Let's talk healthcare

[JustinW]

John,

 

Justin, you don't understand freedom at all. I'd love to be an employer in the US. So long as there was a good health plan I could treat my workers like the slaves they are. Nobody would leave as they are trapped by healthcare costs. In contrast in Australia I have to be polite and work with my employees, by having access to universal healthcare my people can tell me where to go and when without fear. Australians are free to choose who to work for, Americans are not. Any way you slice it we have freedoms that you don't.

That's a bunch of crap. While healthcare benifits are an incentive to choose a certain employment, they are in no way turning people into SLAVES. If someone is too chicken s**t to find a new job out of fear of not having healthcare, then they know nothing about the access to healthcare in the US. Do you people think we are just letting people die in the streets? First people argue that because we can walk in off the streets and get medical attention that it's costing the taxpayer too much. The they turn right around and say people are dying right and left from the lack of access. I wish they would make up their minds.

 

 

As to the whole "individual responsibility" argument, what a joke. Civilised nations view Universal Healthcare as a given. Just like a fire brigade, ambulances, honest cops and an uncorrupted judiciary, these are the benefits of living in a civilised nation. We all pay a little bit in our taxes for the Firies, but very few of us will need them to put out a house fire. Why shouldn't avoiding house fires be "individual responsibility" as well?

It's not a joke. There are some of us out there who don't like to help someone who won't help themselves. I agree with Phi on one thing he has said in the past, "that no one want's to see a single mother with two children, who happens to have fallen on hard times do without", but I frankly don't give a damn about the lazy SOB that wont get of his arse to get a job. You know...those who want something for nothing, those who feel the world owes them something just because they're here.

 

 

 

Religion we discuss a few forums up, around here facts and data win.

Facts and data huh? Like when you say things like this?

I'd love to be an employer in the US. So long as there was a good health plan I could treat my workers like the slaves they are.

 

 

 

Anybody arguing that a developed nation should not have some form of universal coverage should also be arguing against police, highways, firies and ambos on the same basis.

Everything listed here besides highways are put to use in matters of emergency. We also have healthcare for that. It's called an "emergency room". And at least we are not waiting outside in an ambulance so we can keep up with the waiting time quotas. http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?Src=RSS&docid=212666359

[zapatos]

And this really only applies to those who aren't living up to their responsibilities to provide for themselves. The same people that will get the benifit from such a healthcare system.

 

 

And when did THAT stop being an individual responsibility?

 

 

My arguement on this point is ,yes, it is a persons individual responsibility to provide this for themselves. Since when did we have to treat the majority of our population like children? If someone doesn't take responsibility for themselves, let them suffer the consequences. That may seem harsh, but I don't believe in pampering a grown adult. And I don't believe my government should mandate that I provide for them. Us middle class Americans have a hard enough job of providing for our own as it is.

I can only hope that you are not responsible for the welfare of anyone.

 

You either have no concept of what goes on in the real world or completely lack empathy. I cannot think of what else could lead to these kinds of comments.

 

Some people, through no fault of their own, are not capable of providing for themselves. Emotional problems, mental problems, social problems, physical problems, abuse by parents/spouses/siblings, environment, old age, young age, dementia, Asperger's, divorce, cancer, and just plain bad luck can all lead to people not "living up to their responsibilities to provide for themselves".

 

Yes, letting them "suffer the consequences" does seem harsh.

 

I can only hope you do not run your family this way. "She's 18, if she cannot find a job in this economy to pay for dental insurance, that is not my problem. Let her suffer the consequences and bear the pain of that cavity. Sorry if I sound harsh."

 

In my family, we all are responsible for each other and help each other when in need. I don't expect a lot out my country, but I do expect the basics, such as fighting for me when I need protection, eliminating barriers to my ability to fend for myself, and helping me when I cannot care for myself. If our government cannot do even that for us, then what good is it?

 

I suspect that you never complain about the government providing roads for you to drive on, police to protect you, the military to guard your borders, firemen to protect your house, or any of the other services that they provide, that happen to be of use to you. But as soon as it is something that you personally don't need, then it is every man for himself. "Why should I have to pay? I'm having a hard enough time providing for my own!"

 

Bullshit.

 

When you start advocating everyone taking on the INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY of providing for their own personal protection in place of a police force, then I'll get on board with you for everyone providing their own health care.

[Phi for All]

There are some of us out there who don't like to help someone who won't help themselves. I agree with Phi on one thing he has said in the past, "that no one want's to see a single mother with two children, who happens to have fallen on hard times do without", but I frankly don't give a damn about the lazy SOB that wont get of his arse to get a job. You know...those who want something for nothing, those who feel the world owes them something just because they're here.

I think you're letting one aspect of our system blind you to all the good it does. For every lazy slob on the dole their are many people who truly need the help that only a national risk pool can accomplish.

 

As JohnB points out, this system we have is SO broken that it ends up inflicting more harm than cures. Just like birth control having an 18-year delayed effect on adult crime statistics, the focus on profit and power that politicians and corporate interests and conflicted private insurance carriers has had a cumulative effect on how our social programs are viewed by the people. Notice how our wars give us more enemies, our prisons give us more felons and our lack of healthcare benefits gives us more indigent people sitting in the ERs?

 

 

Everything listed here besides highways are put to use in matters of emergency. We also have healthcare for that. It's called an "emergency room".

Oh, but that's the absolute MOST inefficient way to care for people! It costs taxpayers in the US in more ways than just money to support an emergency-only type of healthcare.

[JustinW]

zapatos,

 

I can only hope that you are not responsible for the welfare of anyone.

Actually those of whom I provide for do quite well thank you.

 

 

You either have no concept of what goes on in the real world or completely lack empathy. I cannot think of what else could lead to these kinds of comments.

It must be hard to carry the worlds burdens on your shoulders. I live in a world where nothing's free and everything's earned. A place where we still understand that healthcare is a privilege not a right. I heard, just this morning, the same comparison made between healthcare and driving. Driving is still a privilege, yet look at the necessity of it.

 

 

Some people, through no fault of their own, are not capable of providing for themselves. Emotional problems, mental problems, social problems, physical problems, abuse by parents/spouses/siblings, environment, old age, young age, dementia, Asperger's, divorce, cancer, and just plain bad luck can all lead to people not "living up to their responsibilities to provide for themselves".

And we have programs for those people. What's your point?

 

I can only hope you do not run your family this way. "She's 18, if she cannot find a job in this economy to pay for dental insurance, that is not my problem. Let her suffer the consequences and bear the pain of that cavity. Sorry if I sound harsh."

 

I'm sorry but this isn't even close to being related to what I've said. 18 or not she would still be my child and if I could help I would. But that doesn't mean I have help every body else. They're not my responsibility like my children are. And in the process of helping my own child I would hope to pass on the lesson of preparing herself for the future and working hard to insure that she is. Tell me what's so wrong with that.

 

I don't expect a lot out my country, but I do expect the basics, such as fighting for me when I need protection

I think you have missed the point of government somewhere along the way. WE fight for ourselves and our families.

 

eliminating barriers to my ability to fend for myself

Do you mean GIVING you a way around those barriers? It seems to me we used to WORK through those barriers.

 

 

and helping me when I cannot care for myself.

That which your family should provide if you have so conveniently failed to do so yourself.

 

 

I suspect that you never complain about the government providing roads for you to drive on, police to protect you, the military to guard your borders, firemen to protect your house, or any of the other services that they provide, that happen to be of use to you.

We already provide it. What's so hard to understand about that? We have programs for the indigent already. They may not get the same level of care but why do you feel that they have to.

 

 

But as soon as it is something that you personally don't need, then it is every man for himself.

You don't know anything about me.

 

 

When you start advocating everyone taking on the INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY of providing for their own personal protection in place of a police force, then I'll get on board with you for everyone providing their own health care.

A gun makes everybody equal mister.

 

 

Phi,

I think you're letting one aspect of our system blind you to all the good it does. For every lazy slob on the dole their are many people who truly need the help that only a national risk pool can accomplish.

Like who? Who doesn't recieve treatment through no fault of their own?

 

Notice how our wars give us more enemies

I didn't know the point of war was to make friends. We better pay more attention to that in the future.

 

 

our lack of healthcare benefits gives us more indigent people sitting in the ERs?

This is my point. First it's lack of care, then people argue that those same people are getting cared for, it's just costing too much. Let's cover all of them that way it'll cost less. That really makes sense.

 

 

Oh, but that's the absolute MOST inefficient way to care for people! It costs taxpayers in the US in more ways than just money to support an emergency-only type of healthcare.

Okay...let's foot the bill for all Americans. Then we can pay for their doctor bills plus emergency room visits. Because you know that most of the people that use the ER these days would prefer the waiting lists that I hear are racking up for the NHS for regular doctors visits. Our own waiting lists aren't that great, do you think a NHS will make them better or worse?

[zapatos]

A place where we still understand that healthcare is a privilege not a right.

And it is this attitude I fear that will continue to hold this country back.

 

When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society. It seems to me as if people are becoming more selfish, caring only about themselves.

[Phi for All]

When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society.

+1.

 

Can I use this in my signature, please?

[zapatos]

+1.

 

Can I use this in my signature, please?

I'd be honored.

[John Cuthber]

I live in a ... place where we still understand that healthcare is a privilege not a right.

And, once that place learns the falsehood of that statement it will be a better place.

If you can get rid of capital punishment too, you will be well on the way to civilisation.

 

Re "Okay...let's foot the bill for all Americans. Then we can pay for their doctor bills plus emergency room visits. Because you know that most of the people that use the ER these days would prefer the waiting lists that I hear are racking up for the NHS for regular doctors visits. Our own waiting lists aren't that great, do you think a NHS will make them better or worse? "

Last time I turned up at my doctor's I was seen inside 10 minutes- I wasn't particularly ill- it's just that you hear about the long waits, but not about the short ones.

There's bound to be quite a lot of variation.

Besides which, for twice the money as the NHS costs , you could almost certainly get a better service .

As things stand, you pay twice the money and it's far from clear that the service is even as good. In some regards it's plainly not (though I realise yo are not going to accept that infant mortality and overall longevity are good markers.)

 

It seem s that you are happy to pay twice as much for healthcare just to maintain a system that makes sure that some people, who can't afford it, suffer.

[iNow]

you know that most of the people that use the ER these days would prefer the waiting lists that I hear are racking up for the NHS for regular doctors visits. Our own waiting lists aren't that great, do you think a NHS will make them better or worse?

You continue to operate using a myth as the foundation of your central premise.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm

 

a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.

 

The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. "Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference," he says.

 

The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html

 

by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

 

The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

 

Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that “the poorest Americans are getting far better service” than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?

 

A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: “In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.”

 

A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.

 

<...>

 

The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health care here in America.

[JustinW]

zapatos,

And it is this attitude I fear that will continue to hold this country back.

Back from what? A socialists agenda? A greater utopian society where we're just one big happy family? Where it's no longer politically correct to want what's yours because someone else doesn't have it or wants it for free?

 

 

When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society.

Now that's just ignorant. Is it your right to survive? No. It's your right to do what YOU can to survive. If that means bearing arms against an enemy who wishes to harm you, then so be it. If it is to WORK to gain the means to provide for your future health, then so be it. But it is not your right to make others pay to ensure your own future health OR safety.

 

 

John,

 

And, once that place learns the falsehood of that statement it will be a better place.

By who's standards? Those who wish to change it for their own sense of fairness? Those who wish to make it like their own?

 

If you can get rid of capital punishment too, you will be well on the way to civilisation.

That way no one's ever justly punnished. I think this could be a whole new topic.

 

It seem s that you are happy to pay twice as much for healthcare just to maintain a system that makes sure that some people, who can't afford it, suffer.

Yeah, people are suffering all around me. That's the reason I have to type instead of talk, due to all the moans of bitter dispair I can't hear a f***in' word.

 

 

iNow,

 

You continue to operate using a myth as the foundation of your central premise.

Myth? I guess people just make this crap up. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490987/NHS-waiting-times-longest-compared-western-nations.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8825165/48-rise-in-patients-waiting-too-long-for-NHS-treatment.html

 

http://news.uk.msn.com/health/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158895035

 

Touching sob story by the way. Do you want me to pull up those I've heard from NHS nations?

[John Cuthber]

You ask "By who's standards? " WRT social healthcare. Well most of the Western world for a start.

 

So, when you say "That way no one's ever justly punnished. I think this could be a whole new topic." I could ask the same question- whose idea of "justice"? Certainly not the Western world's.

Have you seen what company the US keeps by maintaining the death penalty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

The US is right up there with China, most of the "axis of evil" and a few other failed states.

 

But, as you say that's another topic. Perhaps we should drop it.

 

 

"Yeah, people are suffering all around me. That's the reason I have to type instead of talk, due to all the moans of bitter dispair I can't hear a f***in' word."

Way to win an argument! swear and ignore the fact that, actually people do suffer.

Your saying "Back from what? A socialists agenda? A greater utopian society where we're just one big happy family? Where it's no longer politically correct to want what's yours because someone else doesn't have it or wants it for free?" is a straw man since nobody is advocating that.

If you can't win the argument without ignoring the facts, swearing and resorting to logical fallacy you oughtn't start to argue.

 

 

And regarding your last comment.

The daily mail and the telegraph are noted for their right wing bias so it's entirely possible they do make stuff up.

But that's hardly the point.

As odd as it may seem on a science website, I don't want you to find a few more anecdotes, I want you to accept that significance of a properly produced report like the on cited.

[iNow]

And regarding your last comment.

The daily mail and the telegraph are noted for their right wing bias so it's entirely possible they do make stuff up.

But that's hardly the point.

As odd as it may seem on a science website, I don't want you to find a few more anecdotes, I want you to accept that significance of a properly produced report like the on cited.

This really says it better than I would have. My immediate thought was to compare it to citing the National Inquirer as a reference, or to at least point to earlier in the thread where I shared charts on a by country wait-time comparison (where the US still did worse than pretty much every other country measured, except for special procedures that were not time critical)... Including the NHS. Gosh and golly and stuff...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To help those unsure how to read these... A higher number on the left half of the charts is good while a higher number on the right half of the charts is bad (relatively speaking, since the wait is related to procedures that don't tend to be time sensitive... it's more of a minor inconvenience than a risk to life or wellbeing). The top one is from 2008 and specific to chronic conditions, the bottom one is from 2007 and related to general population.

 

U.S.A!! U.S.A!! U.S.A!! Perhaps you want to cite the Onion News Network or Dora the Explorer as your next source?

Edited March 27, 2012 by iNow

[doG]

No, all of the references, however, show that defensive medicine and the insurance you cite is only a miniscule contributor to the healthcare costs under discussion.

All references?

 

Tangible and Unseen Health-Care Costs

 

...Total spending on medical malpractice, including legal-defense costs and claims payments, was $30.41 billion in 2007, according to an estimate from consulting firm Towers Perrin. That is a significant figure, but it still amounts to a little more than 1% of total U.S. health-care spending, which the federal government estimates at $2.241 trillion for 2007...

 

but

 

Indirect costs that stem in part from medical professionals looking for legal protection play a far larger role in health-care spending, doctors and some analysts say....

 

Art Ushijima, president and chief executive of the Queen's Medical Center, based in Honolulu, says legal concerns have become a bigger burden. He recalls that when he first came to the hospital -- Hawaii's largest -- about 20 years ago, there was one staff attorney. Now there are six. Salaries for staff, with the costs to support them, are "well into the seven figures," he says...

 

At the University of Miami School of Medicine's patient practice, 14 cents out of every dollar collected in fees for services to patients goes toward buying medical malpractice insurance, says William Donelan, the university's vice president for medical administration...

 

In a survey of Pennsylvania doctors in high-liability specialties such as obstetrics, 59% of respondents said they often ordered more tests than were medically necessary. The survey, conducted in 2003 when malpractice premiums were rising sharply in the state, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association....

 

Yes, costs that can be directly pegged to defensive medicine are low but that is not all inclusive of the actual liability costs passed on to patients. From the article it appears patients at the Miami School of Medicine are spending 14% of their bill on just medical malpractice insurance premiums passed on to them. How much more of their bill is passed on costs associated with general liability insurance premiums on equipment and supplies?

 

I wonder additionally how much of the high pharmaceutical prices in the U.S. is passed on liability insurance premiums? It is not uncommon to see T.V. advertisements now soliciting members for class action lawsuits against the pharmaceutical industry. To what extent does this affect U.S. drug prices compared to other countries and what percentage of total health care cost is directly related to prescription costs? When my wife was living a trip to her heart doctor cost me about $200. There she would get a 3 month prescription for Plavix that my pharmacy quoted me $270 a month for, a whole lot more than any 1-2% of my health care costs for her. I bought a 90 day supply from Canada for $140. Now I wonder, how much of the difference between $810 and $140 is driven by additional product liability insurance needed in the U.S. market? Is it only 1-2% or is it a more significant factor is U.S. drug costs?

Edited March 27, 2012 by doG

[iNow]

So, help me understand the relevance of your point. As I shared earlier, I'm on board with you and agree that tort reform is worth pursuing and that can help us. In what way does that have any bearing on the discussion we're having about coverage being offered through a private insurer versus coverage being offered through a public single payer system?

[doG]

So, help me understand the relevance of your point. As I shared earlier, I'm on board with you and agree that tort reform is worth pursuing and that can help us. In what way does that have any bearing on the discussion we're having about coverage being offered through a private insurer versus coverage being offered through a public single payer system?

Why do you think the discussion is ONLY about private insurer versus coverage being offered through a public single payer system? The OP didn't raise that issue at all. From the OP it looks like this thread is about health care cost and quality in the U.S.? Did I miss something there?

[iNow]

That's fine. I was simply part of the conversation that prompted this thread, and also the last four pages here were on... well... the discussion certainly centered around a completely different aspect of this topic. I was genuinely curious, and appreciate your clarification.

[JustinW]

John,

 

Well most of the Western world for a start.

And why should we set our standards by the rest of the world's? That's kind of like a kid trying to play with a gun because he saw someone do it on TV don't you think?

 

 

But, as you say that's another topic. Perhaps we should drop it.

Or start a new one, but I highly doubt you would like what I have to say on the matter. It would be another subject where I lack any empathy, sympathy, or any feeling even coming close to good will.

 

 

"Yeah, people are suffering all around me. That's the reason I have to type instead of talk, due to all the moans of bitter dispair I can't hear a f***in' word."

Way to win an argument! swear and ignore the fact that, actually people do suffer.

Your saying "Back from what? A socialists agenda? A greater utopian society where we're just one big happy family? Where it's no longer politically correct to want what's yours because someone else doesn't have it or wants it for free?" is a straw man since nobody is advocating that.

If you can't win the argument without ignoring the facts, swearing and resorting to logical fallacy you oughtn't start to argue.

A little sarcasm never hurt. Strawman? Like when you said this

Justin, you don't understand freedom at all. I'd love to be an employer in the US. So long as there was a good health plan I could treat my workers like the slaves they are.

and this

Just like a fire brigade, ambulances, honest cops and an uncorrupted judiciary, these are the benefits of living in a civilised nation. We all pay a little bit in our taxes for the Firies, but very few of us will need them to put out a house fire. Why shouldn't avoiding house fires be "individual responsibility" as well?

 

As odd as it may seem on a science website, I don't want you to find a few more anecdotes, I want you to accept that significance of a properly produced report like the on cited.

Which one?

 

iNow,

 

U.S.A!! U.S.A!! U.S.A!! Perhaps you want to cite the Onion News Network or Dora the Explorer as your next source?

What exactly qualifies as a good source for you gentlemen? The ones that agree with your point of view and support your agenda? If I recall John just said " The daily mail and the telegraph are noted for their right wing bias so it's entirely possible they do make stuff up."

 

So that just tells me, if it could possibly be right wing, you dismiss it automatically. I have purposely been trying to avoid right-wing studies for that reason. Was I wrong to do so?

 

Also please refrain from speaking ill of Dora, she's teaching me spanish at the moment.

 

 

doG,

 

Why do you think the discussion is ONLY about private insurer versus coverage being offered through a public single payer system? The OP didn't raise that issue at all. From the OP it looks like this thread is about health care cost and quality in the U.S.? Did I miss something there?

I don't think you missed a thing and are actually making a very valid point as to why costs are so high. Like I've told John before, this is something that could be fixed. But I think he just wants me to buy a new one.

 

iNow,

 

That's fine. I was simply part of the conversation that prompted this thread, and also the last four pages here were on... well... the discussion certainly centered around a completely different aspect of this topic. I was genuinely curious, and appreciate your clarification.

It's all good. I feel that all angles really apply with this topic since most angles will change if this reform is allowed to pass. Edited March 28, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

And why should we set our standards by the rest of the world's? That's kind of like a kid trying to play with a gun because he saw someone do it on TV don't you think?

Are you suggesting this is a valid comparison? You seem to be asserting that "providing universal healthcare to our citizens as a right... and not merely as a privilege for the wealthy... in a manner that aligns with the entire rest of the civilized world" is equivalent to having a "kid play with a gun because he saw someone do it on TV." If you see those issues as the same, I fear you're position may be immune to logic and reason. They are not, for many reasons.

 

Also, you are misrepresenting the argument. Nobody is here saying the only reason we should provide coverage to all citizens is because other countries do it. The point is that other countries DO provide it as a right and your personal stance appears like something out of the dark ages. We as a country are way behind the curve on this, and worse still we're paying twice as much as any other nation for lower quality care as measured by essentially every relevant health related metric... and despite that extra cost... despite that lower quality care... we STILL completely fail to cover a rather significant portion of our population.

 

How anyone could argue in favor of this shows merely how the term "conservative" in our country has become synonymous with "immune to facts and reason," or what I might state using shorthand as "ignorant."

 

 

What exactly qualifies as a good source for you gentlemen? The ones that agree with your point of view and support your agenda? If I recall John just said " The daily mail and the telegraph are noted for their right wing bias so it's entirely possible they do make stuff up."

 

So that just tells me, if it could possibly be right wing, you dismiss it automatically.

Well, it certainly depends on the issue, but as a general rule, "what qualifies as a good source" is going to be a peer reviewed article or a well referenced presentation from a recognized subject matter expert. Your sources on this point, however, are known for bias, and for spin, and that's why they were so summarily dismissed. Our rejection of your source had nothing to do with their conclusions, and everything to do with our recognition of their history of inappropriate methods, deception, and flawed arguments. It would be like you citing a tobacco company in an attempt to argue against the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer, or an oil company in an attempt to argue against the connection between the release of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere by humans and climate change.

 

Further, if there weren't numerous other respected sources already provided in this thread that arrived at conclusions polar opposite to the argument you've been making, then perhaps your source may have seemed more acceptable to us. When it comes to the weight of the evidence (even just that small bit provided here in this thread), it disagrees with the central premise of your argument... and in response you have chosen to cite a single source itself known for consistent bias and lack of trustworthiness... So when their conclusions disagree with the 5 or 7 sources the opposing side this discussion has already offered... yes, you'll generally be dismissed as not serious or your argument deemed unsupported and without merit.

 

Due to the weight of the evidence contrary to what you're saying, your claim implicitly becomes an extraordinary one. We are glad to consider extraordinary claims, including those that disagree with our own conclusions or preconceptions, but it requires you to provide extraordinary evidence in support of them, and you have quite simply failed to do that.

 

Nobody is saying that wait times in the NHS aren't longer than we'd like or far from ideal. The point is that your argument that the US system is somehow better than theirs because their wait times are long is unsupported by reality. You're arguing from a manufactured reality... a myth... and it's essentially irrelevant to the conversation because the NHS wait times (despite being long) are still shorter than those experienced in the US. This means you cannot use this as an argument in favor of the strength of the existing broken US system.

 

I hope this makes it clear. I am trying to present this as objectively and calmly as possible in the hopes that we can reconnect as rational human beings on this discussion. However, if you continue to argue based on misconceptions and prioritize your gut feelings over facts, then I fear that we're doing little more than wasting our time.

 

 

I don't think you missed a thing and are actually making a very valid point as to why costs are so high.

And as Phi and I both already countered, the risk of litigation accounts for only 1-2% of our overall healthcare cost increases. Even if I'm EXTREMELY generous and concede that there are other indirect costs that bring that number up to 5%, that means that there are still other factors causing 95% of the growth in healthcare costs. Why you'd focus on one of the smallest contributors to cost is beyond me, not to mention that it's completely off-topic from the central discussion of private versus public coverage.

 

 

I feel that all angles really apply with this topic since most angles will change if this reform is allowed to pass.

The reform already DID pass. It is a law. It is in effect. We'll learn more after this week if it will remain a law, but it is one right now, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

[Phi for All]

And why should we set our standards by the rest of the world's? That's kind of like a kid trying to play with a gun because he saw someone do it on TV don't you think?

As iNow points out, this analogy is beyond flawed. The success enjoyed by other countries with national healthcare systems is not a fictional entertainment, it's a well-documented fact. And the point is not to "set our standards by the rest of the world", the point is that when you're having trouble with something, it's wise to look to others who've been successful and learn from them, see what they're doing right and adapt it to your own situation. We aren't too proud to admit we can learn from foreigners, are we?

 

Is that the problem here, that as Americans we must do everything from scratch with no help from outsiders? If so, we are wasting one of the most valuable resources we've worked so hard for, the ability to pool our knowledge with the rest of the world to make us even better.

[John Cuthber]

"And why should we set our standards by the rest of the world's? "

Well, for a start, it's a significant part of the concept of democracy.

More generally, it's because you should adopt the best standards and (in spite of your determined refusal to accept this) there is evidence that government owned healthcare is the best.

To be blunt, you should do it because you recognise that it is folly to pay twice as much for a system that produces more dead babies.

 

Also, don't forget that the countries with national healthcare systems decided to set them up and they decided to keep them.

I can't bring to mind any country that decided to abandon the system because it didn't work.

 

 

Just a quick reminder to the citizens of the US: from point of view of about 95% of the world's population, you are foreigners.

[navigator]

To be blunt, you should do it because you recognise that it is folly to pay twice as much for a system that produces more dead babies.

 

 

Are you aware that many countries use very different methods to report a stillbirth? Weight, length, length of pregnancy are all used to define a stillbirth, as well as signs of life.

 

Here is the statute of limitations for the 'stillbirths' who show signs of life and/or survive. So if a child survives a day or 11 months, but doesnt meet those requirements, it is still not reported as an infant mortality, instead reported as a still birth. In the US, once the gestation period is passed(20 weeks), if the baby shows any sign of life, even for just a second, with the placenta and umbillical cord still attached, and then passes, it is reported as an infant mortality.

 

To me, the fact that the US is still within 5 deaths per 1000, from the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates is astounding!

Edited March 28, 2012 by navigator

[John Cuthber]

The fact that there are different definitions has already been discussed. Did you read the whole thread?

 

Do you happen to know what cut off date the US uses for " gestion period"?

It logically can't be zero, and if they take normal gestation- about 9 months- as the cut-off then they are missing out a lot of children who are born prematurely.

The data you cited show that in the UK for example, the cut-off is 28 weeks.

Edited March 28, 2012 by John Cuthber

[navigator]

The fact that there are different definitions has already been discussed. Did you read the whole thread?

 

Do you happen to know what cut off date the US uses for " gestion period"?

It logically can't be zero, and if they take normal gestation- about 9 months- as the cut-off then they are missing out a lot of children who are born prematurely.

The data you cited show that in the UK for example, the cut-off is 28 weeks.

 

 

wikipedia

 

In the United States, there is no standard definition of the term 'stillbirth'.[12] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collects statistical information on "live births, fetal deaths, and induced termination of pregnancy" from 57 reporting areas in the United States. Each reporting area has different guidelines and definitions for what is being reported; many do not use the term "stillbirth" at all. The federal guidelines suggests (at page 1) that fetal death and stillbirth can be interchangeable terms. The CDC definition of "fetal death" is based on the definition promulgated by the World Health Organization in 1950 (see section above on Canada). Researchers are learning more about the long term psychiatric sequelae of traumatic birth and believe the effects may be intergenerational [16]

 

The federal guidelines recommend reporting those fetal deaths whose birth weight is over 12.5 oz (350g), or those more than 20 weeks gestation. Forty-one areas use a definition very similar to the federal definition, thirteen areas use a shortened definition of fetal death, and three areas have no formal definition of fetal death. Only 11 areas specifically use the term 'stillbirth', often synonymously with late fetal death, however they are split between whether stillbirths are "irrespective of the duration of pregnancy", or whether some age or weight constraint is applied. A movement in the U.S. has changed the way that stillbirths are documented through vital records. Previously, only the deaths were reported. However 27 states have enacted legislation that offers some variation of a birth certificate as an option for parents who choose to pay for one MAB Legislative Page [MAB legislative page]

 

20 weeks or 350g, stricter than any of the of the countries using the statute of limitations.

[iNow]

Good thing for us this quibble over infant mortality does zero to negate the issues with cost, lifespan, speed with which care can be obtained, quality of outcome, or all of the other metrics where the US is ALSO behind others...

[John Cuthber]

wikipedia

 

 

 

20 weeks or 350g, stricter than any of the of the countries using the statute of limitations.

It's interesting that the US can't even agree with itself about the definitions. That's another minor point in favour of nationalised healthcare.

The other parameters like under 5 year mortality are less influenced by this sort of thing and the US still does badly.

 

 

The wiki page about infant mortality reminds us that even the US CDC doesn't think this is the cause of the US's poor performance.

" in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[11][14][dead link][15] The report concluded, however, that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking"

 

 

Also, if you are going to use phrases from "legal English", learn what they mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

Edited March 28, 2012 by John Cuthber