer survival rate Breast cancer mortality rate Colorectal cancer survival rate Colorectal cancer mortality rate

Care for communicable diseases

Rate of childhood vaccination for pertussis Rate of childhood vaccination for measles Rate of childhood vaccination for hepatitis B Rate of influenza vaccination for elderly people Incidence of hepatitis B

http://www.oecdilibrary.org/oecd/sites/health_glance-2009-en/05/01/index.html?contentType=/ns/Chapter,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2009-47-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

[continued]

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

[continued]

As I said earlier, and you're too stupid to understand, infant mortality and longevity are measures of a populations general health, which includes many other factors besides health CARE. You might have browsed by the section on "Non-Medical Determinants of Health", which provides data on such factors as tobacco and alcohol use, nutrition and obesity, activity levels, etc., and the OECD also includes environmental factors in determinants of overall health status and risk factors.

Sorry, pork - the "discussion" was about whether infant mortality and longevity are indicators of a healthcare systems "outcomes", and they most definitely are not.

"You've been busted with data from your submitted data source which shows that the United States is behind other countries in health care. Countries with universal care."

And how did I know you were going to do that - maybe because it's your usual M.O.? You spent all of five minutes tracking down a sliver of information you thought proved your pathetic excuse for an 'argument' and started crowing like (someone with a brain the size of) a rooster, without really looking at what the website is all about.

Um, pooch? The OECD doesn't "rank" healthcare systems. One of the reasons I respect their conclusions is that they heavily qualify them, being very frank and open about the limitations of the available data. For instance, on your favorite harping points:

"Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants. Most countries have no -gestational age or weight limits for mortality registration. Minimal limits exist for Norway (to be counted as a death following a live birth, the gestational age must exceed 12 weeks) and in the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands and Poland a minimum gestational age of 22 weeks and/or a weight threshold of 500 g is applied."

http://www.oecdilibrary.org/oecd/sites/health_glance-2009-en/01/08/index.html?contentType=/ns/Chapter,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2009-10-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

In other words, slug, some of those countries rank higher than the U.S. because they don't count preemies as live births. Then there's this:

[continued]

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

[continued]

"Each country calculates its life expectancy according to methodologies that can vary somewhat. These differences in methodology can affect the comparability of reported life expectancy estimates, as different methods can change a country's life expectancy estimates by a fraction of a year."

In other words, maybe ones small enough for you to understand, not every country calculates its life expectancy the same way.

How about this:

"The indicators presented in this chapter do not provide a complete assessment of the performance of health care systems with respect to quality of care, as both their comparability and their coverage are limited."

"The data presented in this chapter should be looked at as raising questions about the quality of care in different countries, rather than providing definitive answers or normative judgments. While information is provided to assure the reader of the importance and scientific soundness of each indicator, the data and findings presented should be considered as a starting point for a better understanding of variations in quality of care and to promote further analysis of different national experiences. Ongoing work under the HCQI project will improve comparability and coverage and offer a more robust view of comparative performance in the future."

http://www.oecdilibrary.org/oecd/sites/health_glance-2009-en/05/01/index.html?contentType=/ns/Chapter,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2009-47-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

Or this:

"All users of cross-national comparisons of health care data are advised that there are still important gaps with respect to international agreements on statistical methods. The same term can refer to very different things among the 30 OECD countries. Despite efforts to develop homogeneity, standardised health statistics is still a goal, not a reality."

http://www.ecosante.fr/OCDEFRA/32.html

In other words, little one, as I have been saying for years, the OECD recognizes and openly admits there simply is no way to accurately make a direct comparison between two countries healthcare "outcomes", due to limits on the availability and comparability of the data, variances in definitions and statistical methods, environmental/lifestyle/behavioral/socioeconomic factors that influence health, the prevalence of various diseases and conditions in the various populations, etc. The OECD data is meant to be a starting point to emphasize areas of improvement needed by all the countries they report on. They do not "rank" countries' overall healthcare systems, pooch. They leave that to rank morons - like you.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

DKB79 (anonymous) says...

"It's funny you should mention "you're lucky you didn't get cancer over there" because I actually did."

Glad to hear you were one of the (few) lucky ones.

"I was well cared for, and my total out-of-pocket cost = 0 pounds."

I have several relatives who are cancer survivors here, and it didn't cost them anything beyond their insurance premiums, which were most likely less than what you paid in taxes.

"The problem with your web sites is that they don't look at the entirety of the problem we have over here."

To bad you didn't actually look at 'my' websites. The OECD considers such issues as preventive care and unnecessary hospitalizations at great length.

The data on cancer survival rates is pretty much indisputable, DK, and the UK's is horrendous, worse than any other European country except one of the former Eastern block countries. Pick any other source YOU want and show me where the UK ranks higher than the U.S.. I'll wait.

Despite your assumptions, I've been to Europe, including England. The first time was almost 40 years ago, as a matter of fact. I don't travel as extensively as some family members, so I've been lucky enough to avoid having to utilize their healthcare systems. Unlike my 80 year old mother, who flew back in agony only to have the leg that was badly set over there re-broken and re-set on her return. Or my father, who contracted a fairly minor illness that is commonly successfully treated as an outpatient here, but which forced an early return from another of their trips (at rather significant expense) because the physicians there couldn't handle it.

Is that anecdotal? Yep. But then, so is your testimonial, isn't it?

Let's see, who should I believe - the OECD and their decades of research and analysis, or an anonymous poster to a small town, Midwest newspaper?

What to do, what to do ...

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"The data proves you wrong."

And thanks you once again, child, for proving (yet again), beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you know absolutely nothing, not only about healthcare, but about data analysis and statistics.

The qualifiers mean everything, you mindless dolt. The OECD is very plain that the data is not directly comparable, and that it is not intended to be used for normative purposes. Of course, we wouldn't expect someone who still can't figure out why 33 doesn't equal 46 to understand that.

But you're right, pooch. The qualifiers mean nothing at all. So all we have to do to improve our healthcare system is change our reporting methods. Stop counting preemie deaths, and we'll shoot right up to the top of the list, and have the best healthcare system in the world! Congratulations, slug - you've found a way to cure the American healthcare problem in one fell swoop!

(laughter)

Oops, almost forgot - how did the data prove me wrong, exactly? The question you seem to have forgotten (again) was how does healthcare affect infant mortality? Otherwise, to paraphrase some moron or other from up above, you haven't established a causal link, just presented some statistics - whoopee!

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"Why are you pretending that the OECD is supporting you when they're not?"

Why are you pretending you have the mental capacity to understand the OECD's data when you don't?

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

notajayhawk:

Your relatives are extremely lucky to have good insurance stateside--unlike myself--who falls under that unfortunate "pre-existing condition" thing.

For the record, what I paid extra in taxes over there doesn't hold a candle to my cost of care over here.

I'll leave it at that. I just know what I know from being under both systems--which is more than you'll ever know. I was well looked after there, and I'm now terrified of my medical bills, and exhausted by fighting with my insurance company. The stress of that alone ain't helping me get any better--that's for sure.

It ain't all roses in the US--if you still want to pretend to deny that this country is in desperate need of health care reform--then I don't know what to tell you.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

DKB79 (anonymous) says...

"Your relatives are extremely lucky to have good insurance stateside--unlike myself--who falls under that unfortunate "pre-existing condition" thing."

I don't have insurance. I still get healthcare.

"For the record, what I paid extra in taxes over there doesn't hold a candle to my cost of care over here."

And yet someone's taxes paid for your care.

"It ain't all roses in the US--if you still want to pretend to deny that this country is in desperate need of health care reform--then I don't know what to tell you."

The typical liberal last desperate retort - "If you don't take THIS solution, right NOW, then you don't want anything to change."

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

notajayhawk:

WOW! You don't have health insurance! Thanks for contributing to the health care crisis! I guess my taxes are paying for your health care...or medicare...or medicade.

...I'll assume just as much about you as you do about me, buddy.

As a taxpaying resident of the UK--MY taxes paid for MY care.

I still can't believe you've made all of these arguments and don't have health insurance. WOW. I'm officially done here. You're an idiot to argue all of the things you have and then admit that.

You have no idea. Good night.

leedavid 5 years, 2 months ago

Who was the genuis that said getting pills from Canada was the same as getting medical procedure?

"No, you're the liar. I guess you missed the phenomenon of Americans who have to send off to Canada to get medications they chronically need."

Oh yeah....brilliant one..(laughter)

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"You don't see how stupid you're sounding, do you?"

That's never stopped you, pook.

"If the "health care crisis" was just misunderstood statistics, all we would have to do is listen to your BS and everything is good."

And yet that's exactly what those vaunted rankings you keep spewing consist of. Funny how the OECD is an authoritative source when you believe (incorrectly, as usual) that it supports your position, and it's all wrong when it disproves your ramblings. The OECD says the data isn't comparable, pooch. Are you saying you know more than the OECD?

(laughter)

"America stands in 33rd place in Infant Mortality Rate as assessed by the United Nations. ..."

Oh, lookie, I found that quote from above I referenced earlier:

porch_person (anonymous) says... "presenting a medical fact isn't an argument until you can show how it applies to your argument. Create a causal connection, back it up with data conclusively showing that this is the reason why [infant mortality is an outcome of the healthcare system]. You haven't done that. All you've done is show that you can look up a medical fact. Whoopee!!" March 3, 2010 at 1:53 a.m.

[My question to pookie - that he still won't answer - in brackets.]

"You want the qualifiers to refute the data, not qualify the data. There is a difference. They don't do that. You're being dishonest. Either that or you don't know what "qualify" means."

Um - what language is your native tongue, moron?

So let me get this straight - I'M the one who doesn't know what "qualify" means, because we don't want qualifiers to qualify the data?

Just

frikkin'

brilliant.

"Infant mortality rates in the United States have fallen greatly over the past few decades, but not as much as in most other OECD countries. It stood at 6.7 deaths per 1 000 live births in 2006, above the OECD average of 4.9. Among OECD countries, infant mortality is the lowest in some of the Nordic countries (Iceland, Sweden and Finland), Luxembourg and Japan, with rates between 2 and 3 deaths per 1 000 live births."

Ooh, we're repeating things over and over! Goodie. Let me play too!

"Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants. Most countries have no -gestational age or weight limits for mortality registration. Minimal limits exist for Norway (to be counted as a death following a live birth, the gestational age must exceed 12 weeks) and in the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands and Poland a minimum gestational age of 22 weeks and/or a weight threshold of 500 g is applied."

Maybe if I repeat it enough times, the little slug will figure out what it means!

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

porchperson:

Had I known that, I would have been done a long time ago.

I'm still in shock from the pure audacity...

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

DKB79 (anonymous) says...

"WOW! You don't have health insurance! Thanks for contributing to the health care crisis! I guess my taxes are paying for your health care...or medicare...or medicade."

Well, I guess I should return the thanks, since you just said you didn't have insurance, either, ol' bud. Again -

Just

frikkin'

brilliant.

(By the way, DK, it's MedicAID, as in "aid", not like 'lemonade')

"...I'll assume just as much about you as you do about me, buddy. "

You can A$$ume what you wish. If YOUR taxes paid for YOUR healthcare in the UK, then what's the problem paying out-of-pocket as I do? Why do you need my money in the pool if YOU are paying YOUR own way, friend?

If you paid less in taxes than you'd pay in insurance premiums here, then you in no way, shape or form paid for your own care. As I do. Not that there was any credibility to your argument before, but you just proved what a sense of entitlement you have. You actually think yourself superior because you choose to soak up other peoples' tax dollars (or pounds, as the case may be), looking disdainfully at those who pay their own way? You, sir, are a clod. And I sincerely hope you're as good as your word, and done. (Hey, but at least you've got porchie on your side.)

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says...

"DKB79,

"You didn't know that about notajayhawk???"

It's so cute to see you grovel, pooch. Still trying to find a friend?

(At least this time you have a candidate possibly just stupid enough.)

"He proclaimed months ago that he refused to insure his family "on principle". He changed his tune since then but it's a shadowy situation. Several different permutations have appeared. No insurance. Insurance for a short time. Right now, he doesn't have insurance, his wife doesn't have insurance but his children do. This is all his own admission. Weird."

Whereas if the noble DK was familiar with you, poch, he'd already be familiar with your pathological propensity to lie, not to mention the fact you can't read. I said (to refresh your ever-deteriorating memory) that I was opposed to having the taxpayers pay for my insurance on principle. Not that any of that matters to you, you'll keep repeating the same old lies. But then, someone who still hasn't figured out that 33 doesn't equal 46 wouldn't be too good at distinguishing details.

"The funny part is that he's in the health care industry, (or at least he says he is, I doubt it). Health insurance is an easy perk in the health care industry,.... for some reason. Kinda like being able to get pizza cut rate if you work at a pizza parlor."

Which once again demonstrates pooch's utter lack of knowledge of the healthcare industry. Go ahead, pooch - tell me what my employer charges for health insurance. I'd be fascinated.

"An industry with great need yet dwindling resources."

And yet you think employers in that industry pay for the cost of their employees' insurance. One more time:

Just

frikkin'

brilliant.

By the way, how much is McDonald's charging you for yours?

"The beauty of watching you try to refute the OECD is because it was a reference that you brought to the party."

So - when I cite the OECD by direct quote, I'm trying to 'refute' them? By quoting them?

You're not doing well in your English-as-a-second-language class, are you?

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, pook - I had to take a break from laughing too hard. 'You don't want qualifiers to qualify ...' (and following it up with "you don't know what "qualify" means"). Priceless, pook. Truly priceless. Just when I start to lose faith that you can continue to outdo yourself, you come up with that. You may have just replaced 'private companies will be providing the public option' as my all-time favorite porch-ymoron. Come to think of it, quoting a source being called an attempt to refute them might have risen to number two on the list.

Keep 'em coming, little one! I can always use the (laughter).

By the way, troll, when are you going to (make a pathetic attempt to) answer the question? Been a coupla' days now, we're still waiting.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Where did DKB79 say he didn't have health insurance?

"That's right. He didn't. You made it up."

Gee, dunno', maybe it was this:

DKB79 (anonymous) says… Your relatives are extremely lucky to have good insurance stateside--unlike myself--who falls under that unfortunate "pre-existing condition" thing.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/mar/02/other-nations-make-universal-care-work/#c1170704

Now, I suppose it's possible that he meant he has insurance, just not "good" insurance. But if he's paying premiums and still paying $500 for an office visit, 1) for all practical purposes he has no insurance, and 2) he just might be stupid enough to be your new best buddy.

Of course, if he really does have insurance, it pretty much puts the lie to the whole 'can't get insurance with pre-existing conditions', doesn't it?

What else ya' got, porch?

leedavid 5 years, 2 months ago

Porch it is not my fault if your to stupid to know the difference between getting pills from Canada and a medical procedure. You were caught and to your too stupid to admit it. Same reason no one likes you. You call people a liar and have nothing to base your facts on. You can come to my house at anytime and see my proof I have taught at the University of South Carolina as an adjunct professor and at St. Leo University. I would love to give you the opportunity to call me a liar to my face. You are full of yourself and can not admit when you make a mistake. Other than that...your a great person...just look at your post...we all see the caring, concerned person you are.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Do you realize what you just said?"

Why, yes, pooch. Too bad you're still having trouble with that English-as-a-second-language class, or maybe you would have caught it too.

"You said that there is no way that England can provide health care for less than what people are charged in America for the same service."

Um, no I didn't. But thanks for playing. I didn't say anything at all about 'England providing healthcare for less than what people are charged in America'. I said DKB - one person - did not pay for his cancer treatment through his own individual taxes. Really, troll, learn to read, it will greatly improve your life (though I have no doubt you'll still be stupid).

BTW, pooch, do YOU realize what YOU just said?

'Cause if one person's individual taxes pay the full cost of their medical treatment, including the cost for a major illness such as cancer - then why would we need insurance at all, let alone a nationalized system? According to you, everyone can afford their own treatment.

"You claim that I "lie" about why you don't have health insurance ("on principle") then you immediately confirm what I said. That's funny!!"

Still having trouble with that English-as-a-second-language class, eh, troll? A mind - even as tiny a thing as yours - is such a terrible thing to waste.

Here, let me repeat myself: I said (to refresh your ever-deteriorating memory) that I was opposed to having the taxpayers pay for my insurance on principle. I said this in a discussion on the public option - you remember the public option, don't you, pooch? The one you said wasn't dead because the private companies were going to be providing it? (laughter) You said I should be in favor of the public option because it would help me personally, and I said that on principle I didn't think I should do something that would be bad for the country to help me out personally. Now, an unprincipled slug such as yourself finds that amusing (and your new best buddy finds it audacious).

I have never changed my position on why I choose not to carry health insurance, troll. I don't buy insurance from my employer because it is not cost effective to do so at the time. I have in the past when it was. I do not support taxpayer funded healthcare for myself because it would be bad for the country I live in, and yes, unlike you, I have principles. I have never said anything different - but hey, you're the one who insists on backing up what you say with 'data', porch - so please go back and find the posts where I said I don't buy insurance from my employer because I don't want the taxpayers funding my healthcare. That should be easy, what with your sharp memory.

What a complete waste of epithelial cells you are, cretin. Go pass out from your adult beverages - we'll see you back tomorrow for more (laughs). And please remember - we're laughing AT you, not WITH you.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

What, no reference to 'group hugs' when, as usual, everyone calls you an ignorant, lying troll? (Except your new friend, of course.)

(laughter)

"As far as the people who "don't like me" here, they appear to have two things in common. They are all fringe conservatives and they all appear to be "reincarnated". I rest my case."

Well, there's a third factor that makes people not like you, troll - they all still have functioning neurological pathways.

So have a good night, little one. Maybe you don't have to be too wide awake to be handing McMuffins through the drive-thru window tomorrow, but some of us have nice warm offices, and lack of sleep makes me drowsy at work.

leedavid 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

BrianR 5 years, 2 months ago

"You have NO SAY in the matter You are triaged..."

Another description of the U.S. system.

Apparently folks haven't caught on the the fact that just as many people leave the U.S. for treatment as come to the U.S. for treatment - http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19

It's funny that people with no insurance are railing against reform.

BrianR 5 years, 2 months ago

A few numbers on Medical Tourism: http://www.health-tourism.com/medical-tourism/usa-research/

I don't have time to look up other resources but many of the posters here don't seem to do anything besides stare into a screen all day, so perhaps there are other good sources.

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

How is your reading comprehension? I wrote none of the things you attribute to me. I am reasonably happy with the current system because it works for me - I planned it that way. Your unknown proposal - who know? Why would a rational person give up something that works for something unknown? Oh by the way, most of my medications are covered - planned that too. Sound to me like you want a system that allows you to get what you want without having to pay for it. Also sound like you want to shove it down other peoples throat. You must be a nice person??

DKB79 5 years, 2 months ago

notajayhawk said:

"Now, I suppose it's possible that he meant he has insurance, just not "good" insurance. But if he's paying premiums and still paying $500 for an office visit, 1) for all practical purposes he has no insurance, and 2) he just might be stupid enough to be your new best buddy."

Yes, I do have insurance, but I have to take what my employer gives me (which is virtually no plan at all--much similar to the one the GOP drafted last year). As one of those pre-existing condition people--I have nowhere else to go for insurance.

You obviously have no idea why we need health care reform because you have no experience with how horrible it is. Consider yourself extremely lucky that you haven't been slapped with a huge medical bill without insurance.

Keep plugging away with those stats, I'm going to go help my parents sell their house so they can pay for Dad's meds.

Good day, sir.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

DKB79 (anonymous) says…

"Yes, I do have insurance, but I have to take what my employer gives me .... As one of those pre-existing condition people--I have nowhere else to go for insurance."

Then I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding, when you said my relatives had good insurance, unlike yourself (who has pre-existing conditions) I misunderstood. Still having problems with your contention that my own choice not to carry insurance is part of your problem, though. There are only two justifications for that position, and neither is valid. You either think I have some obligation to pay into the pool (whether through taxes or through premiums) to make it cheaper for you, or you believe that since I don't have insurance, you're somehow paying more to cover my healthcare - and sorry to disappoint you, but yes, I'm just 'audacious' enough to pay my own bills. The belief system so rampant on these message boards that people without insurance are not going to pay their own bills does not speak highly of those who keep presenting that argument.

"You obviously have no idea why we need health care reform because you have no experience with how horrible it is. Consider yourself extremely lucky that you haven't been slapped with a huge medical bill without insurance."

Huh. Another nice A$$umption. You have no idea what my or my family's medical histories are, or what we've paid out for our care.

First of all, DK, even most of the Dems have stopped calling it health care reform. Most of them are being honest now about calling it health insurance reform. Like this, for instance:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

The proposed 'reform' does nothing at all to reform health CARE, it just tries to shift the costs to someone else. And unless those COSTS are addressed, that's pointless. If those costs ARE addressed, then reforming insurance becomes unnecessary.

Second, as I said earlier, nobody wants things to remain exactly as they are. Neither the proposals by the Democrats nor nationalized health insurance are the answer, however.

"Keep plugging away with those stats"

And you just keep ignoring them. Hey, you have a good one, too.

BTW, sorry to hear about your parents - but please, feel free to explain how a nationalized system will help them. We spend about $8,000/year on health CARE in this country, which wouldn't be reduced that significantly if you removed the 3.4% profit for insurance companies. Doctors get paid more here, hospitals charge more here, medications cost more here than they do in the UK - changing how we pay for it isn't going to change that, and guess what - government guarantees of payment are much more likely to drive prices UP, not down. So forget about insurance, let's go single-payer - you think everyone in this country has that extra $8K lying around in taxes? Would you rather be selling your parents' home because of a tax debt than for their meds?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Hmm, interesting. I wonder what the problem was with my posts - I don't recall saying anything about the porch that I haven't said many times before, as have others - or that wasn't true. Must be he didn't like being proven to be dishonest - again.


porch_person (anonymous) says…

"You claimed that I lied when I said you didn't have health insurance "on principle" and then you state that you didn't have health insurance "on principle". "

"That's funny!! You quickly change that tune to "It's too expensive". Anything to avoid admitting you've said something amazing."

Since you aren't going to post a link to back up your claims I've said those things - respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards - here, let me refresh your memory, back to when you first started propagating this little - mistake.

porch_person (anonymous) says… notajayhawk, I know you don't see the irony in being a "mental health technician" who can't afford health insurance for himself or his family arguing against a plan which will get you health insurance but I sure can. No one can accuse you of not being a "true believer". You're doing so against your (and your family's) self interest. August 23, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/aug/23/appalled/#c970822

That was in response to a post I had made, addressing another member, stating:

"For your information, it would be personally lucrative if this bill came to pass. I happen to be in one of the fields that government funded programs pay better than private insurers. And my wife and I have been forgoing health insurance for the time being. We would be personally much better off if this bill passes. But I am also a citizen and a taxpayer in this country, and I know that this plan would have horrible results for the country, and, in the long run, for all of us individually." http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/aug/23/appalled/#c970808

See, porch, you - respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards - it appears you are - in error - as you knew way back then that I did not have health insurance through my employer due to the cost being in excess of the benefit (and I did mention that we were shopping for an individual policy that would be cheaper, as we did not need all the coverage my employer's policy included). And that what I objected to "on principle" was the proposed legislation, which might have benefitted me personally, but was not good for the country. Now - respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards - I'm sure I am in error when I surmise you don't share these principles, and are only out for your own self-interest; but your posts tend to give that impression. Just trying to be helpful here to a - respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards.

[continued]

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

[continued]

"You claim that anyone who pays less for health care in a universal health care country than Americans pay in health insurance premiums can't possibly be paying for his own health care."

Why, I believe you may be in error again, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. Might I suggest you re-read my posts - perhaps with some assistance? - and you may learn I said no such thing.

"you claim that no person's input into the health care system can pay for cancer treatment based upon that person's contribution alone."

"That's the whole point of insurance, notajayhawk. Diluting risk over a great many people."

Hmmm. You seem to be somewhat confused here - respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. It would appear you are attempting to argue that the purpose of insurance is to dilute the risk, and yet at the same time faulting my premise that an individual's contributions to that pool are insufficient to pay for a major claim made by that individual. I'm sure it was a simple error on your part - respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards - and that was not what you meant to write.

"If everyone could "pay for cancer" through their own contributions, why would we need insurance?"

Why, gee, just a short time ago I asked that very question - respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. Perhaps you have an answer to that? Since, after all, you seem to find fault with my contention that an individual person paying either premiums or taxes is not paying the full cost of their care for a catastrophic expense.

" You're alone. If you had people supporting you, things would be different. One can tell who is winning. The other guy presents with ever increasing levels of invective."

Hmmm. Once again, in reviewing the posts from several members above, it might appear to some that you are - in error - once again, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. Might I suggest you take a little more time with your perusal of the site, perhaps seeking input from others, to re-evaluate the responses made to your posts?

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

"Our families and businesses deserve reform that will create millions of jobs, strengthen Medicare, reduce our deficit and no longer deny care or drop coverage to those who need it most," Pelosi said. "We must act now." http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/obamas_final_health_care_push.html Too bad the grand mess currently before the Congress would not accomplish any of those goals…..

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

Let me understand you, you have a better non-existent system and argue that it is better because you argue that the set of national health care systems in existence is better.

Burden is on you not me. I am content. I believe that our system is adequate and could be made better without throwing it away. I already pay a lot of money for my and other people's coverage. If I really believed there were true needs, I would pay more. However, we have a number of systems in place to provide care for those economically disadvantaged. There may be 10-15 million people involuntarily without care. That is about 3%. I am sure we can find a way to provide coverage without such a massive upheaval as a national system.

One more time. National health care systems ration care (all systems do). The rationing in existing national healthy care systems falls mostly on care that is more expensive. I am at the point in my life where I need care that is more expensive. If your wonderful system does not cut my care and charge me more to get it, great. Since it does not exist, it could theoretically do that. What is of issue is cost and quality/availability of care. I suspect the cost savings you talk about would evaporate if I could continue the care I have now while in a national system. As far as quality and availability - there are clear statistics that reflect that in some cases those elements suffer in existant national health care systems - again not necessarily in yours - since it does not exist,

Like most people, I do not have time to pursue all the data thrown about. However, once some aspect of an advocate’s story is shown to be less than accurate, then all creditability is lost. If I am to give up adequate care for unknown care, there needs to be a better solution on the table where cost, quality and timeliness are not murky.

I reject studies by groups with a dog in the fight. It really embarrasses me that so many people in this blog world accept somebody’s talking points without actually understanding how they were developed (assumptions, caveats, etc.). For example, I have not seen any direct link between our health care system and infant mortality. Individual actions can have the same or more pronounced detrimental affect as poor healthy care. Since there are many, many programs funded by the society to provide quality health care for expectant mothers and young children, I question that our healthy care system is the primary driver of our infant mortality rate. Using bogus affiliations is a lousy way to justify a fundamental change to almost 20% of our economy.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"You keep repeating that the alternatives are "non-existant" and "unknown" but they aren't. They have already been implemented on a national scale in many other countries and they are performing better than our own."

I wonder if you could answer a question for me, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards: If we nationalized the oil companies, would we be able to buy gas in this country for 12 cents per gallon? After all, that policy was implemented on a national scale in Venezuela, and those were the results they got.

"We've posted the links so that you can get the data from sources such as the United Nations, the Central Intelligence Agency, the World Health Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ."

I believe you may have misread the information from the website of the OECD, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, as they do not rank healthcare systems, and their web site states that their data in not directly comparable, nor is it meant to be used for normative judgments. And there's another thing I've been curious about, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, which I thought I had asked before, but perhaps I'm mistaken: It would seem that the data you refer to from the CIA and UN only mention longevity and infant mortality - could you please explain to those of us that do not share your - um - unusual insight how those figures are a result of the healthcare system?

"Longevity and infant mortality rate are widely adopted parameters for health care system measurement (for what I personally think are obvious reasons), but there are others."

Hmmm. Again, I'm reluctant to point out the errors of such a respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I believe you'll find, if you re-examine your sources, that longevity and infant mortality rate are widely adopted parameters for measuring the global health of a population, but they have very little, if anything, to do with health care systems.

Many members have been asking you, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, to share your insight with us and explain these apparent discrepancies. It would seem to distress several members that you seem to be able to see the apparent link between your presented data and healthcare 'outcomes' when nobody - and I mean nobody - else sees that link. Could you please please please please explain that for us, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards?

(Also, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, I noticed that above you said "We've posted the links so that you can get the data from sources such as ..." Could you also share with us who you were referring to by "We", since I am unaware of anyone else posting such links or data?)

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Forgive me for pointing this out, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I believe you forgot to address any of the questions (again).

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

Liberty,

Based on my personal experiences with the health care system and those of my family, it is clear to me that the system is both too expensive and not good enough.

Doctors and facilities vary widely in intelligence, skill and ability to communicate well with patients and their families.

Medical mistakes alone cause an alarming number of unnecessary illnesses and deaths in this country - nurses routinely say "If you get sick, the last place you want to go is a hospital".

The various systems in place to ensure quality are not working well enough. According to someone at the KBHA, the group that monitors doctors in Kansas, doctors routinely have many complaints. Of those, the board will only investigate some, and will not disclose any information about them to patients. The only thing they will tell you is whether there have been any "disciplinary actions".

So you don't find out what the complaints were, which were investigated, what they were found to have screwed up, and what actions were taken.

Not good enough.

My mother was in a facility for rehab that had no violations with the state board (in NYS), and yet it was flawed in many ways that I found unacceptable.

Something needs to be done to:

a. Ensure quality and accountability. b. Rein in costs. c. Find some way to make the system more accessible to those who currently cannot access it, other than through ER care.

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

POARCH PERSON

I give up, your ears are plugged!

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"I answered your questions."

Hmmm. I'm sure this was an honest mistake, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. I'm sure you believe you had answered the questions I posed. And I'm sure a person as important as yourself is much too busy to review all the posts, so I've taken the liberty of doing so for you, and sadly, I must inform you that you must have forgotten to do so. This is perplexing, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, because you present yourself as a knowledgeable source on healthcare issues, but your failure to answer those questions might leave some people with the (mistaken, I'm sure) impression you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, I realize you're such a busy person, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, without the time to go back to read the questions again, so let me help out by re-posting them:

1) How does the quality of healthcare affect infant mortality rates?

2) Perhaps you could clarify your contention that infant mortality and longevity are widely used indicators of health care 'outcomes' when the OECD - one of those authoritative sources you mention - says they're measures of global health, not healthcare quality?

3) How do the figures you posted by the CIA and UN shed any light on the relative quality of different healthcare systems when all they talk about is infant mortality and longevity?

4) How does the OECD rank healthcare system effectiveness, since they plainly state their data is incomplete, not directly comparable, and not intended for normative judgments?

"You're wanting "do-overs" "

5) If, indeed, you answered these questions previously, perhaps you could show those of us who can't find your answers a link to those answers?

6) Could you also explain who you wre referring to when you said "We've posted the links so that you can get the data", as I am unaware of any other poster who shares your - insight?

"and you're mocking the moderators because they are enforcing the TOS."

Tsk, tsk, so many misunderstandings, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. And, of course, I'm sure the moderators were just doing their jobs, and it's just a strange coincidence that the only posts removed on this thread were ones that challenged your - wisdom. But please, make no mistake about it - I am not mocking the moderators.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Denying the existence and meaning of communication which has already occurred is garfinkeling."

Thank you, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, for finally solving one mystery, and explaining why you haven't answered any of the questions yet continue to insist that you did. This 'garfinkeling' you speak of explains quite nicely why you keep claiming you said something that you clearly did not.

Now, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, would you like to answer these other questions? I am trying to help you out here, porchfinkel - oops, excuse me, I meant respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, of course - we certainly would not want anyone to get the mistaken impression that you don't really know anything about healthcare, or that you're being dishonest, or that you might be a troll, but you can understand that your continued avidance of answering simple questions is giving several posters that impression. So let me ask again, wanting to give you every opportunity to demonstrate your superior understanding of these issues:

1) How does the quality of healthcare affect infant mortality rates?

2) Perhaps you could clarify your contention that infant mortality and longevity are widely used indicators of health care 'outcomes' when the OECD - one of those authoritative sources you mention - says they're measures of global health, not healthcare quality?

3) How do the figures you posted by the CIA and UN shed any light on the relative quality of different healthcare systems when all they talk about is infant mortality and longevity?

4) How does the OECD rank healthcare system effectiveness, since they plainly state their data is incomplete, not directly comparable, and not intended for normative judgments?

5) If, indeed, you answered these questions previously, perhaps you could show those of us who can't find your answers a link to those answers?

6) Could you also explain who you wre referring to when you said "We've posted the links so that you can get the data", as I am unaware of any other poster who shares your - insight?

Please please please please please share your expertise with the rest of us, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. The last thing any of us want is for people to form the impression that you might be a know-nothing troll, that would be awful.

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

You are right; I do not want to trade the known, which works for me because I planned it to work, with the unknown that has been demonstrated in foreign national systems to ration care (availability, quality, timeliness). Our personal medical needs are not substantially different from many other seniors. We have been promised quality care and we expect it. You have a real challenge in convincing us that your new system will not ration care particularly when you tie it to existing systems that do

Worse, my government has shown a propensity to renege on almost everything it has promised. My Medicare is in jeopardy because the elected representatives will not pay for it. The issue is high cost. If your Holy Grail results in the same high cost just how far will they go in cutting care beyond that already part of those foreign systems you want to impose?

Actually, in at least one of the bills on the table there is a panel that can recommend changes to Medicare and my representatives must take it or leave it. I know, they will not harm me. You know, I am not that stupid. So much for the democratic process.

We have a long history in this country where we attack the existing institutions, offer an allegedly low cost and high quality substitution and then in time it turns out that the new solution is as bad or worse then that which was replaced. Us old people have memories. Shifting pain from young, low paid college kids to me is not the way to work the problem.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"When everyone accepts the benefit of making sure everyone has access to health care, costs go down."

Could you possibly give us an example of that happening, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards?

Or answer any of the other questions posed to you?

"Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development consider longevity and infant mortality rates to be significant parameters"

Unfortunately, and I'm sure this was an honest mistake, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, the OECD does not consider that parameter to be an indication of healthcare outcomes. This has been demonstrated to you several times now, with the accompanying links, I'm sure it was just an honest misstatement on your part.

This is so strange, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. An example of your great wisdom was something you said early on in this thread, that merely reporting medical facts without establishing a causal link to you argument is meaningless. Yet you continue to do that very thing, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

We're your friends, pocrchfinkel - oops, of course I meant respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. We're trying to help you. We do not want you to look foolish, uninformed, dogmatic, or troll-like. We want to revere you as one of the most respected fellow members of the award-winning LJW message boards. Yet, you refuse to help us understand your great wisdom by answering a few simple questions. How baffling. It's really beginning to look like you don't have any answers.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Not my fault you didn't know what the O E C D data showed before you submitted them as a reference.

I have decided to take your advice, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, and investigated the meaning of the words on the OECD website. Recognizing that a person of your importance does not have the time to do so, I will share my findings:

Main Entry: com·pa·ra·ble Pronunciation: ˈkäm-p(ə-)rə-bəl also kəm-ˈpa-rə-bəl, -ˈper-ə- Function: adjective Date: 15th century

1 : capable of or suitable for comparison 2 : similar, like

Hmmm. That would seem to mean that when the OECD says their data is not directly 'comparable', it should not be considered suitable for 'comparison' (the act or process of 'comparing', which in turn means to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences, to view in relation to).

I also found this:

Main Entry: nor·ma·tive Pronunciation: ˈnȯr-mə-tiv Function: adjective Etymology: French normatif, from norme norm, from Latin norma Date: 1878

1 : of, relating to, or determining norms or standards 2 : conforming to or based on norms 3 : prescribing norms

So it would appear, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, that you are in error, I'm sure it was an honest mistake, and that the meaning I ascribed to the OECD data was correct - the data is not intended to establish any form of ranking.

[continued]

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

[continued]

Since you seemed confused on a couple of other terms, I have taken the liberty of looking those up, too:

Main Entry: health Pronunciation: ˈhelth also ˈheltth Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English helthe, from Old English hǣlth, from hāl Date: before 12th century

1 a : the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially : freedom from physical disease or pain b : the general condition of the body 2 a : flourishing condition : well-being b : general condition or state 3 : a toast to someone's health or prosperity

Main Entry: health care Function: noun Date: 1940

: efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals —usually hyphenated when used attributively

So it would seem that there is a difference between "health" and "health care", and when the OECD uses infant mortality and longevity as measures of "health", they are not using those parameters as measures of "health care". Again, I'm sure this was an honest mistake on your part.

This is so baffling, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. You seem to have so many answers, it seems to be so very clear to you. Think of the service you could do your country if you would just deign to share that wisdom with the rest of us. All we ask is that you enlighten us by answering just some of the many questions posed to you, and yet for some reason you withhold that from us.

"You're getting ever closer to having more of your posts removed for violations of the T O S."

Would that mean you have some complaint (again) about the content of my posts, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards? I do not believe I have violated those terms with my recent posts. Perhaps if you were to 'suggest removal' and we could find out? I most certainly would not want to offend a person as knowledgeable and insightful as your esteemed self inadvertently.

Please please please please please share your wisdom with us, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, and answer just a few of our many questions?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Forgive me for pointing this out, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I believe you forgot to address any of the questions (again).

Are you feeling alright today, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards? I notice a conspicuous absence of (laughter). I certainly hope we have not overtaxed you in our requests that you clarify your position.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

"Porch is running up the white flag I see...."

Wouldn't someone actually have had to be in some kind of viable position to call it a surrender?

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

I am an incrementalist. I agree we need health care reform and support selective regulatory reforms. I am much more cautious about a big entitlement. I believe in personal responsibility but not in a way that avoids issues. I am paying more than $15K a year to help others but you and others want more. Others must have a responsibility to help themselves.

If one chooses to have four kids on a server’s salary than I am not sure I owe - in fact, there are all kinds of social services for such a person - but no responsibility to limit the number of kids to those affordable.

I would be much more amenable to helping if there were real processes to insure those helped are doing their best to help themselves to include a major effort to get off social services. Not everyone in our system will be paid as an engineer - some will get less - a lot less.

I might point out that our friends in the former Soviet Union also paid engineers more despite the notion of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs". If an engineer gets only what a clerk gets, why bother to go to school or actually design anything because you will get the same regardless.

We are paying people 59 weeks of unemployment and associated services. What happens at the end of that? Do we pay another 59 weeks? Many of the people on unemployment are now structurally unemployed. Our decision to compete them against low paid third world competition has destroyed their jobs - forever. We need to retrain these people to something available and then require them to take that job. They may even have to relocate - since the closing of small businesses in small towns may well be permanent.

Right now, if we were to pass Obama care with the associated large entitlement we would have to cut other entitlements - massively. We are probably going to have to do that anyway. So, just whom are we kidding - we cannot afford that new entitlement. The best we can probably do is extend Medicaid to some of those uninsured and demand that the rest pay for at least a basic insurance policy (with appropriate protections)!

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

Well, you are reading in again. I believe I pointed out that some people are unemployed because we did it to them. But some just will not work!

You are too subtle for me with your welfare sponge comment!.

I have a blog on taxes to the very end you suggest.

However, the fact remains that the extension of our current entitlements out about two decades consumes our GDP. You would have to have a tax rate of 100%.

We just cannot afford a whole lot more in entitlements if we are to honor the commitments already made. That is not a "party of no" talking point. That is, unfortunately, a fact! So, how do we pay for national health care - it includes a vast new entitlement under Obama's approach.

Are you suggesting that we could reduce all our entitlements if we switched to a national health care system?? I find that hard to follow. Just adding national health care will cost a lot more - unless we ration care - significantly.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"I know you mentioned this earlier [yada yada yada] "

notajayhawk (anonymous) says…

Forgive me for pointing this out, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I believe you forgot to address any of the questions (again).

The casual reader might just notice that you appear to be speaking from an orifice other than your mouth.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"We're paying twice the O E C D average. The countries paying less are having their people live longer and more of their children survive."

Well then, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, I guess you've solved the problem. All we have to do is spend less money and our children will survive and we'll live longer! Brilliant solution, the country owes you a great debt of gratitude!

BTW, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, the people in Sweden are taller than we are. If we copy their healthcare system, will you grow up?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"When you were avoiding the data that the O E C D has on health care systems, (data which proves you wrong), and learning how to use the dictionary, did you come across the word "efficiency"?"

Did you? Would you care to post the link to the ranking of various countries' healthcare system's by "efficiency", respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards?

"Your rage is going to get some more of your posts removed. "

Why, I can't imagine what you mean, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, as I do not believe I have said anything at all in violation of the terms of service. Again I suggest you click on the 'suggest removal' link if you believe I have, but I believe you'll find that the moderators, when they get complaints from whiny little 'B's who can't tolerate being exposed (not to imply that in any way applies to you, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, since I of course take you at your word that you do not complain to the moderators about posts you want removed), do not remove posts solely because they make your argument look foolish. Please feel free to try, though, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, because as I said earlier, I would not wish to insult you inadvertently.

Also, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, I believe I have made it very, very plain on numerous occasions that I find your posts a great source of amusement.

"I'm not the one employing invective. You are. It speaks volumes."

Really, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards? Perhaps you could point out those invectives? Or are you perhaps confused again, believing that any disagreement with your renowned wisdom and insight must be 'invective'?

Oh, BTW, forgive me for pointing this out yet again, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I believe you forgot to address any of the questions (again).

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"What's funny is watching you claim that you aren't using invective two paragraphs after you make the statement "whiny little 'B's who can't tolerate being exposed"."

Again, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, far be it for me to contradict one of your obvious intelligence, but I believe I was pretty clear that I was not speaking about you. Here, let me remind you of what I said: "not to imply that in any way applies to you ... since I of course take you at your word that you do not complain to the moderators about posts you want removed". Also, I believe I mentioned earlier that it could not be more than a coincidence that the only posts removed from this thread were addressed to you. Again I'm perplexed by your taking some offense at the characterization you cited, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, for if you did not read the posts that were removed, someone with your sharp mind must realize it could not have been you that reported the posts, and therefore I could not possibly have been talking about you. That makes one wonder about your defensiveness.

But in answer to your question, with minor rephrasing, what was said in the posts that were removed was re-posted in my following two posts. As I believe I mentioned, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, the moderators would not remove a post simply because the content of that post might have - inadvertently - made the arguments presented by some other poster appear foolish.

"the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development."

Again I am perplexed, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, as it was you that disputed what that organization had to say. I even cited for you the definitions of the words you seem to have either missed or misunderstood (recognizing it as an impossibility that you would have deliberately ignored them to alter the meaning of the OECD's data). But that does remind me, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards: You mentioned that the OECD talked about the relative efficiency of healthcare systems, and I requested the link to that information so that I can share in the knowledge you gained. I think you may have forgotten to provide such a link.

As a matter of fact, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, it pains me to keep reminding you of this, but I believe you forgot to address any of the questions (again). I realize such an important and busy person, with a job and everything, must be awfully busy, so would you like me to pose the questions again?

Because, and again I am just trying to help here, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, someone seeing your continued failure to answer such questions might get the wrong idea and actually believe you have no answers, and we all know that can not be true.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

nota,

I think you really should consider therapy - you are clearly a very angry and frustrated person.

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

I love efficiency. I would like cheaper health care. Those other national health care systems obtain "efficiency" by rationing care, paying doctors less, instituting long waits for certain care and the like. Worse they create a two tier system where the elites get better care than the rest.

I understand that fo you such a system is highly desired. For me, for the reasons stated, it is not. It is that simple,

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

This debate troubles me. We talk absolutes. If 5% of the people in Canada do not approve of their care that would be totally consistent with my point. Care is rationed. Only a few people are caught in the net. The net is there to save money. Saving money ties to costly care.

People my age use more medical servcies and seek more costly care. Care for everyone else would cost less under a national system because it would not pay for the costly care required by some. Those with money and a problem come here - that is not a large set because only a few are faced with rationing and our system is expensive and only a few people can face it at a fee for service basis.

So, if you want to kill Grandma, go right ahead. Now I know you are all going to say that will not happen. The real thing you should be saying is that we would convert to a national health care system that continued to provide all the services the way our current system does - or maybe even more services. Simple. Unfortunately such a system would probably cost pretty much what our current system does – maybe even more.

Remember, one of the talking points for health care reform is that the current system denies care. So just how does a national system on the British or Canadian model not deny care? They do! Are we being consistent?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

notajayhawk,

"You got beat with information from a reference you brought to the table and you're mad as hell about it. It's real simple."

Mad, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards? I believe I've made it quite clear that I find your posts quite amusing. Does one have to place the word (laughter) in their posts, appropriately or not, to appear less "mad"? Actually, I believe you'll find there is an alternate meaning for that word, and frequent (laughter) might give the casual reader the impression that a person constantly (laughing) meets that alternate definition.

Again, just trying to be helpful, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, because we wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression from your posts.

"You're also real mad that the moderators take a dim view of your namecalling and invective. You're mocking them with a very TomShewmon-like repetition of the very same thing he repeats after he's had his hand slapped. Such behavior is not lost on the moderators."

Well, first, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, I believe I've also made it quite clear that I am not mocking the moderators. Perhaps if you read more carefully some of these misunderstandings could be avoided? Incidentally, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, I repeat my invitation to you to seek the moderators' assistance if you believe I've violated any of the terms. But of course, we know you would never do that.

"From here, it's funny to watch your pleading but I'm not giving you "do-overs"."

Again, I am perplexed, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. You keep referring to this "do-over" concept. Wouldn't you have had to have answered the question at some point to call it a "do-over"? Going back to the beginning of the thread, some five days ago now, there don't seem to be any instances of that happening, as some other posters have mentioned. Perhaps, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, you could show those of us who seem incapable of finding the references you speak of some assistance to find them? In other words, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, could you please show us where you answered these questions that have been asked dozens of times, without apparent answer?

"The outcome would not change anymore than the data upon which it was based would."

Why, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, I believe you may have said something accurate here. I believe you're right - if you were to attempt to answer the questions, it would not change the 'outcome' of your argument one bit.

[continued]

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

[continued]

Perhaps you could just try to clarify one of your statements:

"Our health care system doesn't "drive" our infant mortality rate but the fact that our infant mortality rate isn't better is an indication that we should look for ways to improve our health care system."

Now, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, this would seem to be a contradiction - if if healthcare doesn't "drive" infant mortality rates, how would improving that system change the infant mortality rates? In other words, why would those rates serve as an indication of the need for improvement if they would be unaffected by any such improvement? Would you care to explain this apparent contradiction, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards? Or perhaps answer any of the other questions posed to you? Again, just trying to be helpful here, as the last thing I'd want is for someone to suspect you have no answers.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…

"Canada has a95% approval rating for their health care."

Really?

From a Gallup World Poll cited by the OECD:

Question: "In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the availability of quality health care?"

Country ............. Satiffied ..... Dissatisfied

Canada ............. 70% ........... 29% United States .... 81% ........... 19%

http://www.ecosante.org/OCDEENG/66.html


vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"Charges for sending a 5 pound package from Yonkers, NY to Folsom, CA on next day air: usps: $36.85 fedex: $73.50 ups: $73.50

"Wow! No wonder they're making a profit! They charge twice as much! Imagine that!"

So you're saying that higher prices lead to better service and a more financially sound organization to provide that service? Thanks for clearing that up.

jeremyhay 5 years, 2 months ago

I'm a Brit, a pensioner. I've lived in your fair city for a short time. Now I live in Germany. The British NHS works fine. It sorted out my teeth and a broken bone with no problems. A few right wing newspapers try to attack it - but it is accepted and highly regarded by 99% of the population. No political party dare suggest changing It. My brother-in-law in the UK has a lymphoma - he gets the most up-to-date drugs and oncological expertise provided as a matter of course. In Germany it is slightly better, although it is a bit more expensive, and has some admin. costs that could be pruned. There is also a risk of overtreatment. Some folk in Germany (9 million) are totally privately insured - not so good when they get older and premiums rocket. All in all the 70 million Germans who are publicly insured (costs me EUR 200 per month at 66) are very satisfied. The system works fine - and in Europe (500 million people) no-one wants a system(?) like the US has! Incidentally Tom Showmen - if you go to London on holiday and have a heart attack - you will be expertly treated at St Thomas's or Guys etc. - absolutely fee! (Emergency treatment is free for foreigners). And of course the UK, Germany and the rest of Europe is streets ahead of the US as regards peri-natal mortality and many other health indicators (as has been pointed out by other posters). Nobody in Europe has a fear of long term chronic illness bankrupting them - why so in the US? Or maybe some of that excessive military expenditure could go in a more productive direction?

BrianR 5 years, 2 months ago

"Nobody in Europe has a fear of long term chronic illness bankrupting them - why so in the US?"

The people who lose everything lost it to those with the money - many of the same folks who make rules and laws to favor themselves. It is a most vile form of income redistribution.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

jeremyhay (anonymous) says…

"A few right wing newspapers try to attack it - but it is accepted and highly regarded by 99% of the population."

Polls tend to suggest otherwise.

"And of course the UK, Germany and the rest of Europe is streets ahead of the US as regards peri-natal mortality and many other health indicators (as has been pointed out by other posters)."

And, as has been pointed out to those other posters, those health indicators have nothing to do with the health care system.

"Or maybe some of that excessive military expenditure could go in a more productive direction?"

Than defending the UK, for instance?

BrianR 5 years, 2 months ago

"Regarding health care, a man in the UK dies of dehydration because of poor care in the hospital. "

A quick Internet search will reveal numerous cases of this, and worse, happening in U.S. hospitals.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"what I'm saying is the reason they are making a profit is because they charge twice as much. You can't bemoan the USPS for not making a profit while ignoring the fact that they charge half less what the commercial companies do."

Failing to make a profit is one thing. Soaking up hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money every year is another.

Suppose they raised their prices to cover their losses - do you think that would make them somehow a superior, or even competitive, provider if they charged the same as FedEx or UPS?

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

nota,

Actually, the USPS is required to make the money they need from fees - they're not actually "soaking up" taxpayer dollars.

That's why they're proposing to cutback hours instead of just getting money from the government.

JHOK32 5 years, 2 months ago

Other nations apparently do not have a hoard of greedy Republicans in their congresses who only care about taking care of the very rich & could care less about the average citizens in their respective countries who need the most help. Just look at the mess our country is in right now from this very problem: School districts closing schools & laying off teachers, millions of Americans out of work, lost their homes, their life savings, their retirements, not to mention their health insurance. hmmm......................isn't that what happened in France once upon a time?

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

Why is it that when I suggest a national health care system that provides all the care we currently receive, no one bit. Am I to infer that you really want to ration care?

I am sure that we all have annecdotal instances of national systems delivering or failing to deliver care. The real issue is in statistics related to treatment. If the British system has a higher cancer mortality rate that just might suggest that expensive near death care is in fact rationed. If that is the case, and I believe it to be so, then people like me do not want to go there while people who have used those systems for more routine care are happy indeed?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"You know why USPS doesn't turn a profit? Because they are the only organization, public or private, that has to use 10% of its operating costs to cover retiree funding."

But they didn't make that payment last year, did they, Jesse? Congress let them off the hook for all but $1.4B out of the scheduled $5.4B last September - and they still lost almost $3B.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

"Also they are expected to lose $6B this FY due to the recession, retirement funding, etc. "

As for the retirement funding, see above. As to the recession, that has indeed caused a drop-off in the bulk mailing sector - but that was the only thing keeping the USPS afloat. Regular, person-to-person mail has been dropping off for years, due to the increase in electronic mail, billing, and payments. From 2000 to 2008, for example, the percentage of household bills paid electronically has more than tripled, from 11% to 38%. And total volume is dropping off - six of the past nine year's total volumes were decreases, compared to only seven declines for the entire 20th century.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

"Sheer volume alone makes them superior to the other two companies."

Actually, sheer volume is a necessity for the postal service, not a measure of their superiority. The only way the USPS can keep carriers coming to your house every day is if there's mail in their pouch. As that volume continues to decline, they can not maintain the sheer weight of their operations. What happens if the bulk mail segment doesn't recover? What happens when the advertisers find out it's more cost-effective to pursue something like, for instance, internet advertising? The postal service does not project a return to volumes above 200B pieces of mail, far from it. Without the volume, the USPS will inch incrementally closer to a per-piece model just like UPS and FedEx, where each individual piece of mail will have to pay for itself.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

"Umm... taxpayer dollars received by the USPS in 2009 = $0"

Technically true. But as the USPS draws ever nearer it's $15B debt limit (projected by the end of this year), who do you think is going to be on the hook for that $15B, Jesse? Why do you think lenders continue to give money to the postal service - would they lend more and more money to FedEx or UPS if they were losing billions of dollars per year, without a belief that the government was backing the debt?

[continued]

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

[continued]

As a matter of fact, the postal service projects $238 BILLION in losses over the next ten years unless they substantially change their operations. What they want to do to prevent that incorporates some of your points, but more: Greater flexibility in paying their employees (in other words, scrapping their union contracts), reducing the number of days they deliver, cutting the workforce, closing post offices - you know, doing all those things that you correctly point out private companies can do that they can't. Or, too put it another way, the USPS can continue to compete with private business - but not without drastic reductions in the level of service.

Then again, saying that the USPS can only survive if it drastically reduces service levels and becomes more like private competitors is hardly a good argument for turning our private insurance system into a public one, is it?

BrianR 5 years, 2 months ago

"Am I to infer that you really want to ration care?"

The gatekeepers - insurers already do that in the U.S. system.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"I don't want to "beat" notajayhawk or Liberty_One."

How strange, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards - you claim you don't want to "beat" anyone but your posts are littered with such statements as these:

"I know I have the best poker hand. I know you can't win this argument." March 4, 2010 at 4:31 p.m.

"One can tell who is winning." March 5, 2010 at 1:25 a.m.

Would this be another example of that term you referred to earlier, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards: 'garfinkeling'?

"He can look up the statistics on his own (if I hadn't presented them) but he won't. "

Excuse me, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I believe you have once again misunderstood Liberty's posts. He has not (and neither have I, incidentally) said you haven't presented the statistics. What both of us have been asking - repeatedly over the course of several days now - is that you establish some link between those statistics and our healthcare system. Someone of great wisdom posted this comment earlier in the thread:

porch_person (anonymous) says... "presenting a medical fact isn't an argument until you can show how it applies to your argument. Create a causal connection, back it up with data conclusively showing that this is the reason why [insert related factoid here]. You haven't done that. All you've done is show that you can look up a medical fact. Whoopee!!" March 3, 2010 at 1:53 a.m.

Now, again, I am only trying to be helpful, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, because we certainly would not want anyone to get the wrong idea from your repeated failure to address those questions. But you say yourself that failure to establish a causal link renders the statistics meaningless - which is particularly baffling given your admission that "Our health care system doesn't "drive" our infant mortality rate" (March 5, 2010 at 5:18 p.m.). Again, we wouldn't want the casual reader unfamiliar with your great wisdom and insight to get the wrong impression, but it might appear to such a reader that when you say "That's how I "win"", you mean you "win" by presenting disconnected facts and ignoring repeated requests to explain how those facts are related, answer simple questions, or explain your apparent contradictions.

As a matter of fact, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, when you make statements such as: "You're nuts. I submit you come here for attention. The fact that the attention comes in the form of public humiliation in debate still gets you the attention you crave. Thus, you're happy." (March 4, 2010 at 8:20 p.m.), it might just lead some people (not myself, of course, as I have nothing but the utmost respect for your insight and great wisdom, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards) to believe you're describing your own behavior.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"You're arguing against a proven solution to a social need in a society with an aging population, a society already paying more than anyone else for less than superior performance."

Again, please excuse my audacity at questioning you, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but could you please explain what parameters you are using to define "superior performance", in light of your earlier admission that "Our health care system doesn't "drive" our infant mortality rate"?

Kontum1972 5 years, 2 months ago

socialism is just a word....just like carpet bombing...get over it...and lets clean up the health system from the money hungry insurance companies. I just got into a big fight with BC& BS of kansas...over coverage for my sons injury he is not fully cured and they say its time to stop...bet if it was their kid they wouldnt be stopping

Flap Doodle 5 years, 2 months ago

“…Are you saying insuring people with no health insurance is “beside the point”? No, but driving the country into bankruptcy isn’t going to help anyone in the long run. Wouldn’t you agree?...” http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/08/buckley-now-says-scrap-the-hope-and-change/

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"You miss my point entirely."

Well, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, forgive me for pointing out how easy that is to do. Many of us mere mortals do not seem worthy of understanding the complexity of your argument. For instance, you say that infant mortality is a widely used parameter for measuring healthcare systems' 'outcomes', but then you say "Our health care system doesn't "drive" our infant mortality rate". The argument you consistently return to is that you have cited some statistics, yet you say that doing so without establishing a causal link is meaningless. Repeated requests for you to explain these apparent discrepancies go unheeded. How, exactly, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, is someone expected to get your 'point'?

"know what your sources say before you submit them"

Another apparent discrepancy, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards - I KNOW, for instance, that the source I cited stated plainly that their data was not directly comparable due to its incomplete nature and differences in the reporting methods used between countries, and it was therefore not intended to be used for normative judgments. Yet somehow you seem to want to use their data outside these expressed limitations. Could you explain that, perhaps, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards?

"I'm fighting for a service you and your wife will need, as will we all, at some point or another."

Respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, my wife and I respectfully decline your 'assistance'. It is again baffling that someone with your deeply rooted sense of 'what's best for everyone' seems so unacquainted with the concept, and have actually scoffed at, the preference of someone to pay their own bills. How strange.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Forgive me for pointing this out, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I believe you forgot to address any of the questions (again).

Tom McCune 5 years, 2 months ago

Several media sources now reporting that Sara Palin used to sneak across the border into Canada to mooch their free, completely adequate health care.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

Ironic my foot. Typical narcissist hypocrite dirtbag.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"If you want instruction, sign up in the registrar's office and go to the business office and pay your bill. I don't do this for free."

Forgive me for pointing this out, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but when I said something to that effect earlier on, you claimed that was proof of the lack of an answer.

Also, forgive me for pointing this out, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I believe you forgot to address any of the questions (again).

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"I supplied the assessments of the United Nations and the CIA with regard to infant mortality rates and longevity. "

Hmmm, I think I'm starting to see the problem, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. It would appear you have been attempting to answer the wrong question.

One might think, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, that you were attempting to make the argument that those statistics from the CIA and the UN somehow establish that those other countries' healthcare systems are superior to ours. You must be so overtaxed, what with having a job and all, that you have forgotten that you yourself said presenting such information without establishing a causal link was meaningless, and also that you yourself said that healthcare does not drive infant mortality. Oh, and the OECD agrees with you on that point, incidentally, as it does not use either infant mortality or or longevity in its measures of healthcare quality (how very strange, when you seem so certain that those measures are widely used).

And so it appears, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, that we have come full circle (again), and back to the original question: How does the quality of a healthcare system affect infant mortality? Because, as much as it pains me to point this out, if you can not establish that link, it would mean you have presented absolutely no evidence at all to support your contention that those other countries' healthcare system, are 'superior', have better 'outcomes', or have better quality. It almost seems like the only argument you have presented consists of that phenomenon you mentioned earlier - I believe you called it 'garfinkeling' - along with evasion, distraction, misinterpretation, circular logic, and that strange but persistent tendency you have to revert to (laughter).

Why, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, it almost seems like you were, indeed, speaking of yourself when you said "You're nuts. I submit you come here for attention. The fact that the attention comes in the form of public humiliation in debate still gets you the attention you crave. Thus, you're happy." (March 4, 2010 at 8:20 p.m.)

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Everyone can see what the data means."

Apparently, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, this does not seem to be the case. Several posters have questioned your - complex - argument and requested clarification for the - I think you called it 'garfinkeling' - you continue to post. Again, you seem to be mistaken as to the nature of the question; the story attached to this thread, and the original question posed to you (just to refresh your memory - it has been six days that you have been - forgetting - to answer the question), had to do with whether other countries' healthcare systems had better outcomes than ours, not where we stood in infant mortality figures.

This 'dissembling' you speak of, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards - is that what you are attempting to do with your posts, demonstrating for us - again - the weak methods used by those without a valid argument? As you continued to demonstrate that concept of 'garfinkeling' you defined - and continue to demonstrate - for us?

This would all be so easy to clear up, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. All you have to do to demonstrate your renowned wisdom and insight, so far beyond mere mortals such as us, is to answer the simple question of how healthcare systems affect infant mortality rates? Perhaps those sources of your great knowledge, the U.N. and the CIA, could assist you in answering the question?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Both of you need to get a life."

Liberty_One comment history - 2637 comments since 10/24/08 (501 days), or 5.26 comments/day

notajayhawk comment history - 4575 comments since 2/12/08 (756 days), or 6.05 comments/day

porch_person comment history - 3583 comments since 1/12/09 (421 days), or 8.51 comments/day

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Pretty impressive, what with having a job and everything, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Excuse me, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, but I was just trying to copy your renowned debating style. This is all so confusing - posting statistics is all that's required, then you need a causal link, then all you need is to post numbers, then those numbers don't mean anything again, really, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, it would be so helpful to the rest of us if you would pick a theme and stick with it.

BTW, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, the numbers are readily available and easy to find. Or, to quote a brilliant poster from up above, "Or is there a correlation between the speed at which I can refute you and the probability that such skills at data mining mean I do research better than you?"

Why are you attempting to refute the data, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards? Are you trying to say that you know better than the LJW how many posts their members make?

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Why are you disputing the data, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards? I've clearly demonstrated that you spend more time posting than those you criticize. The rankings speak for themselves, and everyone can see what they mean. It's difficult to argue with statistics, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards. I guess it just makes you mad that the rankings didn't come out the way you liked.

Ah, well.

BTW, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, are you going to answer the question that has been before you for, oh, more than six days now? We certainly wouldn't want anyone to believe that you had no argument at all, that you couldn't back up your claims.

Oh, since you're taking so much time to prepare your answers, respected fellow member of the award-winning LJW message boards, perhaps you could add one more to the list?

As to another of the sources of your 'data', the U.N., do they consider infant mortality and longevity to be measures of healthcare "outcomes", or of health, as the OECD does? Just curious.

snoozey 5 years, 2 months ago

I wonder how the developed countries with better health care track records prevented their politicians from being bought by the iinsurance/pharmaceutical/trial lawyer cartels? Term limits? Electorate action? Restricted lobbyist legislation? Whatever was needed by the more successful countries is sorely lacking here. Perhaps we are just too uneducated and unintelligent as a whole to demand our voices be heard.

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"yada yada yada yada yada"

I thought "winning" wasn't what you were trying to do, porch? More garfinkeling?

This is simple enough for even you to understand. This started with a simple question that, a week later, you still can not answer. You made the claim that those other countries' healthcare systems outperform our own. Not that those people were healthier, which depends on numerous other factors besides the healthcare system, you said those countries have better healthcare system "outcomes".

You were asked to provide the basis for that claim, other than the infant mortality and longevity statistics which you conceded have nothing to do with the healthcare system. You have been asked, dozens of times, to answer several questions related to the contradictory statements and baseless claims you've made. And you have failed to answer even one of them.

None of your sources use mortality or longevity as a basis for comparison of healthcare systems, only for the general health of a population. None of your rambling, distraction, evasion, garfinkeling, or dishonest tactics change that. There's no invective here, just simple statements of fact - you were asked to back up your claims, given an entire week to do so, and you couldn't do it.

Now have fun talking about how we're arguing with the UN, the CIA, etc. - we're not. We have stated, quite plainly, that the numbers you posted have nothing to do with healthcare system "outcomes", and your own sources confirm that. So bluster away - your 'poker hand' got called, and it turned out that, as usual, you were holding absolutely nothing.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

snoozey's question is an excellent one and should be discussed - How did other countries prevent the moneyed interests from controlling their governments?

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

A bunch of you.

Of course we rationed care in this country. It is in part economically rationed - usually by choice. I remind you that Medicaid and sHhips amomg others provide quality care for many at the bottom end of the economic strata. In other countries with national health care systems it is rationed by expected outcomes or somebody's definition of "elective" in addition to being economically rationed.

Still nobody has responded to my acceptance of national health care if it were to deliver all the care currently available in responsible employer provided health care insurance. Why is that? Oh, by the way, my national system would not allow the government to reduce care - funding would always be what is required to pay for it.

I don’t know about what systems you are talking about. Every system I have been in (employer provided, government provided, supplements) has provided excellent preventive care. It has only been since we went on Medicare that preventive care has suffered.

Cancer screening?? I am not sure what you mean there. Routine screening under our commercial insurance found one of the tumors and the other was found by accident when pursuing something else. (There were no symptoms in either case).

I am beginning to think that most of you have a bunch of point papers that you follow? Do any of you actually have insurance that commits all the stated and implied malfeasance?

George Lippencott 5 years, 2 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

Thank you, I agree and have posted blogs on how to improve it at this point in time. I do not support most of the Republican alternatives to Obama care. I support many of the arguments about what needs to be done. I do not support removing what is available under government care from the vote of the people's representatives. My support for any new financial entitlement is tempered by the recognition that we can not sustain those entitlements already in place. I know that even without new government financial entitlements we will still have to cut those already in place. I remember the British Parliament cutting their national health care system or reducing the amount needed over many years resulting in delays and denial of services in that system. You should watch the arguments on the "telly”.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.