Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='Msut77']Canada and Sweden both have a higher overall life expectancy than us and a greater probability of reaching 60. They also suffer from less Digestive, Heart and Circulatory disease deaths along with Child maltreatment deaths (and they have a lower infant mortality rate).

There is a reason the US comes in 37th place in healthcare system rankings and we spend more for the privilege.[/quote]

Yeah, those privleges are the ability to move around freely more in a car/truck of our choice, the right to bear arms, & the freedom to have a super-unhealthy big mac if I want - and they are not ones I and many others want to give up.

Not to mention the study you got your "37th" figure from did not incorporate quality of healthcare AT ALL, instead only counting "how evenly healthcare is distributed."

It looks like you fell for the "37th in healthcare" ploy without doing your research on it, or are simply trying to sell a stale bag of goods without giving people the whole story:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem. …

When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

Another reason the U.S. didn’t score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it’s crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how “fairly” health care of any quality is “distributed.” The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but “unequal distribution” would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
Click to expand...

Next time don't believe an organization dominated by countries with socialistic medicine when they try to market you on socialistic medicine without giving a hard look at the study. This WHO study - which you used in your argument - is obviously worthless and blatently skewed towards countries that don't have as much driving & "distribute healthcare evenly," even if that healthcare is garbage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's theoretical support for the idea of unequal distribution being a useful metric in terms of demonstrating the quality of care for a country.

If you have ample resources, but they are blocked off to all but a few of the elites, well, then you can't exactly exalt the high standard as the national standard, can you? It's misleading.

Let me demonstrate it this way: GNI is a per-capita measure of economic productivity. We use it despite its flaws. Although there are multiple flaws, the most pressing one for this discussion is that it flattens out productivity into a single per-capita number. One number for the US, one for China, one for Mexico, one for every nation. Meaning that, in nations where few people are involved in the formal economy (i.e., a largely agricultural nation), the GNI is dragged down by the size of the agricultural population and not those who *should* be counted. In nations where you have an extreme divide between the wealthy and the poor (e.g., China, United States), the GNI becomes a number representative of no real kind of "average" productivity - all numbers are inflated due to the concentration and averaging of wealth.

Back to health inequality, it's a theoretical conundrum. While I support the argument that it's not an ideal measure that you thought of all by yourself[/b] read on some blog, let me posit the following:

1) omitting inequality is a worse metric, as it would mask care that people don't receive, can't afford, or otherwise don't have access to
2) the idea that low quality care nations would "rank higher" is offset by controls in the form of other measurements of health outcomes. Countries that offer poorer care on the whole *might* rank higher here (and perhaps should), but these researchers are not analyzing a single variable, but a confluence of variables with multiple permutations, accessing various points, and making a composite view of health care considering the aggregate data. Cherry picking a single variable on its own and criticizing it is fine, but that doesn't mean each criticism is valid. I believe this is one of those occasions.
 
Since when did the vast majority of Americans become "a few of the elites"'??

Most people without healthcare today (and that number is miniscule compared to those with it) are:
A) Illegal immigrants
B) Transitioning between jobs and temporarily electing not to pay for COBRA
C) Young, healthy, working only part time and choosing not to pay for health insurance
D) Going to college and choosing not to pay for school health insurance

Those who are poor/elderly get Medicaid/Medicare under the existing system.

Therefore there is not a compelling argument for substandard government healtcare, which is what we've seen for those who get it for "free" from the gov't. While healthcare is expensive, quality does cost money. The best quality healthcare is logically not going to be the cheapest. Quality > Quantity, especially when your health is at risk.

Death or suffering is not worth saving a few bucks, and the fact that the WHO study completely omits quality of care served it makes it useless - oh you are bleeding to death, have a band aid... your health care has been served! :p

Regardless of your belief on that, though, how is failing to account for things like lower lifespan due to higher rate of fatal car accidents NOT make the study 100% worthless?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like you've read John Stossel's report (why do you post two different links to the same substantive content, BTW? Your first link is a summary of Stossel's critique, but the second link is Stossel's critique itself - numbers alone don't bolster your claim when they are the same content.), and that you have not read either the WHO report or the Fund report, which uses different measures and different data and comes to a similar conclusion.

Moreover, life expectancies are disaggregated from many potential causes of death. smoking, car accidents, high BMI, live in a houseful of firearms.

Unless you can provide a compelling argument that life expectancy, as a measure, should be changed if we don't account for automobile deaths, I'm going to assume a relatively random distribution of ages amidst automobile deaths.
 
Looks like you've read John Stossel's report (why do you post two different links to the same substantive content, BTW? Your first link is a summary of Stossel's critique, but the second link is Stossel's critique itself - numbers alone don't bolster your claim when they are the same content.)
Click to expand...

Very simple: some people don't like to read a lot, and the summary makes easy what is in the other link. Hell our own congressmen don't even read the bills they sign half the time, just going by a summary. Re: WHO report, don't assume what I do or do not read.

[quote name='mykevermin']Moreover, life expectancies are disaggregated from many potential causes of death. smoking, car accidents, high BMI, live in a houseful of firearms.

Unless you can provide a compelling argument that life expectancy, as a measure, should be changed if we don't account for automobile deaths, I'm going to assume a relatively random distribution of ages amidst automobile deaths.[/QUOTE]

The compelling argument is that in the USA we have the freedom to drive a variety of vehicles both for work & pleasure, but as a result of this freedom more drive bigger & faster cars + more drive in general and thus more have fatal car accidents. Don't know for a fact but I'd surmise there are probably more younger people involved in fatal car accidents as evidenced by the higher insurance rate younger people (under 25) pay due to higher likelihood of accident - not to mention involvement of sport cars, reckless driving, and drunk driving all likely more prevalent with younger people. But regardless of age involved a greater quantity of fatal car crashes will comparatively bring down average life expectancy vs. nations with less crashes, as the people who died in those accidents would have likely otherwise lived significantly longer.

That aside, if you link things like automoblie accidents, BMI, smoking to healthcare and then give government control of that healthcare - well, then you are giving gov't the ability to control:
* if/what you can drive (i.e. mustang/camaro/etc cause too many deaths due to fast speed, thus are banned; artificial raising of gas prices to discourage driving in general to lower accident rate. less driving = less accidents = less potential fatal accdients)
* what you can eat (i.e. gov't outright banning big mac, whopper, etc, due to heart/health risk)
* what you can smoke (i.e. gov't outright banning cigarettes/cigars, etc, due to cancer)
* what you can drink (i.e. gov't banning alcohol due to drunk driving deaths, liver problems, etc)

Thus the government would have the ability to control a shitload of personal things that in many cases will NOT have ANY impact on your own personal health. You can drive a mustang/camaro safely, you can drive and not die, you can eat a big mac now and then and not get heart problems, you can have a cigar every once in a while to celebrate and not get lung cancer, you can drink alcohol to celebrate and not kill someone drunk driving. They can control these things under the guise of "preventable death," but with all the ways to die that banner can reach far into your personal life.

So long as those things get lumped in with the healthcare, and then you give the power of healthcare to the gov't, you give the gov't an excuse to take away your personal freedoms which may have no impact on your own health whatsoever if used responsibly. Meanwhile, in terms of how well first responders, hospitals, perform healthcare once you become sick, these factors have little impact and thus should not be lumped in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Canada and Sweden both have a higher overall life expectancy than us and a greater probability of reaching 60. They also suffer from less Digestive, Heart and Circulatory disease deaths along with Child maltreatment deaths (and they have a lower infant mortality rate).

There is a reason the US comes in 37th place in healthcare system rankings and we spend more for the privilege.[/QUOTE]


Infant mortality rate is probably the main reason. Sweden is 3rd lowest, Canada is higher (but still lower than the U.S.)

I believe the U.S. ranks in the mid-40's for infant mortality.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Unless you are going to say there isn't a single person in the US who cannot get care (or has to cross borders to do so) you don't have a point.[/quote]
I'm sure that there are very few people in the US that have to go to another country to get care, after waiting 2 years for it.


She came here to see a specialist which is not the same thing as "not being able to get care".
Click to expand...
Why didn't she go to a specialist in Canada then?
Nevermind, instead of anecdotal lets go to your attempts at statistical analysis.



Canada and Sweden both have a higher overall life expectancy than us and a greater probability of reaching 60.
Click to expand...
That's largely because of car accidents, and the like, as someone pointed out.


There is the magic fairy farts option. I really don't see that one taking off anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Again with the false choices. You say the only choice is universal health care, or doom and gloom. There are more options than that, and you fail to realize them.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I'm sure that there are very few people in the US that have to go to another country to get care, after waiting 2 years for it.[/quote]

There is enough. I recall busloads going to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs especially.

Why didn't she go to a specialist in Canada then?
Click to expand...

Write her an email.

That's largely because of car accidents, and the like, as someone pointed out.
Click to expand...

Someone said it, doesn't mean he "pointed out" anything factual.

You say the only choice is universal health care
Click to expand...

Universal healthcare can mean any number of things, thing is any system that can be called "Universal" works better than what we have now because of a few economic principles.

There are more options than that, and you fail to realize them.
Click to expand...

Horse Manure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']There is enough. I recall busloads going to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs especially.[/quote]
Were they on a waiting list for 2 years to get the drugs?


Write her an email.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe that someone would go to the US for care if Canada has such good fast health care.

Horse Manure.
Click to expand...
Wow, you're close minded. You think there are no options other than government mandated universal care. You must think there was no such thing as health insurance before the past 40 years. Health insurance could be much cheaper if it was only for catastrophic events, as it was in the past. If we cut out HMOs and the management, we could also bring down the price.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']You think there are no options other than government mandated universal care.[/QUOTE]

You'd think you would argue about policies that were being proposed on this mortal plane instead of whatever bizarro world you live in where the Dems and Obama are promoting a mandated single-payer system.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Were they on a waiting list for 2 years to get the drugs?[/quote]

The Canadian Government ensures that drug prices are cheaper for their citizens whereas we have spent years subsidizing drug and insurance companies profits.

I find it hard to believe that someone would go to the US for care if Canada has such good fast health care.
Click to expand...

It is not terribly uncommon for Canadians through their system to get care in the US for certain things. No one is saying our doctors are a bunch of bumpkins with their arses hanging out their trousers it is that our system is unequivocally fubar and beyond costly.

Wow, you're close minded
Click to expand...

I take that as a compliment from you.

You must think there was no such thing as health insurance before the past 40 years
Click to expand...

Health insurance as it is now (i.e. whatever you guys seem to think of as market forces) hasn't been doing a very good job. Germany's system meanwhile is basically a system of subsidized insurance and it is still Universal.

Health insurance could be much cheaper if it was only for catastrophic events
Click to expand...

Lots of things would be cheaper if it wasn't for catastrophic events.

Singapore which has a Universal system utilizing the much vaunted Healthcare savings accounts still covers catastrophic events.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You'd think you would argue about policies that were being proposed on this mortal plane instead of whatever bizarro world you live in where the Dems and Obama are promoting a mandated single-payer system.[/QUOTE]
Uh, their proposal is mandatory. You have to buy health insurance, if you don't have it. Its single-payer also.
 
Not sure, I haven't read the whole thing yet, I just wanted to point out that there are preliminary plans on someones table somewhere.
 
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...debate-once-Single-Payer-became-Public-Option
That's where I see the talk of single-payer. In that whiny article.
No one knows what's in that crap they are generating on the hill and folks are hesitant about it and rightfully so...they should have stuck with single-payer and told the GOP to suck an egg...
Click to expand...
The Democrats are no better they stood on the sidelines and watched a corrupt colleague with the backing of the GOP single handily try to destroy the very thing that got Obama in office....hope for a better tomorrowlies...without so much as a peep...
Click to expand...
but I watched Obama for two years... every debate, every townhall meeting, every interview....I donated money...made phone calls...I just can’t throw in the towel on him yet...so I still support him 100%....but it’s crunch time and it’s time for him to call for the ball...because his supporting cast is crud
Click to expand...
What an idiot in denial.
 
reaching.jpg
 
I'm looking for the parallels - unfortunately, the OECD report combines the spending of public and private on education in the US, so it's quite hard to get at estimates. And a historical comparison is not possible since we never had education solely in the private sector (i.e., we can't compare the per-person spending -> outcome trend after a mixed public/private program become the norm).
 
Perhaps there's a study somewhere that shows private vs. public/spending vs. results in the US (and maybe comparing it with other countries as well)?

The point being, we spend far more for far less on Education in America (private or public) - and the only solutions anyone cares to give to this situation is "SPEND MORE MONEY!".
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I've opted out of this thread for now because, as has been pointed out, there really is no plan on the table that I know of to debate about.[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no. There definitely are plans; three committees in the House have their own bills and two in the Senate. All three House committees have actually passed bills out of committee (Energy & Commerce passed theirs out just today after coming to an agreement with Blue Dog members), and the Senate HELP Committee also passed theirs out. The only committee that hasn't marked up a bill and voted is Senate Finance, and that also happens to be the only attempt at a bipartisan bill (Baucus/Grassley) of the five.

Of course, all of these have to be smooshed together to form a final bill, or at least one will have to be chosen over the others. So it's very confusing because not only are there so many proposals (not even counting the Republican proposal, which obviously is not going to go anywhere in this Congress), but they are sure to change dramatically as negotiations and amendments are made.

In any case, you might as well start debating some of the provisions that have come out of committee since once they get the bill put together the practice has been for Pelosi to allow as little debate as possible before ramming through a bill nobody has been able to read or understand, with the result of massive corruption and stupidity being enabled.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
In any case, you might as well start debating some of the provisions that have come out of committee since once they get the bill put together the practice has been for Pelosi to allow as little debate as possible before ramming through a bill nobody has been able to read or understand, with the result of massive corruption and stupidity being enabled.[/QUOTE]

Well after the stimulus debacle I'm fully expecting a repeat.

It's amazing there are people that really believe ramming it through asap is a good idea because to them action is better than no action, regardless of the action.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's amazing there are people that really believe ramming it through asap is a good idea because to them action is better than no action, regardless of the action.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']You're on a sinking ship with two other people.
One wants to wait and see if the ship will stop sinking on it's own or if help will come, in spite of the fact nothing appears to be changing.
The other has the idea of drilling holes in the bottom of the ship to let the water out.

I guess we should all listen to the second guy because - at least - he's wanting to do *something*?[/QUOTE]

Drill, baby, drill.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well after the stimulus debacle I'm fully expecting a repeat.

It's amazing there are people that really believe ramming it through asap is a good idea because to them action is better than no action, regardless of the action.[/QUOTE]

Obviously the reason I wrote that is I'm worried about a repeat too. And this is even more complicated than the stimulus bill, with provisions that will affect every American to a far greater degree. It's scary to think that the House could pass such a significant bill with minimal debate on the floor, after back-room negotiations among only certain Democrats to craft the bill in the first place. I would daresay it goes against the spirit of our democracy.

The only silver lining is the Senate, for all its flaws, will always inevitably put the brakes on crazy House actions, just as it has with the insane cap-and-trade bill. That's what the Senate was designed for by our wise founders, and for all its flaws, at least usually it is more deliberate and thoughtful than the often dim-witted House -- which is why I have much more respect for the Senate.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Well we've been waiting a while for help it's pretty clear none is coming.[/QUOTE]

Universal Healthcare has been seriously considered in this country since 1948 and was within a hair of being enacted in the 90's. Furthermore it was a big campaign issue nearly two years running just recently.

Things are pretty dire right now and nothing has been done to improve our situation since reform was last killed. Bob and crew are just spewing dishonest talking points and pretending as if this is some new idea.

Dishonesty is all they have although it does help that some have less knowledge of how healthcare works in other countries than your average North Korean.

Next thing you know we are going to hear how there are plans to euthanize the elderly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously the reason I wrote that is I'm worried about a repeat too. And this is even more complicated than the stimulus bill, with provisions that will affect every American to a far greater degree. It's scary to think that the House could pass such a significant bill with minimal debate on the floor, after back-room negotiations among only certain Democrats to craft the bill in the first place. I would daresay it goes against the spirit of our democracy.

The only silver lining is the Senate, for all its flaws, will always inevitably put the brakes on crazy House actions, just as it has with the insane cap-and-trade bill. That's what the Senate was designed for by our wise founders, and for all its flaws, at least usually it is more deliberate and thoughtful than the often dim-witted House -- which is why I have much more respect for the Senate.[/QUOTE]

60-40, maybe 61-39.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Companies that make profits by denying people the services they promise (because said services might harm the quarterly financial statements), leading to the poor health and death of those people are EVIL[/QUOTE]

You'll pardon me if I turn your strawman into a true statement.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090803/pl_politico/25709

It’s not like the industry has been inert. But the insurers have played the inside game, spending about $40 million on an army of lobbyists and lavishing campaign contributions on Democrats and Republicans to kill the public option. In all, the health industry spent $133 million in the second quarter alone, more than a million bucks a day.
Click to expand...

I think that is what pisses me off the most. That as usual, this all comes down to who has the bigger pockets.:roll:

I really don't know what is worse, that the insurance companies are paying them off or that they're taking the money.:bomb:
 
[quote name='JolietJake']http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090803/pl_politico/25709



I think that is what pisses me off the most. That as usual, this all comes down to who has the bigger pockets.:roll:

I really don't know what is worse, that the insurance companies are paying them off or that they're taking the money.:bomb:[/QUOTE]

Trying to delay reform is just a tactic to try and kill it. Special interests are hoping the wait will allow them to dump gobs of money to have enough of congress in their pocket and peel off enough elderly voters (keep gubberment away from my medicare!) who are already covered by lying to them.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Trying to ... peel off enough elderly voters (keep gubberment away from my medicare!) who are already covered by lying to them.[/QUOTE]

I'd say you are lying, but I'm sure some of the elderly think universal government coverage will somehow reduce their government coverage.
 
First off its Stossel, 'Nuff said.

First 20 seconds is nothing but prattle saying government stops innovation, ignoring the fact that the VA is a leader in that field.

Quick cut to Sally "Crack" Pipes head of a conservative think tank and then a cut to Gratzler.

I keep on seeing references to him as a Physician but he appears to be a practicing Psychiatrist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DII7v8yeRjs&feature=channel_page

Cannot say I am very impressed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you all are missing the most important point at this time: Its not whether the government should take over healthcare, its whether the government could even do it. The 2nd has to be true before the 1st should be considered, And the 2nd is definitely not true-- The government is messing up the smallest little programs including the recent cash for clunkers program with gross underestimations.
 
I've known for a long time the Government can't do it, but it's not going to stop them from messing up the entire system more than it already is.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I've known for a long time the Government can't do it, but it's not going to stop them from messing up the entire system more than it already is.[/QUOTE]

You don't actually "know" that.

It is something you fervently believe because you were told to.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You don't actually "know" that.

It is something you fervently believe because you were told to.[/QUOTE]
You don't actually "know" this government plan won't fuck everything up.
It is something you fervently believe because you were told to.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You don't actually "know" that.

It is something you fervently believe because you were told to.[/QUOTE]

If I could summon forth some anxiety...

If the government does a worse job than the free market is doing right now for our collective health care(37th place), will the government relinquish control of it?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If I could summon forth some anxiety...

If the government does a worse job than the free market is doing right now for our collective health care(37th place), will the government relinquish control of it?[/QUOTE]

hahaha... no. The government doesn't give up power once they've got it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']hahaha... no. The government doesn't give up power once they've got it.[/QUOTE]

And that's really the main reason there has been no reform after decades of realizing it needs it.

When it comes to government, there is no "try before you buy". Once you've given them an inch, they will take an ocean, and never give it back.

So we have one chance to "get it right", if that's possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top