Let's talk healthcare

[iNow]

And my other sources were from 1998 and 2001. I was using them to establish that waiting times are a problem.

And your position was shown to be lacking and outdated by my more current sources. Why are we still talking about this? Your argument was shown to be specious.

 

Accept that and move on, please.

[JustinW]

Oh I've been doing some reading up on some of these organizations you keep spitting out information from. This is the Commonwealth's mission statement.

The Commonwealth Fund, among the first private foundations started by a woman philanthropist—Anna M. Harkness—was established in 1918 with the broad charge to enhance the common good.

 

 

The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.

 

 

The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. An international program in health policy is designed to stimulate innovative policies and practices in the United States and other industrialized countries.

Now how can you bash my sources for being biased when yours are just as biased. An advocacy group is still an advocacy group, no matter how you want to spin it.

 

 

 

iNow,

 

And your position was shown to be lacking and outdated by my more current sources. Why are we still talking about this? Your argument was shown to be specious.

 

Accept that and move on, please.

I believe I asked a question. How can your "critical-time" dilemma be a reason that supports the change to universal healthcare?

[iNow]

It's not. That was a rebuttal to your argument against.

 

Although, now that you mention it... The point is that countries with universal coverage ALSO do better than the US in terms of providing care in time critical situations. Stack on top of that the fact that they do so at a lower cost, achieve higher quality, provide care for everyone, and you see why it's so hard to understand the passion with which you argue in favor of the current broken US approach.

[JustinW]

I argue a point as a reason to NOT have healthcare, and you rebut with a something that doesn't even apply to the situation. Is this how you handle all your arguments?

 

The point is that countries with universal coverage ALSO do better than the US in terms of providing care in time critical situations.

I just gave a reason as to why.

 

Stack on top of that the fact that they do so at a lower cost

Sure I wonder how those wait times help cut those costs? There may be a couple of exceptions, but not many.

 

 

achieve higher quality

You use a couple of things to prove your point on this. One I knew had to have a reasonable explanation, since I know our quality is the best, and since it was so eloquently pointed out to me earlier I can't help but mention it. If I had more time I would do that very thing this instant, but it's going to have to wait until tomorrow I'm afraid.

 

provide care for everyone

Keep telling yourself that, somethings I wouldn't trade for piece of mind. Especially that kind.

[Phi for All]

Keep telling yourself that, somethings I wouldn't trade for piece of mind. Especially that kind.

Seriously, why are we discussing this with you then? You're arguing that the current US healthcare system is superior to anything from a foreign country. No amount of evidence to the contrary seems to make any difference to you. I haven't really seen anyone but you defend the same points.

 

You haven't shown why it's better to pay double, even though you can't show that the US system is twice as good. Even if you could get a concession that the US healthcare system was equal to the foreign systems, you're still left defending your right to pay twice as much for it.

[toastywombel]

JustinW,

Sure I wonder how those wait times help cut those costs? There may be a couple of exceptions, but not many.

 

I simply abhor this argument. Generally, if there are less people in a system, wait times go down in such a system. The problem I have with the "wait time" argument in healthcare is it seems to imply the system is better if it serves less people, simply because the wait times go down.

 

If one wants to live in a country where every person has access to healthcare then the "wait time" problem should be solved through bolstering the medical infrastructure in the given country (Doctors, hospitals, specialists, and etc.). If one takes your argument, however, and wishes to solve the "wait time" problem with limiting access to healthcare for a significant portion of the population, it is simply saying that one prefers the convenience of a quick waiting period to get access to needed healthcare over providing for the society. And when it is put in that perspective it is quite a selfish stance.

 

In more simplistic terms. If a large portion of people in a given society could not afford to go to the store to get food, sure the wait time for those who can afford to go to the store will be lessened. But the ultimate cost would be a significant group of people starving in the streets. So the question comes down to this. Would you prefer a more convenient system at the expense of neglecting a large portion of society?

 

Furthermore, I don't think you understand that when you neglect a large portion of the society in such a way you end up paying more in other areas. When people cannot get access to needed goods, they don't simply just allow themselves to die. They go to the hospital, which they cannot afford and the government (your tax dollars) pick up the tab at a much more expensive rate. They steal, which increases policing costs. Thus violence rises, people will seek goods through unconventional means (illegal drugs/ narcotics), and/or you will pay for them to be taken care of in prison, which is even more of a cost.

 

An awesome read, McTeague by Frank Norris, can serve as a microcosm of this. The human condition degrades into an animal like state when such humans fall into poverty.

 

Many posters have presented much stronger arguments ahead of me in this thread such as iNow and Phi for All. And your response to them leads me to believe that you are entrenched in this position. So I have no delusions about you accepting the points I just made. I suppose I just felt the need to voice my opinion on this matter.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

Seriously, why are we discussing this with you then?

I don't recall demanding that you remain in the discussion. If you're that exasperated feel free to leave it at anytime.

 

You're arguing that the current US healthcare system is superior to anything from a foreign country.

Yes I am. For the most part I am.

 

No amount of evidence to the contrary seems to make any difference to you.

Nobody's presented any that can be used to justify a change to universal healthcare from private.

 

 

You haven't shown why it's better to pay double, even though you can't show that the US system is twice as good

The price tag for the US healthcare system is probably the only legitamate argument I've heard so far. Even though I would pay more for better quality. That of which I will get into in more detail in just a minute.

 

 

Toasty,

If one wants to live in a country where every person has access to healthcare then the "wait time" problem should be solved through bolstering the medical infrastructure in the given country (Doctors, hospitals, specialists, and etc.). If one takes your argument, however, and wishes to solve the "wait time" problem with limiting access to healthcare for a significant portion of the population, it is simply saying that one prefers the convenience of a quick waiting period to get access to needed healthcare over providing for the society. And when it is put in that perspective it is quite a selfish stance.

 

In more simplistic terms. If a large portion of people in a given society could not afford to go to the store to get food, sure the wait time for those who can afford to go to the store will be lessened. But the ultimate cost would be a significant group of people starving in the streets. So the question comes down to this. Would you prefer a more convenient system at the expense of neglecting a large portion of society?

You're implying that Americans are dying on the streets for lack of healthcare coverage? Anyone from anywhere can walk into an ER at anytime and recieve treatment.

Not to mention, if we look at this like John looks at mortality rates we could say, "if there's more then we should assume that the system is worse." Overcrowded hospitals could imply an unhealthier community, but I'm not going to argue that view since it would be incorrect.

 

My point in arguing wait times was for the simple fact that people are wanting to change the system to make it better. Longer wait times do not imply a better system in my mind.

 

An awesome read, McTeague by Frank Norris, can serve as a microcosm of this. The human condition degrades into an animal like state when such humans fall into poverty.

And we already have programs that cover those who can be considered in the poverty level, so there really isn't a need to withdraw into this state of instinctive criminal behavior.

 

 

I suppose I just felt the need to voice my opinion on this matter.

Your opinion is always welcome.

 

 

Now, back to some more info on infant mortality ratings and another cause as to why the US' is higher than those in Western Europe. This was pointed out to me the other day and normally I wouldn't look at race to justify an argument, but the gap in percentages were quite large and shouldn't be ignored when talking about mortality rates.

 

http://www.kunc.org/post/why-african-american-infant-mortality-rate-so-high

From link,

Beam noticed something else. These high-risk babies were being born to black women regardless of how much money they made, or their level of education. Beam started digging into the healthy baby gap, and she’s been dedicated to solving the mystery ever since.

 

Over the last two decades, research has confirmed that African-American babies die at two or three times the rate of other infants. But still, no one knows why.

 

The latest Colorado numbers from the Centers for Disease Control show that in 2007, the black infant mortality rate was 13.5 out of every 1000 live births, compared to 5.2 for whites and 7 for Hispanics.

 

 

It seems that African Americans have a much higher rate of infant mortality than either whites or hispanics. Up to two or three times the rate in some cases. Now, since the population of blacks in the US is 12.6% compared to 2% in the U.K., and since the highest rate of pregnancies are among minorities, couldn't this be a reason that the US sees higher infant mortality rates?

[iNow]

You're implying that Americans are dying on the streets for lack of healthcare coverage?

 

They are.

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/health/deaths.health.insurance_1_health-insurance-david-himmelstein-debate-over-health-care?_s=PM:HEALTH

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

 

The researchers examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000. They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance.

 

It seems that African Americans have a much higher rate of infant mortality than either whites or hispanics. Up to two or three times the rate in some cases. Now, since the population of blacks in the US is 12.6% compared to 2% in the U.K., and since the highest rate of pregnancies are among minorities, couldn't this be a reason that the US sees higher infant mortality rates?

Or... you know... they might be more likely to lack healthcare coverage than non-minorities.

[John Cuthber]

John,

 

Well at least you admit they are issues finally. Who's the watch dog?

 

 

No, as I recall you said it was too long and boreing for you too read when I presented the graph. You remember, the ones with all the little dots that you thought were price comparisons. Post #31 I believe it was. This is what you said

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the delayed response. My mother died last Friday, and I have been a bit busy.

 

The watchdog concerned is the CDC-

Have a look at post # 75.

 

Anyway what I said was "It's quite a long and complex page and I really don't have time to rubbish each part of it in turn.

I might come back to it when I get bored "

 

However you may note that I had already taken the time to point out that the page you cited was full of errors.

 

And, in respect of "You remember, the ones with all the little dots that you thought were price comparisons. "

The text related to the graph says "We can see from this chart that the linear regression no longer does such a good job in describing the relationship between total health expenditures per capita and GDP (PPP) per capita for the set of data."

 

Now, from my point of view as a consumer of healthcare the per capitum expenditure on it is the same as the price I pay for it.

Were you trying to imply that I had misunderstood it?

Edited April 2, 2012 by John Cuthber

[JustinW]

iNow

 

I have a few problems with that. (you knew I would)

from your link,

 

A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.

 

What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died.

 

First of all, you mean to tell me that these people couldn't get treated for their lack of insurance? Bah..the part I bolded explains it all. They CHOSE not to seek medical attention. If you're experiencing symptoms of something that has the potential to kill you, are you not going to go to the ER? Owing someone money is better than being dead. Not to mention medical bills will not affect your credit as long as you pay on them. It doesn't matter if it's five dollars a month, as long as you pay SOMETHING on them you don't have to worry about them affecting your credit. So what is the real reason people like that choose not to go to the hospital?

 

The second problem I have is with the estimate itself. The lowest estimate I've read so far has been 18000. So we're somewhere between 18000 and 45000. That's an awfull big gap and one that could be chocked up to stupidity or laziness for not going to the ER when they should have.

 

Or... you know... they might be more likely to lack healthcare coverage than non-minorities.

Pay attention man. I've bolded the important part.

Beam noticed something else. These high-risk babies were being born to black women regardless of how much money they made, or their level of education. Beam started digging into the healthy baby gap, and she's been dedicated to solving the mystery ever since.

The fact of this matter is that no one knows why the numbers are so much larger for African Americans than whites or hispanics. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with healthcare.

 

You still didn't answer my question. With 6 times the population of blacks in the US compared to the UK, wouldn't it be safe to assume that this is one of the reasons our numbers are higher? And that considering the numbers (US 38 million-UK 1.5 million), it's great that our numbers aren't even higher.

 

John,

 

Now, from my point of view as a consumer of healthcare the per capitum expenditure on it is the same as the price I pay for it.

Were you trying to imply that I had misunderstood it?

No, but I was implying that you misread the whole point of the graph. I believe, at the time, I was trying to relate the fact that our purchasing power far exceeds the rest of the world and this could be one of the reasons that we spend more per capita.

 

From the link, this is the point I was trying to make there.

 

the United States is, collectively, spending about as much as we should expect on health care with respect to its economic output. Nations with long established universal health care programs are, in effect, achieving their lower expenditures by suppressing the amount of health care their populations may receive below the more natural, unconstrained levels that we see in nations without such established national health care programs.

Edited April 2, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

I have a few problems with that. (you knew I would)

from your link,

 

First of all, you mean to tell me that these people couldn't get treated for their lack of insurance? Bah.

Why am I bothering with you if you so summarily dismiss studies published by the American Journal of Public Health? Seriously... This is a legitimate question. "Bah!" is not a valid criticism of a peer reviewed study conducted via a partnership between the Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance.

 

 

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

 

“The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance,” remarked David Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance. “Even this grim figure is an underestimate — now one dies every 12 minutes.”

 

Owing someone money is better than being dead.

This is only a valid argument if you know up-front that your non-action (a choice not to go to the ER) will result in death... and, since people generally don't know with any certainty that a failure to act will cause them to die... your argument is ultimately invalid and rendered entirely moot.

 

 

The lowest estimate I've read so far has been 18000. So we're somewhere between 18000 and 45000.

18K is an older estimate, but even if I accept that lower number, it only takes 1 person to die for lack of healthcare to support the position you assumed was taken by Toastywombel... It only takes one to rebut the inherent assertion you put forth (that people don't die due to lack of healthcare coverage). I have 18,000 - 45,000 "persons dying for lack of healthcare," which... last time I checked, is more than one... so this serves as yet another interaction with you on this thread where your position is shown to be not only weak, but flat out wrong. Would you like to see what's behind door #2, perhaps?

 

 

The fact of this matter is that no one knows why the numbers are so much larger for African Americans than whites or hispanics. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with healthcare.

You cannot logically arrive at this conclusion given the information currently available. You're drawing a conclusion from incredulity, not from data, and that's part of why I find it so easy to dismiss your position as both foolish and uninformed.

 

You're implying that Americans are dying on the streets for lack of healthcare coverage?With 6 times the population of blacks in the US compared to the UK, wouldn't it be safe to assume that this is one of the reasons our numbers are higher? And that considering the numbers (US 38 million-UK 1.5 million), it's great that our numbers aren't even higher.

Fine. Let me take a different approach. The higher population of black people in the US than the UK is irrelevant to the question of infant mortality rate since the population differences (% of blacks versus % of whites) is not a common trend across all of the other countries that ALSO have a lower infant mortality rate than the US... In a number of those countries, the population is majority black... You know, like Cuba or French Polynesia... and yet they somehow manage to have lower infant mortality rates... So, no. I DON'T think that has anything to do with the infant mortality rate being higher in the US.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but facts still matter in discussions like this, right?

 

Nations with long established universal health care programs are, in effect, achieving their lower expenditures by suppressing the amount of health care their populations may receive below the more natural, unconstrained levels that we see in nations without such established national health care programs.

And yet... Despite that "suppression of the amount of healthcare," they still somehow manage to do better than the US on nearly every relevant metric of quality and outcome.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

John,

 

 

No, but I was implying that you misread the whole point of the graph. I believe, at the time, I was trying to relate the fact that our purchasing power far exceeds the rest of the world and this could be one of the reasons that we spend more per capita.

 

 

 

OK.

Lest have a look at the graph again

It's roughly in the middle of this page

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/redefining-health-care-debate-part-1.html

It's the one that follows this text

"Our next chart takes our first chart showing the 2005 OECD Nations' Health Care Expenditures per Capita vs GDP (PPP) per Capita, and simply adds some fifty data points for the individual U.S. states "

 

And it shows just what it say it does.

It's a plot of cash spent as a function of total cash available.

If it were a case of "we spend more because we have more" then that would be true for individual states within the US and it would be true for other countries.

So , for example, most of the US states are to the left of the point marked as Norway. That means they have less cash than Norway.

So most of them would be expected to spend less than Norway.

But they don't. They generally spend more than Norway does.

Now, Norway is on the "trend line" it's expenditure is generally in line with most countries.

The more they have, the more they spend. That's what the line on the graph indicates.

The point that I made and that you entirely missed, is that almost every state in the US is above the line. The line is "normal" expenditure.

The US as a whole might have more cash, but individual states don't, yet they spend more.

 

It's quite clear form the graphs on that site.

They explicitly say " it has been observed that the economic output of each of the U.S. states is comparable to that of other nations. "

which I accept is fair enough.

And it's obvious if you look at the graph that follows that assertion that relatively poor countries like Turkey have a small GDP and a small healthcare expenditure.

Fairly rich countries like Luxembourg or Norway have quite a lot of more and spend quite a lot more.

But the point is that the proportion of GDP spent is comparable.

 

The real eye wateringly obvious fact is that the states of the US , though they have incomes comparable with other countries are all "above the line".

The spend a lot more of their GDP than other countries do. This is true, even for states where the income isn't that great.

 

I have said it before, and I'm saying it again.

Based on the information that you have provided.

 

The US spends roughly twice as much on healthcare as you would expect, and they don't get as good a service for it.

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

Why am I bothering with you if you so summarily dismiss studies published by the American Journal of Public Health?

Because it based it's study off of what the family members thought was the reason for them not going to the hospital. If you want to base this argument off of sob stories just let me know. I'm sure I can produce many that come from NHS nations. You can't tell me that the camera operator who had an appendicitis couldn't have walked into an ER with his symptoms and wouldn't have been treated because he lacked health insurance. If he thought the cost was too much, then he was under a false illusion. Death doesn't cost him a thing. Which one would you have chosen?

 

Not to mention, why should I accept figures from the American Journal of Health (that conducts it's studies with universities that have been known for it's biased political views) over the Institute of Medicine (who have remained fairly independant without any rumors of political/social bias)?

 

 

This is only a valid argument if you know up-front that your non-action (a choice not to go to the ER) will result in death... and, since people generally don't know with any certainty that a failure to act will cause them to die... your argument is ultimately invalid and rendered entirely moot.

Are you seriously saying that someone with an appendicitis doesn't know that something is terribly wrong with them. I guess I could see this point in some cases, but not with an overwhelming majority of these people as you would have me believe.

 

18K is an older estimate, but even if I accept that lower number, it only takes 1 person to die for lack of healthcare to support the position you assumed was taken by Toastywombel... It only takes one to rebut the inherent assertion you put forth (that people don't die due to lack of healthcare coverage). I have 18,000 - 45,000 "persons dying for lack of healthcare," which... last time I checked, is more than one... so this serves as yet another interaction with you on this thread where your position is shown to be not only weak, but flat out wrong. Would you like to see what's behind door #2, perhaps?

When the hell did I say that NO ONE ever dies from lack of healthcare. I just don't agree in making it sound like people are dropping like flies out in the streets due to the lack of healthcare. And my entire point was that these people could have gone to an ER for treatment. Do people in NHS nations die from not going to the hospital when they should? Do they? I wonder how many out of a population as big as ours?

 

You're drawing a conclusion from incredulity, not from data, and that's part of why I find it so easy to dismiss your position as both foolish and uninformed.

Which part? The part where African American have an exponentially higher rate of infant mortality? Or the part where blacks make up 12.6% of our population compared to 2% of the UK's? Or is it the part where the at-risk babies are born to black women without regard to income or education? What part can I not reach a fair assumption from?

 

Fine. Let me take a different approach. The higher population of black people in the US than the UK is irrelevant to the question of infant mortality rate since the population differences (% of blacks versus % of whites) is not a common trend across all of the other countries that ALSO have a lower infant mortality rate than the US... In a number of those countries, the population is majority black... You know, like Cuba or French Polynesia... and yet they somehow manage to have lower infant mortality rates... So, no. I DON'T think that has anything to do with the infant mortality rate being higher in the US.

 

https://www.cia.gov/...r/2091rank.html

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but facts still matter in discussions like this, right?

Yeah they do matter. Like the link you provided me stated that in French Polynesia, polynesians made up 78% of the population. Last time I checked polynesians weren't black. And in Cuba 65% of the population is white. Hardly a majority of blacks in either of the countries you cited. The reason that the UK was picked was because it had one of the most abundant population of African or black decendants of NHS nations.

 

And yet... Despite that "suppression of the amount of healthcare," they still somehow manage to do better than the US on nearly every relevant metric of quality and outcome.

I still doubt this statement. The only fair point that I've heard so far is that we spend too much on it. But that can be adressed in different ways other than changing our system into a government run system.

 

 

John,

 

So , for example, most of the US states are to the left of the point marked as Norway. That means they have less cash than Norway.

So most of them would be expected to spend less than Norway.

We have a different system than Norway. As where Norway supresses their spending, Americans are free to spend however much they want.

 

The line in the graph is where spending meets outcome. Where you can say that one no longer gets a "bang for their buck". Now keep in mind these are economists talking so who knows...

 

But when you say this

The US spends roughly twice as much on healthcare as you would expect, and they don't get as good a service for it.

I can't agree with you. You haven't given me anything that can't be disputed. And in my mind a transformation of our system needs to be for reasons that have more weight to them.

[iNow]

There's also this, but I do feel like I'm repeating myself in front of a deaf audience, or flogging a long deceased equine animal:

 

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/03/the-costs-of-overturning-obamas-health-care-reforms/

 

Why should the average American family have to pay nearly one third of its annual income for a healthcare system that will, by 2016, claim about 18% of GDP?

 

Part of the answer is that the average worker earning $68,700, a manager making $150,000, and the CEO earning $5 million all pay roughly the same $14,700 for their family coverage. The result is that middle-class families spend a much larger share of their income on health care than wealthier families.

 

That is very different from other countries such as Germany, where health insurance costs are assessed as a percentage of income (up to a certain level). Thus, lower income earners pay the same share of their income to have health care as people who are financially better off.

 

<...>

 

One of the reasons why health insurance costs middle-class families in the United States so much is that their bill includes a good share of the costs of treating those without insurance. A reasonable estimate of the costs of treating the uninsured that are passed along to average policyholders is about $300 per person, or $1,200 for a family of four.

 

<...>

 

Covering the uninsured should reduce the cost of their care, at least over the long term. Uninsured people are much more likely to suffer strokes, for example, because they are much more likely to have undiagnosed hypertension, diabetes and high cholesterol.

 

Among people with cancer, the uninsured today are much more likely to be diagnosed later, and so require the most expensive interventions.

 

After Clinton's healthcare reform failed in 1994, it was 15 years before another President and Congress took up the issue again.

 

Uninsured people also are less likely to recover fully from many injuries, making them more likely to suffer subsequent medical problems that require more treatment. Ensuring that everyone has insurance, therefore, should reduce those costs.

[John Cuthber]

Once I see a lot of replies like "I can't agree with you. You haven't given me anything that can't be disputed. " when the data I used was that cited by Justin himself or "Now keep in mind these are economists talking so who knows..." and even just "Bah" in reply to the observation that people without healthcare insurance don't get healthcare I start thinking I'm not involved in a discussion, I'm talking to a troll.

 

That would certainly explain the otherwise absurd choice of a right-wing group's bad statistics over the report from the World Health Organisation and the insistence that differences in reporting are the major reason for the poor infant mortality rate in the US.

 

By the way, the source you cite for the difference between death rates of black and white babies (which I accept is a real difference, and worrying) also says

"Colorado’s numbers closely follow the national statistics, which are not good even for white babies. ".

So, once again your own source supports the exact opposite of your contention.

Even for white babies the death rates are bad.

The larger number of black people in the states compared to, for example, England will emphasise the difference.

But since the figures are bad for white babies you can't say that the overall bad figure is due to racial factors (whatever they may be).

Edited April 3, 2012 by John Cuthber

[zapatos]

Anyone from anywhere can walk into an ER at anytime and recieve treatment.

This is not quite accurate. Whether or not you receive treatment without insurance depends in large part on what it is you are walking in with. While it is true you can receive emergency treatment (and not just anywhere as many hospitals will send you elsewhere depending on the circumstances) there are many things that you cannot get treatment for prior to it being an emergency.

 

Diabetes

Congestive heart failure

High blood pressure

Cancer

Heart disease

Alcoholism

Peripheral artery disease

etc. (This is a very long list)

 

My blood pressure medicine costs $0.03 per day. A visit to the emergency room during a heart attack is going to cost a bit more.

 

Some things you cannot get treatment for at all.

 

Hip replacement

Knee replacement

Preventive dental work

Preventive anything, really.

Health screenings

Chronic pain

Poor vision

Physical or Occupational Therapy after a stroke

A walker if disabled.

etc. (This is a very long list)

Edited April 3, 2012 by zapatos

[iNow]

John - I don't think Justin is trolling. He is actually quite representative of modern day conservative thinking in the US... Facts matter not, and anything that disagrees with a preconception can be dismissed out of hand for flawed reasons.

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

There's also this, but I do feel like I'm repeating myself in front of a deaf audience, or flogging a long deceased equine animal:

Yeah you are repeating yourself. We're back to "the rich don't pay their fair share" boohoohoo. Do I need to give the whole "personal responsibility" speech again. Them pesky ass wealthy people, damn them for making the right choices with their lives.

 

 

The rich pay just as much for their healthcare as the average person does. Why should they pay more? Because they're rich? They should be made to carry the people, who make poor decisions, on their backs. They should be responsible for people that won't take responsibility for themselves? And the government should force them to do this? Yeah, that's what this country was built on. And so the Tyranny begins.

 

Do you have a reply for my last rebuttal on the majority of which country are black? And if there could possibly be any other factors in these mortality ratings other than it's because of our "supposedly s***y healthcare"?

 

 

 

John,

 

Once I see a lot of replies like "I can't agree with you. You haven't given me anything that can't be disputed. " when the data I used was that cited by Justin himself

The data you're talking about was being used to make an entirely different point than you were suggesting from it. I explained in my last reply to you of what I was refering to.

 

"Now keep in mind these are economists talking so who knows..."

This was just a comment that reflected economists job as a whole with the most recent recession. I thought dry humor was big over in your part of the world. I guess I was wrong.

 

and even just "Bah" in reply to the observation that people without healthcare insurance don't get healthcare I start thinking I'm not involved in a discussion, I'm talking to a troll.

I've never replied with just BAH. As I recall my rebuttal followed immediately.

 

 

That would certainly explain the otherwise absurd choice of a right-wing group's bad statistics over the report from the World Health Organisation and the insistence that differences in reporting are the major reason for the poor infant mortality rate in the US.

As I recall I've asserted two different reasons of why infant mortality rates shouldn't be used in the healthcare argument. And instead of attacking the validity of it, you seem to say that they are just right-wings bad statistics, without even saying how there bad. If they're bad, tell me how. It also seems to me that I pointed out that the WHO were equally as biased in support of government run programs. But do I blow the group off as left-wing nut jobs? No, I don't. I just pick apart how they gather their information and list factors that they do not take into consideration when comparing two fundamentally different systems.

Can you say that there are no differences in reporting when it comes to infant mortality rates? You've said so before, but I recall finding out differently.

 

 

By the way, the source you cite for the difference between death rates of black and white babies (which I accept is a real difference, and worrying) also says

"Colorado's numbers closely follow the national statistics, which are not good even for white babies. ".

So, once again your own source supports the exact opposite of your contention.

No it doesn't. I never said that whites don't have infant mortality rates as well. I just said that blacks were two and sometimes three times as bad.

 

 

Even for white babies the death rates are bad.

Christ man, is there such thing as a good death rate.

 

 

The larger number of black people in the states compared to, for example, England will emphasise the difference.

But since the figures are bad for white babies you can't say that the overall bad figure is due to racial factors (whatever they may be).

I think by your own admission you concede to my point here. Do you even know the "BAD" figures for whites? And I can make that assertion when one group's rate is two and three times higher than the other group. I think you just want to twist this around to your own view point, but can't quite get it done. Or maybe that's just me being a troll again.

 

Zapatos,

 

This is not quite accurate. Whether or not you receive treatment without insurance depends in large part on what it is you are walking in with.

Thank you for the correction. While what you say is true, the fact is that the ER will make sure that none of those things are killing you at the moment.

 

 

 

Another question I have is... Does anyone know why those people aren't on one of the government programs if they can't afford to buy private insurance.

Edited April 3, 2012 by JustinW

[Sergeant Bilko]

Survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest seems to underpin most of what Justin is espousing, no doubt he will say that there are schemes, programs, welfare. He talks about making good choices but understands so little.

 

Justin, you can only make a good choice if you have the education to make that choice, the rich get a better education than the poor and so the cycle continues.

 

 

 

“One of the measures of a civilised society is how well it looks after the most vulnerable members of its society.” is an oft used quote, but you seem to oppose this with every statistic that you try and interpret, and before you say there are programs for these people yes, but these programs do not have the best Doctors and the best equipment they are base level, and so to hell with the weak, the sick, the infirm. "They made bad life choices"

 

We are all a part of an advanced society, and as such we all have a responsibility to that society.

[zapatos]

While what you say is true, the fact is that the ER will make sure that none of those things are killing you at the moment.

Yes, I agree. The broader point I was trying to make was that the emergency room is not a substitute for health insurance.

 

Supplying me with a lifetime of blood pressure medicine is cheaper to the healthcare system than the expense incurred if I have a heart attack. And waiting until a person develops a problem due to something like diabetes before treating them is not just an unnecessary expense to the system. I know this is less an issue with you, but it does significantly lower the quality of life for the person affected, reduces their productivity, etc.

[JustinW]

Bilko,

 

Justin, you can only make a good choice if you have the education to make that choice, the rich get a better education than the poor and so the cycle continues.

Not to the point of not being able to provide for yourself and your family. A lot of the successfull people I know didn't even get a high school diploma.

 

 

Zapatos,

 

Yes, I agree. The broader point I was trying to make was that the emergency room is not a substitute for health insurance.

And my return point was that they will keep you alive until you can provide yourself health insurance. That which you should have already provided for yourself.

 

 

Supplying me with a lifetime of blood pressure medicine is cheaper to the healthcare system than the expense incurred if I have a heart attack.

At which I shrug my shoulders and think "that is the price we pay for freedom". I never said the cost was cheap did I?

[Sergeant Bilko]

Bilko,

 

Not to the point of not being able to provide for yourself and your family. A lot of the successfull people I know didn't even get a high school diploma.

 

Justin

 

I agree with you in a small way, a micro way. Of course we all know these people who have done well, our peers, maybe you and me.

 

But, you are guilty of skimming the data to make cheap shots, my point was a Macro point, and you know that. If you take 30 million people, look at the socio economic background, level of education a pattern will be evident. The rich will get a better start in life, a better education and be able to make better choices. Surely you can see this. On another thread you made a point that you didn't necessarily agree with every point that you made, you were just offering alternative points of view. I respect that I would much rather examine a subject from a variety of angles. But surely there comes a point when you start to learn, apreciate the data and interpret it, not just reaching for the cheap shots.

 

So what do you suggest for the poor, the sick, the weak and the lame. Some half rate system, or go to hell? Please dont say those people are provided for adequately, you know that they are not, you know that quality of Healthcare is directly linked to your ability to pay.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Sergeant Bilko

[John Cuthber]

iNow,

 

Yeah you are repeating yourself. We're back to "the rich don't pay their fair share" boohoohoo. Do I need to give the whole "personal responsibility" speech again. Them pesky ass wealthy people, damn them for making the right choices with their lives.

 

 

The rich pay just as much for their healthcare as the average person does. Why should they pay more? Because they're rich? They should be made to carry the people, who make poor decisions, on their backs. They should be responsible for people that won't take responsibility for themselves? And the government should force them to do this? Yeah, that's what this country was built on. And so the Tyranny begins.

 

Do you have a reply for my last rebuttal on the majority of which country are black? And if there could possibly be any other factors in these mortality ratings other than it's because of our "supposedly s***y healthcare"?

 

 

 

John,

 

The data you're talking about was being used to make an entirely different point than you were suggesting from it. I explained in my last reply to you of what I was refering to.

 

This was just a comment that reflected economists job as a whole with the most recent recession. I thought dry humor was big over in your part of the world. I guess I was wrong.

 

I've never replied with just BAH. As I recall my rebuttal followed immediately.

 

 

As I recall I've asserted two different reasons of why infant mortality rates shouldn't be used in the healthcare argument. And instead of attacking the validity of it, you seem to say that they are just right-wings bad statistics, without even saying how there bad. If they're bad, tell me how. It also seems to me that I pointed out that the WHO were equally as biased in support of government run programs. But do I blow the group off as left-wing nut jobs? No, I don't. I just pick apart how they gather their information and list factors that they do not take into consideration when comparing two fundamentally different systems.

Can you say that there are no differences in reporting when it comes to infant mortality rates? You've said so before, but I recall finding out differently.

 

 

No it doesn't. I never said that whites don't have infant mortality rates as well. I just said that blacks were two and sometimes three times as bad.

 

 

Christ man, is there such thing as a good death rate.

 

 

 

I think by your own admission you concede to my point here. Do you even know the "BAD" figures for whites? And I can make that assertion when one group's rate is two and three times higher than the other group. I think you just want to twist this around to your own view point, but can't quite get it done. Or maybe that's just me being a troll again.

 

Zapatos,

 

Thank you for the correction. While what you say is true, the fact is that the ER will make sure that none of those things are killing you at the moment.

 

 

 

Another question I have is... Does anyone know why those people aren't on one of the government programs if they can't afford to buy private insurance.

"Do I need to give the whole "personal responsibility" speech again. "

No, you need to understand that responsibility goes hand -in -hand with power.

 

"Yeah, that's what this country was built on."

I think you may find it was built on slavery, but that's hardly the point.

"Do you have a reply for my last rebuttal on the majority of which country are black?

Sorry, I can't parse that, never mind reply, but I will say this.

It's fair to say that the countries with largely black populations are often poor. They have little money for healthcare and their populations suffer.

That has nothing much to do with the issues of comparing the US with most of the Western world.

That comparison is where the US gets conspicuously poor value for money.

 

"The data you're talking about was being used to make an entirely different point than you were suggesting from it. I explained in my last reply to you of what I was refering to."

Yes, that's all very well.

But the data clearly doesn't know it is meant to support your ideas. It shows that not only as an aggregate, but individually, the united states spend more money (as a % of GDP or in absolute terms) than practically everyone else.

 

The data was, as I pointed out several times, misrepresented.

 

"Can you say that there are no differences in reporting when it comes to infant mortality rates? You've said so before, but I recall finding out differently."

Straw man.

I never said that there were no differences. I said that child mortality was one area where the differences are least likely to affect the outcome. That's why it's widely used as an indicator.

There are differences in, for example, reporting of stillbirths. But most children are not stillborn- or anything like it. That means that the differences in reporting are rather less grave than you want to believe and that's why the CDC say that, to cut a long story short, you are wrong.

What I said was that it's relatively simple to count dead babies. It is. That's why it's a relatively robust statistic.

 

"Christ man, is there such thing as a good death rate."

Yes, but clearly only in relative terms. So, for example, compared to the US, Japan has quite a good death rate for infants.

It gets this without spending as much money as the US too.

 

"I think by your own admission you concede to my point here. Do you even know the "BAD" figures for whites? "

Not really.

Because the figures for whites are bad (and those for blacks are worse) you have to accept that the figures for whites are bad.

As you say, if you are comparing that to much of Europe where the population is very largely white then the best the US can do - the death rate among white babies- is worse than the typical figures for Europe- largely the death rate for white babies.

Do you understand that if your best figures are bad then, on the whole, your figures are bad.

 

Oh, BTW I freely accept that I don't know what those "bad" figures are but since your own source says that are bad you can either agree with me or argue against yourself.

If the figures are not "bad" then the source of your information is incorrect and so you just shot down your own argument.

 

Why are you so keen to defend a system that costs you much more money to get worse care?

[zapatos]

At which I shrug my shoulders and think "that is the price we pay for freedom". I never said the cost was cheap did I?

Great counterpoint. I stand in awe.

 

Yes, freedom.

 

And don't forget these:

 

bin laden is evil!

Support our troops!

School prayer!

Lamestream media!

Barack HUSSEIN Obama!

NATURALIZED CITIZEN!

ILLEGAL ALIENS!

My wife yes, my dog maybe, my gun NEVER!

Evolution is only a THEORY!

USA! USA! USA! (with a nod to iNow)

 

Edited April 3, 2012 by zapatos

[iNow]

Why are you so keen to defend a system that costs you much more money to get worse care?

I, too, struggle with this question enormously. Lower quality, higher costs, fewer people covered, more people dying. WTF? All in the name of defending the unidimensional ideology that government = bad... always? It's intensely stupid...