Bujin

Nobody is stating that the plan will be government run, of course. But don't let facts get in the way of fear-mongering.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

Bujin

And here I thought America was better than all those other countries....we can't even provide better than the Netherlands? Whatever happened to American exceptionalism?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

Technologic 2

Oh, IF it is government run that is something to be feared?

Technologic 2

and BTW...My post stated what HIS opinion was...to have a GOVERNMENT RUN PLAN. Read his post, that IS what he is for.

Bujin

There are worse things - despite the ideological ranting, governments run health care systems, which are rated more highly on virtually all metrics of quality, in many countries.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

Technologic 2

Rated more highly than what? What are you comparing to?

What are you for?

Bujin

Geez, we have page after page after page (on this thread and others), explaining that in all metrics, including life expectancy, infant mortality, health coverage, economic impact, foreclosures due to medical costs, and patient satisfaction, the US fares fare worse than almost all advanced countries. Can you name one single metric in which our health system is considered rated more highly than other countries? (Other than cost, of course - we're number one in that)

The only metric in which we are clearly number one is "American-ness", as defined by "our system is American, therefore it is by definition the best. And if you don't like it, go to one of those other countries".

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

Technologic 2

Nice rant, but what are YOU for? Government System, Current system, or something else?

and what is wrong with "American-ness"? BTW All your metrics can be picked apart...political? What party do you think I'm for? In case you don't know....neither! But, I am AGAINST what they are trying to do in breaking our economy with a healthcare takeover that will fail to meet their budget goals or coverage goals.

groovy

Responsiveness.

davidra

Hah. Only if you have insurance. And since you referenced this metric, one can only assume you agree with the rest of the WHO's analysis. Right?

KAM1138

Hello Everyone,

In regards to "metrics" what about survivability? I don't have the article on hand, but I read some time back that your odds of actually surviving major health problems (like Prostate Cancer) are somewhat to significantly better in the US than in other countries...which seems to me removes the statistical haze from the equation that these other "metrics" depend on.

Now, I can't speak to the credibility of any of these claims, and I apologize for not having the reference handy, but isn't that the real issue? If an individual gets a disease or condition, how likely they are to recover from it, that is a very direct measurement of the quality of the healthcare available in the USA isn't it?

When referencing these other statistics, one should look at how many of these are based on behavior, which is not the fault of the Medical care system. If we have a 60% obesity rate (just pulling out a number) compared to a country that has a 10% obesity rate, is that a measure of healthcare systems? No, it isn't--its a measure of a populations Health perhaps, but it isn't because of quality of medical care available.

Of course, some might point our Government's involvement in the Revised "food pyramid" that was paranoid of meat and fat, and pushed carbohydrates which seemed to correspond with our increased rate of obesity, but perhaps that anecdotal. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

I'll see if I can find those articles that referenced this.

KAM

Technologic 2

,

insurance, or willing to pay for it, or an emergency. Nothing wrong with that. WHO? I don't swallow their whole agenda

davidra

And not surprisingly given the source, that is an incredibly short-sighted definition of health care. In fact, that's exactly why we have these issues such as obesity and smoking as major costs to society....because politicians and insurance companies and individuals like you, and even more unfortunately many doctors lack the insight to see that prevention is a major role for the health care system. Public health IS the health care system, and not just taking care of people in emergencies. The quality of the population's health is a measure of quality of medical care. Do you really think there is no need for health education, and that it has no value in producing a healthier population? Unfortunately, our medical socialization has been one of illness care, not prevention....when clearly putting resources into prevention is the way to decrease illness care. But for some reason some yahoos seem to think that the libertarian message for harmful behaviors is no business of the society we live in. When secondhand smoke kills thousands of people each year, do you really think that's something to be ignored? Try thinking about health in a broader context than whether or not you can get your Cialis filled. Prevention is exactly the way to decrease costs....and that's what you say is important, right?

KAM1138

I'm sorry that you feel the need to start with "considering the source" as a little swipe at me. That's really not necessary. Further--you are putting a lot of words into my mouth here.

Prevention...well, my initial thought on this was "yeah, great--good way to save money." However, someone pointed out that programs aimed at prevention will likely be effective at preventing some illness, but won't likely save money. The core issue--cost of prevention over X (being the population) overwhelms the savings of treating some smaller percentage of X (those who would have otherwise gotten whatever condition/illness). Apparently several studies looked at this and concluded there is no financial savings, while acknowledging for the people that avoid illness--there is clearly a benefit.

So, while I am open to prevention, others have demonstrated that it isn't likely to produced overall savings. You can argue with them about their findings if you wish. I can't speak to the validity in either case.

Oddly enough I was coming to post an article, and it happens to address what you talk about here.

RealClearPolitics - The "Costs" of Medical Care: Part II

Here is an excerpt that I believe is relevant (emphasis mine):
For those who live by talking points, one of their biggest talking points is that Americans do not get any longer life span than people in other Western nations by all the additional money we spend on medical care.

Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing very different things-- namely, "health care" and "medical care." Medical care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don't do in the way we live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so than what doctors can do to provide medical care.

Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what doctors and medical care can do about that.

If we are serious about medical care-- and we should be serious, since it is a matter of life and death-- then we should have no time for clever statements that confuse instead of clarifying.

If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems, then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such as survival rates of people with cancer.

The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the world-- and for some cancers, the number one rate of survival.

We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. But all of this can change-- for the worse-- if we listen to clever people who think they should be running our lives.

Now, is awareness important? Sure, but how much more aware can we be made when millions of people CHOOSE to smoke (for the first time even) with labels that directly state the product is a detriment to your health.

The fact is--people make stupid choices for themselves despite being fully aware of the problems, and you won't change that. Pretending that you can is a fallacy--a dangerous and expensive one at that. Further, I don't believe I ever spoke against public health information, so you are arguing against a straw man there.

How dare you imply that my perspective isn't broad enough, when you admit you care nothing about the costs--in other words the realities of the situation. Comments like that make me doubt my decision to take you at your word as being sincere. I said that was A measure of healthcare, which you apparently prefer to omit. I didn't say it was the ONLY measure of health care. You seem to respond very poorly whenever a point is raised that doesn't allow you to push what you want.

Whether you like it or not--people are responsible for themselves--most especially their habits that affect their health. Even if your universal healthcare dreams are realized it won't change this. What are you going to do? Monitor what individuals eat, put cameras in their Pantries and Refrigerators and install blood-sugar monitors in everyone? Obviously not, so people will continue to harm themselves. The only difference is that MY "libertarian yahoo" view actually works towards improving that situation by the oldest motivation there is--self interest, whereas yours enables bad behavior by removing responsibility from the individual.

This isn't a difference of opinion--it is a fact. People ARE responsible for their own actions, whether you like it or not, and those actions include many that affect their health. Government cannot control this and shouldn't pretend they can, nor attempt to. If that's the fantasy you imagine, you are in for a rude awakening, even if your "reform" wishes all come true.

KAM

groovy

Since you deride it one can only assume you find fault in the rest of the WHO's analysis, right?

Technologic 2

OK Gestapo, you stepped in one here. Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will, but if I'm right you will probably just ignore this post) You are saying it is Society's Business to make sure we do not behave in a harmful way. Do I understand you to say we should Heavily tax or some how stop someone who smokes because they are harming society? We should somehow control what they eat because their obesity is a burden to society. We should control who or how they have sex because AIDS could put a burden on our healthcare dollars. Is that what you are saying?

Education alone won't work. We have warning labels on cigarette packs, but new people light up every day. I know that a Big Mac is not healthy, but I still occasionally eat one. So, I guess you are not counting on just education, you believe we should actually control peoples behavior?

KAM1138

Well, if you have a belief that the State (federal government) is responsible for all these individuals (which is totally contrary to what is allowed in our Constitution, and antagonistic to liberty), isn't that the ultimate end? I'm not predicting that people will be totally controlled big-brother, but is the principle any different really?

Let's look at a parallel situation, going on today. These various "necessary" bailouts. What happens? These companies (despite being some of the most heavily regulated industries there are) fail, and instead of letting them pay the price for their failure, they are declared "too big to fail" and with taxpayer money (and debt we are responsible for) they are "saved." The government then says, well, we gave you all that money, so now we tell you what to do (effectively). We fire CEOs we don't like, we control your pay. See that everyone? See how easily government goes from being a savior to your controller?

Now, let's parallel this to healthcare. If Government pays for your healthcare our of "necessity", all of course because they only want to do what's good for you, and pays for it (which is of course a sham, because they don't have any money--its OUR money), then would anyone be surprised if they then claim the power to tell you what to do? I'm sure it won't be anything major--they will just tell you that you can't eat twinkies for example. Those aren't healthy for you and if you aren't healthy that costs the Government money, and we can't have that right?
Smoking...well, that's ok, because the Government collects BILLIONS in tax money, even though they are doing it on the backs of an industry that is proven to be unhealthy.

Are we expected to look at a plain to see demonstration of how government gets their claws into things and never lets go, and ends up making decisions for others--all because "they just want to help," and IGNORE this regularly demonstrated pattern? Should we just say "it will be different this time?"

Yes, if you are insane, that sort of logic works just fine. If you aren't insane you might want to at least CONSIDER that you aren't getting anything for free--there is always a price to pay and if its too good to be true, it probably isn't all that good.

KAM

mclldavidson

I find is frightening that a bill was shot down that would force Congress/Senate to use whatever health care bill they are forcing on the public.

davidra

So you think warning labels are education? Do you think that a doctor should not take the time to counsel patients about smoking or eating or wearing seatbelts? Why do you assume that the government has to legislate these things for them to happen, when in fact there is good evidence in the medical literature that counseling can, in fact, be beneficial if there is time made available for it?

Are you opposed to banning smoking in restaurants? Does it make a difference to those that are eating there whether it's done by the restauranteur or the city or the state? And especially when it causes harm to others who are not participating in those behaviors, which it does. Yes..I'm saying it is society's business to deal with these problems, because society (that's you) is paying for them. You are paying for other people's behaviors through higher premiums, correct? Do you not think that efforts should be made to decrease those negative behaviors? What is the difference between counseling a mother about a prenatal diet and an obese person about losing weight? That is not controlling behaviors, any more than a doctor putting you on a low cholesterol diet is. It is trying to convince you that you will be better off by changing your behavior. You have a problem with that approach?

Yes, you are society and it's your responsibility to deal with it. You are nothing but fearmongerers, claiming that the big bad government is going to take your twinkies away. What crap. Try being just a little bit realistic and not quite so blatantly paranoid.

Technologic 2

Well, I guess I have my answer

That is why I don't have a problem with an insurance company rating someone higher because of health conditions or behavior.

I have no problems with educational counseling, I don't have a problem requiring restaurants to post nutritional information. But, I also think people have a right to be idiots, but they should pay for their irresponsibility themselves. Maybe all these idiot warnings are stopping Darwinism from working.

and the person partaking in the activity is resting in their hammock without a care in the world, because they know they will be taken care of.