RE: HEALTH CARE

RE: HEALTH CARE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 10:55:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Life expectancy at age 5 is higher in the US than Canada and every Western European country. Proof please. Your saying its so don't make it so. What countries are you interested in. I'll have to send them via PM since we cant post images here

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 10:58:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic in 2008 based on income of $60,000. Tax paid, 12,500..(these are rounded up to nearest $500) That was on a family of four. Thats total income tax paid at source. I have no separate data for how much went to paying health care out of that amount.... Canadian Pension plan stood at $2,500 Employment insurance was $1,200. No other deductions paid out. During the year, Family went to the doctor a total of 32 times Tests performed.ten blood tests five xrays, 1 cat scan, two emergency room visits, stitches, IV antibiotics, four complete physicals, two specialists (urologist, gynaecologist) Medication for the year was $3,600(covered by employer health insurance)=0$ out of pocket No bills, no hassles, no paperwork. just a workin joe Lucy The total dollars spent above tell you all you need to know. It doesnt matter whether income is redistributed to pay for it, it has to come from somewhere.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 11:01:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: And as I said that is a misleading number because that is just a surcharge introduced in 2004 and accounts for only a small portion of what you pay, the rest through income and other taxes. Nice try though. Please explain why in the US the per capita health care expenditures are nearly double that in Canada, and yet nearly 18% of the population under 65% is not covered. quote: However the entire difference in life expectancy at birth is explained by infant mortality rates, which in turn is totally explained by the higher prevalence of at risk births. And why does the US have this higher prevalence of at risk births? Is this also why the infant mortality rates are better in Cuba, Slovenia, Greece, South Korea, etc.? just what factors unrelated to health care that is not exostant in these other countries puts these pregnancies at risk? quote: Ie the differences in life expectancy have nothing to do with the health care system, and everything to do with lifestyle and demographics. Kindly explain and provide proof. One would generally think that the health care system in a country would be in some way related to the infant mortality rate, so I am very interested to learn how the two are in no way related. You really dont understand that there are risk factors unrelated to a health care system that effect life expectancy? I'll be happy to explain them to you if you really don't, but I dont think you are that ignorant and just want to waste time.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 11:02:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcbride So, we're agreed, then, that, as i said, you were close on that one fact, but still got it wrong. No, we're not. I didnt get any facts wrong.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 11:06:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcbride Just to recap, since you didn't acknowledge the fact, the US has an overall mortality rate of 8.4 per thousand, compared to Canada's 6.5. That, as discussed, is a large difference. what is an "overall mortality rate"? I suspect it is the crude death rate, but it isnt an actuarial term. then kindly breakdown that mortality rate by cause. And you might want to give sources for your figures, since if you are referring to the crude death rate, the Canada rate I find online is 7.6 and for the US its 8.0 both for 2008. You may also be interested to know that the rate of deaths from accidents, murder, and suicide account for a bit more than .4 of that overall difference (ie the crude death rates are about the same excluding accidents murder and suicide). You may be further interested to know that the risk factor of obesity (primarily a lifestyle choice, not a health care quality issue) contributed to over .8 deaths/1000 difference. Smoking, the other primary controllabe risk factor is a wash, with 1.5/1000 in each country attributed.

Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 12:01:08 PM)
July 24, 2009 Health Care Problem Isn't Socialism, It's Capitalism By Bill Maher http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/24/health_care_problem_isnt_socialism_its_capitalism_97610.html How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit…… If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism. This is a hilarious. Watch it until the end when he makes excellent jokes and comments about healthcare. Real Time with Bill Maher New Rules July 24 2009 302 views - 3 hours ago As per Chris Matthews, Bill Maher is the funniest man on the planet. http://www.youtube.com/user/thealxndr

Ialdabaoth -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 12:32:24 PM)
A personal story: I lost my healthcare recently due to layoffs. As a result, when I had to dig through a clogged sink and stabbed myself in the hand with a roommate's carelessly discarded steak knife, I just cleaned out the wound the best I could and bandaged up the hand. It's infected now. I don't have the money to go to the ER any more than I did a month ago. Now, talk to me about the ethics of capitalism. Should I lose my hand? I'm normally a pretty good computer programmer, repairman, you name it; there's just not much I can do right now in this market, and I'm trying to go back to school. But I'd really like to be back in the game soon, and I'd really rather have two hands to do that with than one. Should I lose my hand? Who will be the first to tell me, "tough shit, get a job you bum"?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 12:46:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth It's infected now. I don't have the money to go to the ER any more than I did a month ago. It doesnt cost any money to go to the ER. If you are denied service you have a get rich quick opportunity, call your lawyer...after you get the hand looked at in a different ER.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 12:53:38 PM)
I dont remember where I heard it but since 90% of the outrage over health care in the US is the "uninsured" issue, someone proposed that the government fund free clinics for the uninsured, with mandatory service at a clinic at very low salaries, for any doctor applying for a license. (Say a minimum of 3 years of service that could be performed over a 10 year period, so there is reduced economic pressure on the doc). The clinics can be privately owned and operated, with the only government intervention the payment of the salary for the docs during their minimum service period. It wont cost $1 trillion, and it will cover all of the uninsured, not just 2/3 of them.

Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 3:12:18 PM)
Rural Americans And The Unemployed Struggle To Get Adequate Health Insurance "For many of the 60 million people living in rural America, inadequate and unaffordable healthcare is an immediate and growing problem," Reuters reports. "Reform is a big deal here. We're on the edge," said Brian Wolfe, an Iola [Kansas] family doctor http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158693.php

Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 3:41:09 PM)
New Poll: American Confidence In Access To Care Is Growing "The survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, showed the public overwhelmingly considers President Barack Obama's drive to overhaul health care a crucial weapon in the battle to end the country's economic problems - one of the rationales he has used in his health care campaign. Eighty-five percent said it is important that Obama make reshaping health care part of his efforts to restore the economy. … Researchers said they were unsure why the measure had ticked up, but said the bump was significant. They suggested it might be due to expectations that Washington will improve the health care system." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158530.php

Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 4:01:05 PM)
quote: I dont remember where I heard it but since 90% of the outrage over health care in the US is the "uninsured" issue, someone proposed that the government fund free clinics for the uninsured, with mandatory service at a clinic at very low salaries, for any doctor applying for a license. (Say a minimum of 3 years of service that could be performed over a 10 year period, so there is reduced economic pressure on the doc). The clinics can be privately owned and operated, with the only government intervention the payment of the salary for the docs during their minimum service period. It wont cost $1 trillion, and it will cover all of the uninsured, not just 2/3 of them. An idea worth examining, though the manditory service in the clinics will cause a right hullabaloo with the AMA. I have no idea what the cost might be, but I agree with you it would likely be a damn sight less than $1 trillion, even spread over 10 years. The only real problem I see with the idea is the liklihood of the clinics having far less resources and therefore effectively 3rd world level of care. If that issue can be dealt with, and with the political will it can be, then this idea is definately worth further study.

Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 4:02:54 PM)
quote: You really dont understand that there are risk factors unrelated to a health care system that effect life expectancy? I'll be happy to explain them to you if you really don't, but I dont think you are that ignorant and just want to waste time. What I really want to know is why these other risk factors are so much more prelevant in the US as compared with other countries, some of them definately not 1st class ones (Cuba & Slovenia for example).

Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 4:05:04 PM)
quote: What countries are you interested in. I'll have to send them via PM since we cant post images here Surely if the statistics are valid you can find a link to them online...I got my infant mortality numbers from the CIA Factbook webpage.

Lorr47 -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 4:28:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I dont remember where I heard it but since 90% of the outrage over health care in the US is the "uninsured" issue, someone proposed that the government fund free clinics for the uninsured, with mandatory service at a clinic at very low salaries, for any doctor applying for a license. (Say a minimum of 3 years of service that could be performed over a 10 year period, so there is reduced economic pressure on the doc). The clinics can be privately owned and operated, with the only government intervention the payment of the salary for the docs during their minimum service period. It wont cost $1 trillion, and it will cover all of the uninsured, not just 2/3 of them. No, that is not 90 % of the problem. The CEO of Mayo's opined that since the United States will be bankrupt by 2015 because of health care costs, men of good conscience will want to solve it now. Obviously the CEO is overwhelmed by the cost factor and the delivery system. The problem I see is that there is a dearth of "men of good conscience." I would have noticed if "anyone" focused on the uninsured as being the overwhelming problem. I am scheduled to have my right arm amputated just below the elbow since we lost our insurance through a job loss and I did not receive medical treatment soon enough. I am one one those useless persons who lost medical coverage because of a job loss although we paid the premiums up to 55. I would have noticed such an argument. I am severely tested to refrain from telling you where you can go; how you can get there; and what you should do along the way. Specious arguments based on a dearth of morality seem to be a specialty. The two operations to save the arm would cost about $90,000 with only a 20% chance of success (and definite paralysis) I do not intend to sell everything because the private insurers lack the morals of road kill. Yes, I was offered charity for about $30,000. But, why should I get charity because I know so may attorneys and doctors vs a younger person who is not known to the system. I rejected it. I think I may make a social comment after outlining the lack of a health care system in this county and place the arm on the railway tracks. The railway tracks are my health care system in this country. Some of us feel that this is a time for moral persons to stand up and yell loudly in defense of those who follow. Your private insurers have not been able to resolve this issue since 1935. And, they are going to solve it in 2009? May you get giant cell bone tumors in your jaw.

mcbride -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 4:43:23 PM)
No, willbeurdaddy, I won't. I'm putting up facts, and correcting your errors, for the sake of Americans who may be a bit uncertain, not for you. You're obviously not even reading the material you're posting, let alone the simple facts I've pointed out. You evidently think readers will be confused if you obfuscate. I'm happy to let them decide.

Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 4:54:20 PM)
Kennedy's CLASS Act Would Establish National Long Term Care Insurance The C.L.A.S.S. Act, a bill introduced by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, The C.L.A.S.S. Act (short for Community Living Assistance Services and Support, if you're wondering) could transform the way people pay for long-term care. To date, two of the five Congressional committees working on a health care overhaul have adopted the proposed legislation; the others have yet to vote." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158692.php

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 5:03:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: I dont remember where I heard it but since 90% of the outrage over health care in the US is the "uninsured" issue, someone proposed that the government fund free clinics for the uninsured, with mandatory service at a clinic at very low salaries, for any doctor applying for a license. (Say a minimum of 3 years of service that could be performed over a 10 year period, so there is reduced economic pressure on the doc). The clinics can be privately owned and operated, with the only government intervention the payment of the salary for the docs during their minimum service period. It wont cost $1 trillion, and it will cover all of the uninsured, not just 2/3 of them. An idea worth examining, though the manditory service in the clinics will cause a right hullabaloo with the AMA. I have no idea what the cost might be, but I agree with you it would likely be a damn sight less than $1 trillion, even spread over 10 years. The only real problem I see with the idea is the liklihood of the clinics having far less resources and therefore effectively 3rd world level of care. If that issue can be dealt with, and with the political will it can be, then this idea is definately worth further study. University dental clinics provide service at or above those already in practice because they have immediate access to the latest technologies. Theres no reason a medical model on a larger scale would have to provide 3rd world service.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 5:11:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: You really dont understand that there are risk factors unrelated to a health care system that effect life expectancy? I'll be happy to explain them to you if you really don't, but I dont think you are that ignorant and just want to waste time. What I really want to know is why these other risk factors are so much more prelevant in the US as compared with other countries, some of them definately not 1st class ones (Cuba & Slovenia for example). Some are cultural, some are education related, some are genetic...the diversity of the population makes it very difficult to pin down. One of the less obvious but important reasons for the prevalance of low birth weight babies is the quality of pre-natal care. A greater percentage of them survive till they can be removed safely. In other countries they are still born and dont make it into the infant mortality statistics. A similar result from the tech side is that older women are more willing to risk pregancies that would be avoided without expensive genetic testing, and multiple births from greater access to fertility drugs, implantation, etc.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (7/25/2009 5:13:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcbride No, willbeurdaddy, I won't. I'm putting up facts, and correcting your errors, for the sake of Americans who may be a bit uncertain, not for you. You're obviously not even reading the material you're posting, let alone the simple facts I've pointed out. You evidently think readers will be confused if you obfuscate. I'm happy to let them decide. Look, mcwhatever. Your numbers are wrong, period.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625