The Glenn Beck Phenom
Quote: EvenBobMy sister in law was a nurse in that dept, thats how I found out the whole story. The manure part was known by everybody, it was a running joke while I was there.
Would it have been as big of a "joke" if the Mexican had been a white boy from Kansas? Would it have been as big of a "joke" if your sister-in-law, or you, had been the one dragged under the tractor? Would it have been as thigh-slappingly hysterical if he had been hauling hay instead of manure?
Quote: mkl654321Would it have been as big of a "joke" if the Mexican had been a white boy from Kansas? Would it have been as big of a "joke" if your sister-in-law, or you, had been the one dragged under the tractor? Would it have been as thigh-slappingly hysterical if he had been hauling hay instead of manure?
Get a sense of humor. Getting into an accident with a manure truck has been funny since at least October 27, 1985. And I have no idea why the racist comment in your first sentence.
Ha, no, I'm not irony-proof. I think there's a lot to like and some to dislike about the bill. On balance, I think it's a significant investment, but a necessary one. It might well be budget neutral if it gets more people seeing primary care doctors regularly, rather than waiting till their death throes. MKL (I almost typed MLK), the treatment the uninsured and underinsured receive goes far beyond just patching them up minimally, as you say. Nobody in this country is left to die or suffer, and we should be glad for that.
If anyone wants to read the article and debate the ACTUAL merits and demerits of the bill, I'll be happy to do so. For now, I have to log off.
Quote: AZDuffmanLimbaugh has it right--there will be virtual riots when Obama's supporters find out Obamacare will not be "free."
Heck I heard sporadic reports about people showing up at providers offices the day after it was signed looking for their "free health care."
'Obama supporters', are they any left? Its an endangered species, they drop off on a daily basis.
Quote: nyuhoosierHa, no, I'm not irony-proof. I think there's a lot to like and some to dislike about the bill. On balance, I think it's a significant investment, but a necessary one. It might well be budget neutral if it gets more people seeing primary care doctors regularly, rather than waiting till their death throes. MKL (I almost typed MLK), the treatment the uninsured and underinsured receive goes far beyond just patching them up minimally, as you say. Nobody in this country is left to die or suffer, and we should be glad for that.
If you believe Obamacare will be budget neutral I bet you believe my new roulette system:
1. Bet one unit on black
2. If you win, collect-if you lose switch to red and bet 2 units
3. Until you do win, switch colors and double your bet each time
4. When you do win go back to 1 unit this time on red
5. Repeat the switch and double
Quote: EvenBob'Obama supporters', are they any left? Its an endangered species, they drop off on a daily basis.
A shame in a way, they are more fun to hunt than Buffalo :-)
Quote: AZDuffmanGet a sense of humor. Getting into an accident with a manure truck has been funny since at least October 27, 1985. And I have no idea why the racist comment in your first sentence.
Please, please tell me that's a Back To The Future reference...
Quote: rdw4potusPlease, please tell me that's a Back To The Future reference...
I'm sure it was. And honest to god, thats a true story about the tractor. The guy was really messed up and thats not funny, but how he got that way was hilarious. Gravity punishes us all eventually.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you believe Obamacare will be budget neutral I bet you believe my new roulette system:
1. Bet one unit on black
2. If you win, collect-if you lose switch to red and bet 2 units
3. Until you do win, switch colors and double your bet each time
4. When you do win go back to 1 unit this time on red
5. Repeat the switch and double
The sad thing is that there's no effective way to tell if it's budget neutral, because there's no way to tell with any certainty what the avoided costs are. It's hard to believe it won't be a net drain, but it's easy to see how there are significant offsets. A visit to a primary care doctor costs $250, but an energency treatment at a public hospital costs $25,000. Either way, the tax payers pay for those who can't.
The way I look at it, Obamacare removes variance from the public's support payments for the uninsured and underinsured. If it also creates a +EV situation for taxpayers, that is great. If it's still a -EV situation, at least the costs are better spaced out.
Quote: AZDuffmanA shame in a way, they are more fun to hunt than Buffalo :-)
Banner Headline on Daily Kos and Olbermann:
"MORE RIGHT WING VIOLENCE: RETHUGLICAN TEABAGGER ADVOCATES HUNTING, MURDERING PRESIDENT AND SUPPORTERS"
Quote: rdw4potusThe sad thing is that there's no effective way to tell if it's budget neutral, because there's no way to tell with any certainty what the avoided costs are. It's hard to believe it won't be a net drain, but it's easy to see how there are significant offsets. A visit to a primary care doctor costs $250, but an energency treatment at a public hospital costs $25,000. Either way, the tax payers pay for those who can't.
The way I look at it, Obamacare removes variance from the public's support payments for the uninsured and underinsured. If it also creates a +EV situation for taxpayers, that is great. If it's still a -EV situation, at least the costs are better spaced out.
There are major flaws in your thinking. First, there is zero reason to believe that the doctor visit will save the emergency room visit. Next, there is no way to tell that even if it might that we will come out ahead. if 1 in 100 doctor visits saved it we would break even. 1 in 1,000 we are way behind. But the real question is why are we putting it on the taxpayers?
If we want to "save money on health care" people need to shop around and make it be understood you don't pay then your paychecks will be garnished along with your income tax refunds, etc. Make people shop around (most care is non-emergency.) Have doctors post fees in the office and online. Do this and some doctors will form clinics where $50 buys you an office visit if you pay cash and some will sell you unlimited visits for $12,000 a year. Then you can choose.
Oh, and it will cost $50 to get your car looked at, people need to get off this idea an office visit is $10 as though it is 1965.
Quote: EvenBobGravity punishes us all eventually.
Except the RoadRunner.
And yes, it was a BTTF reference. And a subtle test for who has a sense of humor.
I actually work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. Delivery of healthcare is incredibly inefficient and unfair. If it takes one doctor and one nurse to take care of one patient, it probably takes 4 people to settle the financial side of the transaction.
I expect most of the ObamaCare reforms will be repealed before they take effect.
The most likely solution to our current mess is public healthcare.
Quote: Headlock
The most likely solution to our current mess is public healthcare.
One of my oldest friends live in Canada and is married to a CA woman. She has a long term debilitating disease and treatments are so expensive that CA won't pay for them. He has health insurance in the States and they come here every 6 weeks so she can be treated. They're terrified of Obamacare, it will mean a death sentence for her, much like if you get certain kinds of breast cancer in the UK.
Now, I don't doubt the basic facts of your story, but what are the other circumstances? (And why do these things always seem to be told second- or third-hand like casino conspiracy stories?) Overwhelming majorities of Brits and Canadians LOVE their all-inclusive health care.
In a recent poll, Canadians ranked the politician responsible for universal health care as their favorite representative of all time. He's a national hero. Now that's serious.
Quote: AZDuffmanGet a sense of humor. Getting into an accident with a manure truck has been funny since at least October 27, 1985. And I have no idea why the racist comment in your first sentence.
Huh? It was "racist" to say "white boy"?
Quote: AZDuffmanA shame in a way, they are more fun to hunt than Buffalo :-)
You stole that line from a Reagan-era Bloom County comic strip.
Quote: nyuhoosierNobody in this country is left to die or suffer,
Say WHAT?
Thats because the overwhelming majority never get any major illness or don't require much care. If you ask them what they mean, they always say they like the IDEA of gov't health care, they don't actually have a need for it yet. Hell, I had health insurance for 30 years before I had to use it for anything other than a physical every other year.
Quote: mkl654321You stole that line from a Reagan-era Bloom County comic strip.
Not so much as "stole" as "borrowed to see if anyone would notice."
Quote: mkl654321Huh? It was "racist" to say "white boy"?
Would "black boy" be racist?
Quote: EvenBobOne of my oldest friends live in Canada and is married to a CA woman. She has a long term debilitating disease and treatments are so expensive that CA won't pay for them. He has health insurance in the States and they come here every 6 weeks so she can be treated. They're terrified of Obamacare, it will mean a death sentence for her, much like if you get certain kinds of breast cancer in the UK.
Evidence? I am not aware of any sort of breast cancer being a death sentence in the UK.
Healthcare in Canada is dependent on each province. I do know some treatments are not on the books in Canada, it's true. It's still a good enough system for Sarah Palin to have used in the past. It's where healthcare gets tricky (even private insurance) : at what point is it too expensive to keep someone alive? It's a question I know people don't even want to answer.
Sicko, while a good movie, does tend to massage or warp the truth. The UK NHS doesn't work exactly like he shows and the interview with Tony Benn (while a great man) is a bit of a fix... Benn is a socialist and long term proponent of the national health service. Also, unusually, he's not working class... he was born into the aristocracy and gave up his title to become an MP (lords aren't allowed in the House of Commons). Also Sicko treats Canada as one big mass in healthcare. I pay a monthly fee for my Medical Services Plan. People in Alberta don't, and Ontario has a different method. BC charges for medicine, up to a certain amount per yer when it starts get heavily discounted. BC also charges for supplementary items, such as casts and crutches. Handing over my credit card with a broken leg (not much pain thanks to the Tylenol) was one of the oddest experiences of my life after having used the NHS for years.
My MSP is covered by my work place, and my extended healthcare is also work place perk... which makes me lucky. However base coverage gets you world class care for 95% of short and long term illnesses, so I'll take it, thanks.
US healthcare needs to be more efficient. It's crazy that you pay so much in GDP for health, but don't have anything like a similar gain in overall health (some measures, like life expectancy, would put the US behind places with much lower health care bills). How you get there, I leave as exercise for the citizens. However, I would say, it seems that Obamacare is neither fish nor foul, designed by committee plans, compromised and taken away from anyone's vision.
Quote: AZDuffmanWould "black boy" be racist?
Of course not. Presuming, of course, that the person referred to was indeed a boy, and black. I remember some famous broadcaster was burned at the stake not very long ago for referring to a black boy as a "black boy". How awful of him.
Knee-jerk PC-ness does nobody any favors, particularly not the particularly group or class that one feels aggrieved for.
The more expensive cancer drugs are not available in the UK. Its a well known fact that cancer death rates are far higher in CA and UK than in the States, look it up.
Quote: EvenBobEvidence? I am not aware of any sort of breast cancer being a death sentence in the UK.>>>
The more expensive cancer drugs are not available in the UK. Its a well known fact that cancer death rates are far higher in CA and UK than in the States, look it up.
If it was well-known, why would I be asking for the evidence or your source?
The source I have just found gives deaths per 100k at 155 for the US, 166 for Canada and 172 for the UK. 10% variation is not "far higher". Finland runs at 134 and Denmark at 199. Compared the US, Canada has followed much the same trends, sometime slagging behind, sometimes in front.
(http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/mortality-cancer.aspx#peers)
When I ask for evidence, it's because your saying something that is new to me, and would like to see where you are getting your info. So I can learn and revise my ideas. "Common knowledge" and "well known facts" often aren't.
Incidence of Breast Cancer (per 100k) UK : 87.9, US : 76.0
Mortality rate of Breast Cancer (per 100k) UK : 18.6, US : 14.7
=> 21% of people diagnosed with breast cancer die in the UK, against 19% in the US.
Now, I'm not saying this is fine, just I would not call it a massive difference or a virtual death sentence.
Quote: mkl654321Of course not. Presuming, of course, that the person referred to was indeed a boy, and black. I remember some famous broadcaster was burned at the stake not very long ago for referring to a black boy as a "black boy". How awful of him.
Knee-jerk PC-ness does nobody any favors, particularly not the particularly group or class that one feels aggrieved for.
Then perhaps you should re-read your own reaction:
Quote:Would it have been as big of a "joke" if the Mexican had been a white boy from Kansas? Would it have been as big of a "joke" if your sister-in-law, or you, had been the one dragged under the tractor? Would it have been as thigh-slappingly hysterical if he had been hauling hay instead of manure?
Seems you were the one who raised the race card for some reason. In the case of the story the Mexican was described as Mexican, also illegal-alien. Both perfectly descriptive terms that you seemed to have the knee-jerk PC reaction to. My statement was made to see what your reaction would be, and it was about what I expected.
That's certainly my motivation for writing anything at all that's not mathematical or psychological analysis ... what other reason is there? Oh, I know ... say stuff for the "common good" ... yeah that's it ...Quote: AZDuffmanMy statement was made to see what your reaction would be.
For the common good, I feel compelled to say: It's part of the "common good" to say stuff and not care about other's reactions ...
Wait, yet another recursive meta-post, I need to water the dirt ...
--Dorothy
Quote: AZDuffmanThen perhaps you should re-read your own reaction:
Seems you were the one who raised the race card for some reason. In the case of the story the Mexican was described as Mexican, also illegal-alien. Both perfectly descriptive terms that you seemed to have the knee-jerk PC reaction to. My statement was made to see what your reaction would be, and it was about what I expected.
Oh brother. You said something insulting and stupid, and I reacted JEST LAHK YEW THAWT AH WOULD. Hyuk hyuk! You ARE a prankster!
You obviously missed the fact that based on what that poster had said (so far), he had no way of knowing that the person in his story was a Mexican OR an illegal alien. And "Mexican" isn't an insult, but laughing at someone who has had a farm accident that put him in the hospital IS. THAT is what I was reacting to--the way he put it, it was okay to laugh at this guy's misfortune because he was a "Mexican illegal alien."
I actually think that you inappropriately reacted, are somewhat shamefaced about that, and are now trying to backpedal.
Quote: thecesspitI also found, via Cancer Research UK, these numbers :
Incidence of Breast Cancer (per 100k) UK : 87.9, US : 76.0
Mortality rate of Breast Cancer (per 100k) UK : 18.6, US : 14.7
=> 21% of people diagnosed with breast cancer die in the UK, against 19% in the US.
Now, I'm not saying this is fine, just I would not call it a massive difference or a virtual death sentence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-136377/US-v-UK-The-breast-cancer-survival-stakes.html
"An American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis.
In Britain, this figure is only 78 per cent."
That is a HUGE difference. People from GB who have actually experienced USA healthcare think we've lost our minds by passing Obamacare. We have.
Quote: EvenBobhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-136377/US-v-UK-The-breast-cancer-survival-stakes.html
"An American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis.
In Britain, this figure is only 78 per cent."
That is a HUGE difference. People from GB who have actually experienced USA healthcare think we've lost our minds by passing Obamacare. We have.
You're cherry-picking your evidence to support your forgone idealogical stance: that somehow our health care system is superior. Hey, I believe in American exceptionalism, too, but this is one area where we stink. I can show other data where the socialized systems of Europe slay us: infant mortality rate. Even Cuba has better prenatal and postnatal care than us. That's almost certainly a direct result of private insurers who don't want to pay for prolonged postnatal care. My sister was thrown out of the hospital the morning after an excruciating childbirth.
Here are the figures. First column is deaths/1,000 live births. Second column is for children under 5, per 1,000:
Iceland 2.9 3.9
Sweden 3.2 4.0
Norway 3.3 4.4
France 4.2 5.2
UK 4.8 6.0
U.S. 6.3 7.8
And by the way, the countries between us and the U.K. on the list include Brunei, Cyprus and New Caledonia.
You're crazy if you think most Brits or Candadians envy us our health care. Rather than trust EvenBob's unsourced assertion, I'll take it from the poster a few pages back. He used the NHS for years then moved to Canada. The tone of his post was one of pity for us, not envy.
Each country measures infant mortality differently. When all is considered, the US actually has one of the lowest rates. I must say I laugh when the liberals claim soc. med. is the way to go.
---------------The real facts are in the article below-----------------------------------
The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage
Babies don't do better in countries with socialized medicine.
August 3, 2008 - by Dr. Linda Halderman Page 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single PageShare |
Q: If socialized medicine is so bad, why are infant mortality rates higher in the U.S. than in other developed nations with government or single-payer health care?
A: U.S. infant mortality rates (deaths of infants <1 year of age per 1,000 live births) are sometimes cited as evidence of the failings of the U.S. system of health care delivery. Universal health care, it’s argued, is why babies do better in countries with socialized medicine.
But in fact, the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported — and how such babies are treated statistically — tells a different story than what the numbers reveal.
Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.
According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.
When Canada briefly registered an increased number of low weight babies previously omitted from statistical reporting, the infant mortality rose from 6.1 per 1,000 to 6.4 per thousand in just one year.
According to research done by Canada’s Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, “Comparisons of infant mortality rates by place and time should be adjusted for the proportion of such live births, especially if the comparisons involve recent years.”
Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the United States.
Pregnancies in very young first-time mothers carry a high risk of delivering low birth weight infants. In 2002, the average age of first-time mothers in Canada was 27.7 years. During the same year, the same statistic for U.S. mothers was 25.1 — an all-time high.
Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.
Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.
In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.
If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.
The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.
Too short to count?
In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.
Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.
The parents of these children may view socialized medicine somewhat differently than its proponents.
Go get yourself some real facts. Mine came from the CIA World Factbook.
Quote:WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 2006 – Veterans continued to rate the care they receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system higher than other Americans rate private-sector health care for the sixth consecutive year, a new annual report on customer satisfaction reveals.
For VA Secretary R. James Nicholson, the news is affirmation of what he called "the greatest story never told," that the VA offers top-quality care for its patients.
VA medical services received high marks during the annual American Customer Satisfaction Index, which has ranked customer satisfaction with various federal programs and private-sector industries and major companies since 1994.
Veterans who recently used VA services and were interviewed for the 2005 ACSI survey gave the VA's inpatient care a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale -- compared to a 73 rating for the private-sector health care industry. Veterans gave the VA a rating of 80 for outpatient care, five percentage points higher than the 75 rating for private-sector outpatient care and 9 percent higher than the average satisfaction rating for all federal services.
"Although VA has received many wonderful endorsements recently, the support of our veterans -- the people who know us best -- is the highest praise," Nicholson said.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560
Why are you attacking the Dr.? Is it because she's a Republican? That adds some additional credibility to her - if you ask most people these days. :)
I'm guessing that you are attacking her because you simply can't dispute the facts. Right?
You're right, the vast majority in CA and GB never use it, so they love the IDEA of it. Until they get sick.
"The United Kingdom does not require certification from any medicine board. The need for an external body in assessment is extremely important in assuring the level of quality because it acts as a countermeasure."
Its government work, and we all know how precise and wonderful that is. Why do the best job with the best people when there is no incentive to do so. It can't go broke, you can't complain, all you can do is take what ever shoddy job they do on you and realize everybody is equally miserable. Welcome to Socialism.
Quote: rxwineSome Americans do have socialized medicine and they have been evaluated in the past for satisfaction. The VA is perhaps a special case as it deals with a limited population, and generally they only show up in the news when they failed in some drastic manner, however...
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560
http://www.pnhp.org/Veterans/veteran.pdf
And lets not forget Native American's, they have a wonderful Gov't healthcare program. Just don't get sick.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nahealth/nabroken.pdf
Quote: EvenBobIts government work, and we all know how precise and wonderful that is. Why do the best job with the best people when there is no incentive to do so. It can't go broke, you can't complain, all you can do is take what ever shoddy job they do on you and realize everybody is equally miserable. Welcome to Socialism.
This is a straw man argument. The assertion that other countries with socialized medicine have lousy health care is neither here nor there. We are not obliged to do things the way they do, nor is our society, economy, etc. all that similar to theirs. So both the argument, "Look at Canada! Their health care system's fantastic!" and the argument, "Look at Canada! Their health care system sucks!" are pointless.
Socialized medicine--or socialized ANYTHING--is not necessarily going to be low quality. If doctors are paid enough so that the incentive to enter and stay in the profession remains, then we will still have quality doctors. This is true whether they are paid by the private sector or the public sector.
The cost of universal health care has been estimated to be about $6,500 per capita. The GDP is about $37,000 per capita. It is possible, then, to provide universal health care using existing resources. The question then remains of whether it is worthwhile to do so.
Setting all humanitarian concerns aside, a strong argument can be made for the simple utility of free and universal health care. It is estimated that 50 thousand deaths in the U.S. each year are preventable. This is a severe loss of human capital. This alone might be enough potential benefit to justify the expenditure.
I personally feel that if free universal health care is "socialism", so be it. "Socialism" isn't some boogeyman hiding in your closet---some of its ideas are at least worth considering. I would make the argument that universally available health care would provide enough human happiness to justify the cost. And yes, Bob, put away your sneering reaction that universal health care would help all the bums and freeloaders and drug addicts and crack whores and other people who you don't want YOUR hard-earned tax dollars going to support. We know the drill, believe me. At the heart of the issue is that concept I've mentioned before: UTILITY. I think there's maximum utility in treating the population as a single entity (EEEEEEEK! SOCIALISM!) whose health should be maintained before any other considerations come into play. We can easily afford it--we just lack the will.
And anyone who doesn't want this on ideological grounds should spend a couple of years with a painful and/or debilitating condition which could be treated with relative ease, but not be able to afford the needed care. Not EVERYBODY who needs health care but doesn't get it is some kind of leech. Sometimes, they're just poor, or old. Maybe I don't HAVE to help that guy who is dying for lack of proper medication or medical attention. But I want to.
Quote: mkl654321
I personally feel that if free universal health care is "socialism", so be it. .
And which part of it is 'free'? Do you not know you're going to pay for 'free' healthcare? And those with pre-existing conditions are going to pay pay and pay.
When the question comes up about naming just one thing the gov't does well, the answer is always 'the highway system'. But the gov't doesn't build the roads, private contractors do. Then they say the military. This has to be a joke, the military is swollen with cost over-runs and incompetence, it always has been. Yet somehow we think the gov't will run healthcare better than its run now. That we will get better care, faster care, and at far less cost. Its going to be the biggest cluster f**k in our history and if you think differently, you must enjoy the view from where your head is shoved. Gov't is incapable of doing ANYTHING well. They hire least educated with the least ambition whose goal is to do the least amount possible. What guy at the top of his class in college ever said his goal was to get a gov't job. Are you kidding?
Quote: EvenBobAnd which part of it is 'free'? Do you not know you're going to pay for 'free' healthcare? And those with pre-existing conditions are going to pay pay and pay.
When the question comes up about naming just one thing the gov't does well, the answer is always 'the highway system'. But the gov't doesn't build the roads, private contractors do. Then they say the military. This has to be a joke, the military is swollen with cost over-runs and incompetence, it always has been. Yet somehow we think the gov't will run healthcare better than its run now. That we will get better care, faster care, and at far less cost. Its going to be the biggest cluster f**k in our history and if you think differently, you must enjoy the view from where your head is shoved. Gov't is incapable of doing ANYTHING well. They hire least educated with the least ambition whose goal is to do the least amount possible. What guy at the top of his class in college ever said his goal was to get a gov't job. Are you kidding?
Free to the recipient, obviously. Silly question, even if rhetorical. The government would pay for it out of tax revenues. And pre-existing conditions wouldn't matter if the health care is indeed free and universal--if you needed treatment, you would get it. Period. In fact, one of the appeals of such a system is that no one decides whether you're worthy of getting it or not---you're a U.S. citizen, you're eligible.
Your raving about government aside, the health care system wouldn't be administered by the government, as the government wouldn't be the provider--the private sector would continue to do that. The government would only PAY for it--so any ideological debate about whether government does anything well or badly is moot.
Quote: nyuhoosierYou're cherry-picking your evidence to support your forgone idealogical stance: that somehow our health care system is superior. Hey, I believe in American exceptionalism, too, but this is one area where we stink. I can show other data where the socialized systems of Europe slay us: infant mortality rate. Even Cuba has better prenatal and postnatal care than us. That's almost certainly a direct result of private insurers who don't want to pay for prolonged postnatal care. My sister was thrown out of the hospital the morning after an excruciating childbirth.
Here are the figures. First column is deaths/1,000 live births. Second column is for children under 5, per 1,000:
Iceland 2.9 3.9
Sweden 3.2 4.0
Norway 3.3 4.4
France 4.2 5.2
UK 4.8 6.0
U.S. 6.3 7.8
And by the way, the countries between us and the U.K. on the list include Brunei, Cyprus and New Caledonia.
You're crazy if you think most Brits or Candadians envy us our health care. Rather than trust EvenBob's unsourced assertion, I'll take it from the poster a few pages back. He used the NHS for years then moved to Canada. The tone of his post was one of pity for us, not envy.
You are falling into the liberal mindset that cheaper health care = better health care. Is a room at Circus Circus "better" than a room at the Wynn? Well, to Obamacare supporters it must be since it cost 1/3 as much. The carpet might be worn out and no flatscreen, an old shower, but Circus Circus must be "better" because it is delivering the same product, a room, for a far lower price.
As to your infant mortality figures, this has been proven to be an unreliable figure to use. Different countries, espically communist ones, do not count as many births as "live" as the USA does. A barely alive infant might not be countes as a live birth in Cuba until stabalize while if a baby dies shortly after birth in the USA it is a part of the infant mortality statistic. Put into Vegas in the spirit of the board, think if Circus Circus and Wynn were counting room service speed. Circus Circus might deliver to your room in 24 minutes and Wynn in 28. But Circus Circus doesn't start the clock until you hang up from your order and stops it the second the server knocks on your door. Meanwhile, Wynn starts the clock as soon as the phone in the kitchen rings and stops it not until after you sign and the server leaves your room. In this case, Circus Circus would be giving itself a huge advantage.
To say *any part* of Cuba's socialized system is even close to the USA system is laughable. They even require hospital patients to bring their own light bulbs for their room! But dim bulbs here in the USA believe Michael Moore saw the real system in his movie.
So what we have in Obamacare is a bunch of people who want to stay at Wynn for the price of Circus Circus. But guess what--that can't happen. If Oscar Goodman was to mandate (I know the strip is not LV Porper, work with me) that Steve lower his room rates to CC levels, he might do so since he has so much investment sunk. But he would build no Encore II. He would not keep up the rooms. And eventually he will say, "the hell with all this" and move to Macau.
Oh, wait, he is!
The cost of US health care is by far the most expensive in the world. It fails to cover millions of Americans and won't start to until Obamacare starts after his first term is over. And even then, it's a graduated pay scale where only the impoverished are fully covered.
Look at it this way, and we'll put it in Vegas terms. A room at Circus Circus 10 years ago now costs as much as the Wynn does today. And the Wynn costs the same at the Palm Dubai. No one can afford it. Private companies who provide full healthcare benefits at the Wynn level are at a severe disadvantage to other companies.
Why can no one now afford it? Medicine in the US is for profit. They don't deliver healthcare; they deliver profits to their shareholders. Costs are rising because pharmaceudicals and treatments are much more complex. Death is cheap; keeping someone alive is very expensive.
America, as a whole, has to refocus and cut the costs of healthcare for all. Obamacare is only a bandaid, and a lousy one at that. The government failed to shift the priority of healthcare to preventative care which will reduce costs overall. It failed to reduce costs of pharmaceudicals overall. It failed to limit profits of insurance companies and health care providers. Costs will continue to be very expensive. Private companies will continue to offload costs to Americans in order to be competitive with other countries. The overall state of the healthcare system will continue to degrade. Americans will continue to get sicker as they cannot afford to pay for their own care.
Socialized medicine works because it's cheaper, but ALL citizens get a lower quality of care according to the government's policy and how efficient their system is. You may get some government waste, but it's substantially less than the profits that corporations take in profiteering from sick people.
For me, I don't think it's right for corporations to profit from the sick. Call me a socialist pinko leftwinged wingnut. Get Glenn Beck after me. Then look at Social Security, Medicaid, and Unemployment insurance and tell me that it's not socialism.
Quote: boymimboFor me, I don't think it's right for corporations to profit from the sick. Call me a socialist pinko leftwinged wingnut. Get Glenn Beck after me. Then look at Social Security, Medicaid, and Unemployment insurance and tell me that it's not socialism.
Who cares what you call it--call it Naziism if you want. The important thing is that, as you said, what is REALLY wrong with the existing system is that it's done for profit. In terms of benefit to society as a whole, it seems wrong on several levels that only the upper 2/3 can get health care. At the very least, the wealthy are inconvenienced by having to step over the bodies of the poor.
Those who bleat about how much universal, free-to-the-recipient health care would COST miss the fact that it would take the place of existing massive federal entitlement programs. In other words, we're already PAYING some major portion of those costs, albeit inefficiently. The other major consideration is that a government single-payer system would not have to run at a profit--just break even. So the costs would be much lower, ultimately, than the current patchwork of private-sector for-profit care and unevenly applied government entitlement programs.
Quote: AZDuffman
So what we have in Obamacare is a bunch of people who want to stay at Wynn for the price of Circus Circus. But guess what--that can't happen. If Oscar Goodman was to mandate (I know the strip is not LV Porper, work with me) that Steve lower his room rates to CC levels, he might do so since he has so much investment sunk. But he would build no Encore II. He would not keep up the rooms. And eventually he will say, "the hell with all this" and move to Macau.
Oh, wait, he is!
Pretty horribly flawed analogy. It does sound typical of Arizona--a state where the ONLY thing that matters is, "don't touch mah Social Security". I've talked to people there who still believe the government has a shoebox for everybody where they keep the money you've paid in over your working life, and SS means they give it back to you. Of course, what the oldsters don't seem to realize is that after ONE YEAR of sucking up benefits, they've already gotten back more than they've ever paid in (I refer to Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, etc.).
Anyway, to return to your horribly flawed analogy, universal free health care would be more like a situation where there is free housing for Vegas visitors. In a similar fashion to the arguments in favor of universal health care, it could be argued that free lodging for visitors would increase the amount of money they have to gamble with, so even the hotels would make out like bandits in the long run--which is the comp system, writ large. The ones bleating against health care or ANY entitlement program focus only on the effect on next week's bottom line, ignoring any benefits to them in the long run.
In any case, cheaper very well might equal better, in terms of, more people can afford it. Most health care issues do not require dramatic intervention. Most conditions are easily treatable. Quite often, all a person NEEDS is the Circus Circus room. I, frankly, would rather turn the Wynn into Circus Circus so everyone would have an affordable place to stay. I agree that the crusty-Arizona-fart mentality says that only those who DESERVE health care should get it. "AH GOT MAH STASH, AN' YEW COMMIE PINKO LIBERAL HIPPIES CAIN'T HAVE ANY OF IT!" It's a wonder the state manages to collect any taxes at all.
Quote: boymimbo
Socialized medicine works because it's cheaper, but ALL citizens get a lower quality of care according to the government's policy and how efficient their system is.
For me, I don't think it's right for corporations to profit from the sick. Call me a socialist pinko leftwinged wingnut. Get Glenn Beck after me. Then look at Social Security, Medicaid, and Unemployment insurance and tell me that it's not socialism.
Well, at least you admit socialized medicine is a lower quaklity of care. But I have to ask you something. If it is "wrong for corporations to profit from the sick," then how about grocery stores, farmers, and restaurants. They profit from delivery fo food, without which you will die faster than lack of health care. What about homebuilders and landlords who profit from providing shelter? How about clothing manufacturers and retailers who profit from providing clothing, a basic huaman need? Then there are the evil energy companies who profit from my need to heat my home without which I will freeze. The list goes on and on.
Socialism is proven not to work, and by your own admission lowers the quality of care for all. Wouldn't it be better, if there is so much "evil profit" to encourage as many companies as possible to offer as many competing options as possible so prices eventually fall?
